The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8001-12800 Emails and Calendars1 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, November 30, 2021 2:12 PM To:Barbara Gardner Subject:RE: 614 monterey Hello - No one has purchased the Heyd Adobe located at 614 Monterey Street. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Gardner < Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:30 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: 614 monterey This message is from an External Source. Use cau Ɵon when deciding to open aƩachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Did someone buy it?? 10 From:Kloepper, Shelsie Sent:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:45 PM To:Nelson, Brian Subject:RE: 95% Palm Nipomo Garage Attachments:2020-04-24_Palm and Nipomo_90% Ph 1 On-Site Plans.pdf 90% Phase 1? Still looking… From: Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:40 PM To: Kloepper, Shelsie <SKloeppe@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 95% Palm Nipomo Garage Any idea where the Phase 1 set is? Brian Nelson, PE Acting City Engineer City of San Luis Obispo From: Kloepper, Shelsie <SKloeppe@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:38 PM To: Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org> Subject: 95% Palm Nipomo Garage Hello Brian, Please see the links below to the 95% documents I found. Let me know if you need anything else. 95% Phase 2 plan set 95% Phase 2 specs Sincerely, Shelsie Kloepper Acting Supervising Civil Engineer Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SKloepper@slocity.org T 805.783.7735 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications AREA OF DISTURBANCE:1.2 ACRESMAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT:18 FEETMAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT:3 FEETRAW CUT:15,300 CUBIC YARDSRAW FILL:1,430 CUBIC YARDSADJUSTED FILL:(ASSUMED 15% SHRINKAGE)1,650 CUBIC YARDSNET QUANTITY:13,650 CUBIC YARDS EXPORTTHE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRICDIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUETO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC.THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES.APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OFCONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPEHINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADSFOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-1.X Title and General Notes.dwg, C-1.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREPORT NAME: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT: PALM-NIPOMOSTREET PARKING STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATERDATE:DECEMBER 13, 2019 (REVISED JANUARY 7, 2020)PREPARER:NICK ZOETEWEYLICENSE:C-79891FIRM:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC4378 OLD SANTA FE ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P: (805) 544-3276THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PROJECT BEING CITY OF SLOBENCHMARK NO. 372, A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLYCURB 50 FEET (15 M) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO &DANA, ELEVATION BEING 190.00 FEET (NAVD88).GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANSCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401(805) 543-1794UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:SCOTT K. YOSHIDA, P.E. C-78227THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE CENTERLINEOF NIPOMO STREET BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS, BEARINGBEING N36°15'10"W PER R1.THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF DEMOLITION, CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING,TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SHORING (BY OTHERS), UNDERGROUNDSTORMWATER STORAGE CHAMBERS FOR THE FUTURE PARKINGSTRUCTURE, SLO REPERTORY THEATRE, LINER BUILDING. FUTURE ON-SITEBUILDINGS, PRECISE GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND FRONTAGEIMPROVEMENTS ARE PART OF PHASE 2 AND UNDER SEPARATE COVER.BUILDING OUTLINES ARE SHOWN HEREIN FOR REFERENCE ONLY ANDARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT.CITY PROJECT NUMBER: __________ (PENDING)THE PROJECT CREATES AND/OR REPLACES GREATER THAN22,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND SUBSEQUENTLYCOMPLIES WITH CENTRAL COAST POST-CONSTRUCTIONSTORMWATER REQUIREMENTS PER RESOLUTION R3-2013-0032.SITE AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 1.2 ACRESWDID NUMBER: __________ (PENDING)VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALESHEET INDEXPROJECT DESCRIPTIONBENCHMARKBASIS OF BEARINGSTORMWATER COMPLIANCEPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey TITLE SHEETC-1.190% SUBMITTAL SET MARSHPACI F IC OLNTAIN BROADHI L L U.S. 101 HIG H W A Y HIGUERAMONTEREYPEACH MOUNHILLSANTA ROSAPALM MI L LNIPOMOMI L L PALMMONT EREY BRI Z Z O L A R A DANAGARDENOSOSMORROCHORROHIGUERA COURTBROADWALNU T MORROOSOSL INC JOHNSONPEPPERPI SMOSANTA ROSAENGINEER OF RECORD:DATEAPPROVAL BY THE CITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE ACCURACY NORCOMPLETENESS OF THESE PLANS. IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE OWNER TO BUILDTHE PROJECT HEREON. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER ANDENGINEER OF RECORD TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT APPEARDURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERINGSTANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVEDOR MODIFIED BY NOTES ON THESE PLANS. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALLPROVIDE SUBMITTALS AS REQUIRED IN THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS.NOTICEPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONCITY FILE NO.SHEETOFDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB NO.DATEAPPROVALENGRCITYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY UTILITIES ENGINEERRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BYOTHERELECTRIC CO.GAS CO.TELEPHONE CO.TELEVISION CO.OTHER UTILITYDATEDATEDATEDATEDATE115DATEDATEDATEDATEDATESAN LUIS OBISPOPUBLIC WORKS BY:OTHERDATELOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE CITYPALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 PALM, 970 & 972 NIPOMO, 610, 614, & 630 MONTEREYBLMSKY0720-02-UR19__________(PENDING)PROJECT SITENOT TO SCALECIVIL SHEETSC-1.1TITLE SHEETC-1.2GENERAL NOTESC-2.1EXISTING CONDITIONSC-2.2DEMOLITION PLANC-4.1ROUGH GRADING PLANC-8.0EROSION CONTROL NOTESC-8.1EROSION CONTROL PLANC-9.1CONDITIONS OF APPROVALC-9.2CONDITIONS OF APPROVALC-9.3CONDITIONS OF APPROVALEDP CIVIL SHEETSD-1.0NOTESD-2.0RETAINING WALLS PLAN AND PROFILESD-3.0STORM DRAIN PLAND-4.0DETAIL SHEETD-5.0DETAIL SHEETFUTUREPARKINGSTRUCTUREFUTURE SLOREP THEATREIT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT" (U.S.A.) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 FORTY-EIGHT (48)HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER, TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEESHALL ALSO CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V., WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS:MAY 2018 EDITIONALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES:2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC)TITLE 24, PART 1 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR)2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)TITLE 24, PART 2 CCR BASED ON 2012 IBC AND 2016 CA AMENDMENTS2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARD CODETITLE 24, PART 12 CCRGENERAL NOTESEARTHWORK QUANTITIESPALM STREETNIPOMO STREETDANA STREETMONTEREY STREETPROJECT SITEAPN 002-412-001 (609 PALM STREET)APN 002-412-002 (972 NIPOMO STREET)APN 002-412-003 (633 PALM STREET)APN 002-412-004 (630 MONTEREY STREET)APN 002-412-011 (970 NIPOMO STREET & 610 MONTEREY STREET)(2 ADDRESSES ON 1 APN)APN 002-412-012 (614 MONTEREY STREET)APN'S AND ADDRESSES \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-1.X Title and General Notes.dwg, C-1.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL START WITHOUT PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOURHOURS PRIOR TO STARTING OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONSTRUCTION DONE WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS OR PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BEREJECTED AND WILL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S AND/OR OWNER'S RISK.2.A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE PERTINENT CITY STAFF. AS A MINIMUM,THE ASSIGNED BUILDING INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER, AND CONTRACT PLANNER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THIS MEETING TODISCUSS THE LIMIT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CORRESPONDING INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES.3.ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECTTO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.4.ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT (SEE TITLE SHEET FOR GEOTECHNICALENGINEER CONTACT AND REPORT DETAILS).5.RECORD PLANS ARE TO BE PREPARED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARING THE RECORDPLANS SHALL BE PRESENT WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION IS MADE.6.AN INSPECTION AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.7.FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY, IF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE CALIFORNIAREGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD/STATE, OR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL EITHER SUBMIT ACOPY OF ALL SUCH COMPLETED PERMITS TO THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OR DOCUMENT THAT THE REGULATORY AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT SAIDPERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED; PRIOR TO TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. ANYMITIGATION MONITORING REQUIRED BY SAID PERMIT WILL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.8.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTINGUTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES AND WERE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY.9.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR.10.CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF FORTY-EIGHT WORKING HOURS PRIOR TO THE STARTOF CONSTRUCTION. FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO TEN WORKING DAYS.11.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCATING OR HAVING LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDRELATED FACILITIES AND FOR PROTECTING SAME DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT A MEMBER OF USA MUST ALSO BE NOTED.12.A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WORK REQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT ISNOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALKUNDERDRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREET TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION OR CONSTRUCTIONSTAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.13.CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT (805) 781-7200 WITH AT LEAST A 48 HOUR NOTICE FOR ANY REQUIRED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTIONS ORFINAL INSPECTIONS.14.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LEGIBLE AND COMPLETE SET OF PLANS IDENTIFYING ALL MODIFICATIONS MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE DESIGNENGINEER FOR THE RECORD DRAWINGS.15.ANY PROPOSED DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, INCLUDING FIELD REVISIONS REQUESTEDBY THE CITY INSPECTOR.16.THE DESIGN OF THE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS IS BASED ON THE CITY'S RECORD INFORMATION (SURVEYS AND DRAWINGS). IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACT IS AWARDED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE RELATIVE ELEVATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS AND NOTIFY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. THECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ELEVATIONS WILL THEN BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, AND A REVISED SET FURNISHED TO THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEHELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REQUIRED REWORK IF CONSTRUCTION BEGINS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SPECIFIED ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFYING THE DESIGN ENGINEER.17.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OR PROPER RESETTING OF ALL EXISTING MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEY MARKERS. ANY SURVEYMONUMENTS DESTROYED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND CITY STANDARDS AT THECONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.18.ALL PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS SHALL BE IN PLACE AND IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION REQUEST.19.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIABUILDING CODE.20.A COMPACTION REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A SOILS ENGINEER STATING THAT THE BASE AND SUBGRADE WERE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECTSOILS REPORT OR THE CITY PARKING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS.21.IF DE-WATERING IS REQUIRED, A LOW THREAT DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM CITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MAY BE REQUIRED.22.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALPRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.23.THE CITY INSPECTOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY REQUIRE REVISIONS IN THE PLANS TO SOLVE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS THATMAY ARISE IN THE FIELD. REVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER.24.ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THEPUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.25.DIGITAL DRAWINGS OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL PROVIDED TO SURVEY FOR PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION.26.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL NOTES AND DETAILS PRESENTED ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES SHEETS.1.ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY GRADING ORDINANCES, THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING THERETO, THIS PLAN, AND THERECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUPERVISING SOILS ENGINEER.2.ALL EXPORT MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY GRADING INSPECTOR.3.DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY GRADING ORDINANCE AND COUNTY APCD REQUIREMENTS.4.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE JOBSITE AND THAT HE/SHE SHALL AT HIS/HER EXPENSE, REPAIR OR REPLACE TO ORIGINAL CONDITION ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE JOB SITEWHICH ARE DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL AND WHICH ARE DAMAGED OR REMOVED AS A RESULT OF HIS/HER OPERATIONS.5.NO CUT OR FILL SLOPES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED STEEPER THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (2:1). UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.6.MINIMUM DRAINAGE GRADIENT OF 5% IS REQUIRED FOR A MINIMUM OF10' AWAY FROM THE BUILDING PAD/FOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDINGCODES FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS (SEE CBC SECTION 1804.3)7.ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAN 2% SHALL HAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEERPRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.8.SOILS TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL TESTS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO PLACING THEMATERIAL. THE TEST RESULTS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION AND SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL.9.COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE MADE ON SUBGRADE MATERIAL AND MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. SAID TESTS SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO THE PLACING OFTHE NEXT MATERIAL. GRADING AND COMPACTIONS REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER REPORT AND/OR CITYSTANDARDS.10.SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF 95% INTHE ZONE BETWEEN FINISHED SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND ONE FOOT BELOW,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (i.e. BIO-RETENTION AREAS). ALL MATERIAL IN FILL SECTIONS BELOW THE ZONE MENTIONED ABOVE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%RELATIVE COMPACTION.11.FINAL REPORTS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CBC12.DURING CONSTRUCTION/GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING PARTICULATE (DUST) CONTROL MEASURES, THESEMEASURES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE GRADING AND BUILDING PLANS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR OR BUILDER SHALL DESIGNATE A PERSON OR PERSONS TOMONITOR THE DUST CONTROL PROGRAM AND TO ORDER INCREASED WATERING AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT TRANSPORT OF DUST OFF SITE. THEIR DUTIES SHALLINCLUDE HOLIDAY AND WEEKEND PERIODS WHEN WORK MAY NOT BE IN PROGRESS. THE NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE PROVIDED TOTHE APCD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.A. USE OF WATER TRUCKS OR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO PREVENT AIRBORNE DUST FROM LEAVING THE SITE. INCREASED WATERINGFREQUENCY WOULD BE REQUIRED WHENEVER WIND SPEEDS EXCEED 15 MPH. RECLAIMED (NON POTABLE) WATER SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.13.CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES, A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST SITE MONITOR SHALL BE PRESENT DURING SITEDISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. IF EXCAVATIONS ENCOUNTER SIGNIFICANT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES,ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR CULTURAL MATERIALS, THEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY AFFECT THEM SHALL CEASE UNTIL THE EXTENT OF THERESOURCE IS DETERMINED AND APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THE EXTENT AND LOCATION OF DISCOVERED MATERIALS SO THAT THEY MAY BE RECORDED BY A QUALIFIEDARCHAEOLOGIST. IF PRE-HISTORIC NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACTS ARE ENCOUNTERED, A NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR SHOULD BE CALLED IN TO WORK WITH THEARCHAEOLOGIST TO DOCUMENT AND REMOVE THE ITEMS. DISPOSITIONS OF ARTIFACTS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.14.ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SLOPED FOUR HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (4:1) AND GREATER AND AREAS USED TO CONVEY CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE SHALL BEPREPARED AND MAINTAINED TO CONTROL EROSION BY EFFECTIVE PLANTING TO BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO A REQUEST FOR FINALINSPECTION APPROVALS.15.ALL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION SHALL COMPLY AT ALL TIMES WITH ALL CURRENT APCD RULES AND REGULATIONS AS APPLICABLE,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PM-10, NOx EMISSIONS, BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND PHASINGTECHNIQUES.16.A FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF FUEL IS STORED ON-SITE.17.TRACKING ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE MINIMIZED. THE ADJOINING STREET AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE CLEANED BY SWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST,MUD, AND CONSTRUCTION. DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.1.THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE PREPARATION PLAN (DEMOLITION PLAN) WAS PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ARCHITECT ANDTHE ENGINEER DO NOT REPRESENT THAT ALL ITEMS WHICH MAY REQUIRE DEMOLITION HAVE BEEN SHOWN. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TOCAREFULLY EXAMINE THE SITE AND DETERMINE WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK.2.DEMOLITION WORK AND ABANDONMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECTTO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.3.NO DEMOLITION SHALL BE STARTED WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS. THE OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING DEMOLITION.4.THE PLANS DO NOT AUTHORIZE SITE DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE LIMITS AS REPRESENTED ON THESE PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE ALL ITEMS DAMAGED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THESATISFACTION OF THE CITY.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER STORAGE OF ANY ITEMS TO BE RELOCATED.7. ALL ITEMS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ANY ITEMS AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER.8. ALL DEBRIS FROM THE DEMOLITION PROCESS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO AN APPROVED DUMP SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.9. ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD DISTURB THAT MATERIAL BY A LICENSED ABATEMENTCONTRACTOR.10. IF ASBESTOS IS FOUND IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED, THEN ASBESTOS MUST BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY, COUNTY,STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES OR REQUIREMENTS. REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A CONTRACTOR LICENSED TO HANDLE ASBESTOSMATERIAL.11. ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, VEHICULAR WAYS, SIDEWALKS, AND HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND CLEAR OF DEBRIS, DIRT AND DUST IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TOTHE CITY. AT A MINIMUM, THESE AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN A "STOP WORK" NOTICE. SAIDNOTICE WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE AREA HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY CLEANED. THE FLUSHING OF DIRT OR DEBRIS INTO STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWERFACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.12. ALL ABANDONED UTILITIES SHALL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD AND LOCATED ON THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WILL BE SUPPLIED TO BOTHTHE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE OWNER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEMOLITION WORK.13. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UTILITIES ANDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES SURVEYS. UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY REMOVE THOSE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SPECIFICALLY NOTED FOR REMOVAL. DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES TO REMAINSHALL BE CORRECTED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.15. THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.16. CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO 10 WORKING DAYS.17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT INTERRUPT ANY SERVICES OR DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF ADJACENT BUSINESSES, RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR ON-SITE FACILITIES OUTSIDE THELIMITS OF DEMOLITION.18. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.20. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL WOOD, CONCRETE, AC PAVING, AGGREGATE BASE, AND VEGETATION AS SHOWN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ONTHE PLANS.21. REMOVE TREES, TOGETHER WITH THE BULK OF THE ROOTS, TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 FEET BELOW EXISTING GRADE AND WITHIN A RADIUS OF 7 FEET BEYOND THEPERIMETER OF THE TRUNK AT GROUND LINE.22. FILL AND COMPACT HOLES RESULTING FROM TREES AND TREE STUMP REMOVAL TO REQUIRED DENSITY. FILLING SHALL NOT BE DONE UNTIL HOLES HAVE BEENAPPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.23. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY APCD.24. CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIALS PER CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.25. PROTECT EXISTING FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.26. TREE REMOVALS MAY REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARBORIST. CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST TO REVIEW ANY PROPOSAL FOR TREE REMOVALS AND TO INITIATEAN APPLICATION FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF APPLICABLE.27. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURINGALL DEMOLITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.UTILITY NOTESGENERAL NOTESGRADING NOTESDEMOLITION NOTES1.UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ACCURATE TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE RECORDS AND KNOWLEDGE. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OFEXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES WHEN WORKING IN THEIR PROXIMITY. PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, THECONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY POINTS OF CONNECTION AND ELEVATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OFRECORD IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, ETC., PRIOR TOCONTINUING WORK.2.THE ENGINEERED DRY UTILITY PLANS WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEM. THE ENGINEERED DRY UTILITY PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TOREVIEW FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIORTO COMMENCING ANY ON-SITE OF OFF-SITE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION.3.ALL WATER VALVES THAT ARE DEEPER THAN 4' SHALL BE A EQUIPPED WITH A STEEL VALVE STEM EXTENSION THAT WILL ALLOW VALVE OPERATION WITH STANDARDLENGTH VALVE KEY. VALVE OPERATING NUTS SHALL BE BETWEEN 2' TO 4' BELOW GRADE. THE STEEL VALVE STEM EXTENSION SHALL BE STEEL ONLY BY PIPE LINEPRODUCTS OR APPROVED EQUAL4.THE DRY UTILITY SERVICE LINES AND BOXES SHOWN IN THESE PLANS ARE SCHEMATIC AND BASED ON PROVIDED PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER. THECONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE FINAL PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER AND VERIFY THE FINAL ALIGNMENT PER THEIR APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE SERVICE WIRE THROUGH THE CONDUIT RUNS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE SHOWN EQUIPMENT.ABBREVIATIONSABAGGREGATE BASEACASPHALT CONCRETEAPANGLE POINTARVAIR RELEASE VALVEBCRBEGIN CURVEBWBACK OF WALKCBCATCH BASINCL/CL.CENTERLINE/CLASSCMPCORRUGATED METAL PIPECONC.CONCRETEDBHDIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT [OF A TREE]DIDRAIN INLETDIPDUCTILE IRON PIPEEGEXISTING GRADEEX.EXISTINGELEVELEVATIONFDCFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONFGFINISHED GRADEFLFLOWLINEFSFINISHED SURFACEFPFINISHED PADFWFIRE WATERHPHIGH POINTIPSIRON PIPE SIZEJTJOINT TRENCHLPLOW POINTEL.MAXIMUMMIN.MINIMUMNTSNOT TO SCALEPLPROPERTY LINEPCLPARCELPCCPORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEPOCPOINT OF CURVE/POINT OF CONNECTIONPOTPOINT OF TANGENTPRCPOINT OF REVERSE CURVEROWRIGHT OF WAYRET. WALLRETAINING WALLRPREDUCED PRESSURERWRECYCLED WATERSDSTORM DRAINSFMSEWER FORCE MAINSLSTREET LIGHT/SERVICE LATERALSSSANITARY SEWERSTASTATIONSTD.STANDARDTBDTO BE DETERMINEDTBMTEMPORARY BENCHMARKTCTOP OF CURBTFTOP OF FOOTINGTPTOP OF PAVEMENTTGTOP OF GRATETYP.TYPICALTWTOP OF WALLUONUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDWWATERWSEWATER SURFACE ELEVATIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey GENERAL NOTESC-1.290% SUBMITTAL SET APN: 002-411-002 MISSION COLLEGE A PART)APN: 002-421-001SAN LUIS OBISPOCHILDREN'S MUSEUM(NOT A PART)MIXED-USE/ HOTEL(FUTURE PROJECT)APN: 002-421-033LEITCHERBUILDING(NOT A PART)APN: 002-412-013HAYS-LATIMER ADOBE(PRIVATE RESIDENCE)(NOT A PART)APN: 002-412-005APARTMENTS(NOT A PART)APN: 002-401-010REIS FAMILYMORTUARY(NOT A PART)APN: 002-402-015CENTRAL COASTREALTY GROUP(NOT A PART)SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWM WM WM WM WMWMWMWMWMWMWMSSMHRIM = 188.15'INV = 178.1'SSMHRIM = 188.13'INV = 179.4'SSMHRIM = 190.66'INV = 182.8'SSMHRIM = 193.14'INV = 178.5'SDMHRIM = 193.75'SSMHRIM = 202.15'INV = 191.44'12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE14" PALM TREE14" PALM TREE16" TREE6" TREE6" TREE16" TREE10" TREE16" TREE16" TREE40" TREE28" TREE36" OAK TREE12" TREE6" TREE3-12" TREES6" TREE12" TREE8" TREE12" TREE6" TREE2-6" TREE6" TREE10" TREEW W W W W W W W W WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWW6" TREE6" TREE 64'N53°05'37"E 214.61'N36°28'51"W 279.70'N53°36'43"E 213.48'3333333333333311333334444446665555566107101010888881099999APPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPE SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGX XXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X 10777221010NOTES1.DEMOLITION PLAN APPLIES TO EXISTING ON-SITE COMPONENTS, INFRASTRUCTURE,AND APPURTENANCES ONLY. ALL FRONTAGE AND OFF-SITE ITEMS ARE SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY (SEE NOTE 2).2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO PROPOSED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT PLANSAND DRY UTILITY HANDOUT PACKAGES PREPARED BY PG&E (AND OTHERS) FORALL DEMOLITION WORK ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE, UNDERGROUNDRELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, AND EXTENTS OF PRESERVATION OF EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCES.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS TOREMAIN FROM DAMAGE BY HEAVY LOADING AND/OR EQUIPMENT DURING THECOURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR, AT OWNER'S EXPENSE,AND AND ALL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INCURRED DURING AND/ORDUE TO CONSTRUCTION, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPECTIVE PERMITTINGAGENCY.4.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING 811 OR 1-800-642-2444 BEFORE ANYTRENCHING OR EXCAVATION WORK.5.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE MISCELLANEOUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCESTO BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.6.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE UNDERGROUND UTILITY SERVICES TO BE REMOVED,STUBBED, CAPPED, AND ABANDONED AT PROJECT FRONTAGE OR REMOVED.7.CLEAR AND GRUB ALL EXISTING VEGETATION, GRASSES AND SHRUBS PRIOR TOEARTHWORK OPERATIONS.8.REFER TO PROJECT SWPPP AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DRAWINGS(WPCDS) FOR SITE PREPARATION, MOBILIZATION, STORMWATER REQUIREMENTSAND ALL SITE EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL BMPS.9.REFER TO TREE PLAN BY LANDSCAPE FOR REMOVAL OF ON- AND OFF-SITE TREES.10.ANY HISTORIC MATERIALS SHALL BE NOTED AND SHALL INCLUDE A MATRIX OF THEPROPOSED DISPOSITION. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROPOSED OR REQUIRED TO BERE-USED WITHIN THE PROJECT, THE HISTORIC GRANITE CURBING, WALLS, ANDSTAIRS LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE PRESERVED AND DELIVERED TOAN APPROVED LOCATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.DEMOLITION NOTESPROTECT EXISTING TREE IN PLACE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREE PLAN.PROTECT PORTION OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL EXTENDING TO LIMITS OF PROPOSEDTEMPORARY SHORING.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREEPLAN.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURES.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STRUCTURESAND APPURTENANCES.SAFELY REMOVE AND PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC BISHOP PEAK GRANITE CURB(APPROXIMATE LENGTH=56.5-FEET). STOCKPILE ON-SITE FOR FUTURE USE BYREPERTORY THEATRE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR COORDINATE WITH CITY TOPRESERVE AND DELIVER TO AN APPROVED LOCATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THECITY. (SEE ALSO NOTE #10).REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING BRICKWORK.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING FENCE.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL.12345678910DEMOLITION QUANTITIES±5,600SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING±29,200SF ASPHALT PAVING±1,300SF BRICK PAVING±3,600SF CONCRETE FLATWORK±1,300LF 6" CURB±56.5LF HISTORIC GRANITE CURBING (SEE NOTE 10 AND DEMOLITION NOTE 7)±650LF BLOCK WALL±500LF FENCE33TREES\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-2.2 Demolition.dwg, C-2.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey DEMOLITION PLANC-2.290% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY203.4FG201.2FG190.5FG190.5FG190.5FG192.6MATCH EG200.4FG190.4FG200.4FG187.9FG202.0FG188.0FG201.0FG188.0FG188.0FG198.5±EG188.0FG197.1±EG188.0FG187.9FG194.4FG187.5FL/HP187.0FL186.4FL186.1FL184.9FL184.6FL183.1FL/LP183.8FL185.8FL186.1FL186.6FL188187186186187188189190186 1 8 8188187 187186186187188185 184185186187188 184185 186187 204.6±EG205.0±EG203.8±EG203.1±EG202.1±EG195.9±EG192.6±EG201CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(SEE NOTE 1)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PROPOSED TREEPROTECTION FENCINGPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGCHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(SEE NOTE 1)CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.PAD = 188.0197.3±EG191 198.5MATCH EG188.6MATCH EG195.0±EGPROTECT EXISTING BLOCK WALL TOLIMITS OF TEMPORARY SHORINGFEMA FLOOD PLAIN LIMITSFUTURE PARKING STRUCTUREOVEREX/RECOMPACT LIMITS(SEE NOTE 7)FUTURE PARKING STRUCTUREOVEREX/RECOMPACT LIMITS(SEE NOTE 7)78.4'18.1'20'11.2'78.6'47.1'35.9'192191FUTURE PARKINGSTRUCTURE LIMITS(SEE NOTE 10)FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE LIMITS(SEE NOTE 10)88.5' 49.7'FEMA FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS3:1MAX3:1MAX3:1 MA X3:1MAX3:1MAX3:1MAX201202202200201.0MATCH EG201FEATHER GRADING TO MATCHEXISTING BACK OF WALK @ 3:1 MAXWHERE CURBING IS REMOVED, TYP.FUTURE THEATREOVEREX/RECOMPACTLIMITS (SEE NOTE 7)FUTURE THEATRELIMITS (SEE NOTE 10)1881891901911922051961931921911901891881 9 8 1 9 9 20 0 2 0 1 20 2 20 3 EXISTING OAK TO REMAIN;PROTECT IN PLACE1901891881871861851851861871881891881871861851851861871881941931 9 9 20 0 2 0 0 201204204200NOTES1.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSHORING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND METHODS.2.NO GRADING, TRENCHING, OR GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BECONDUCTED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF TREES TO REMAIN.3.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR SIGNAGE, SITE FURNISHINGS, AND PAVEMENTFINISHING.4.THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, SHALL BECONSIDERED A PART OF THESE PLANS.5.REFER TO PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS BY EDP FOR ON-SITE STORM DRAIN CHAMBERDESIGN AND INFRASTRUCTURE.6.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE STRUCTURES, ASPHALT PAVING, FLATWORK, WALLS, ANDAPPURTENANCES SHALL BE REMOVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7.APPROXIMATE OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION LIMITS OF FUTUREPARKING STRUCTURE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) ARE SHOWN 5' FROM BUILDINGFOUNDATIONS, NOT TO CROSS ANY PROPERTY LINES.8.PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FLATWORK AND SLABS SHALL BE SUPPORTED ON ATLEAST 18 INCHES OF NONEXPANSIVE IMPORTED SOILS.9.PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, EXISTING FILL MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED DURINGEXCAVATION SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH PROPERLY MOISTURECONDITIONED AND COMPACTED SOIL.10.PUBLIC STREET AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING STRUCTURE, ANDSLO REPERTORY THEATRE AND PLAZA ARE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNDERSEPARATE COVER.EARTHWORK QUANTITIESAREA OF DISTURBANCE:1.2 ACRESMAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT:18 FEETMAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT:3 FEETRAW CUT:15,300 CUBIC YARDSRAW FILL:1,430 CUBIC YARDSADJUSTED FILL:(ASSUMED 15% SHRINKAGE)1,650 CUBIC YARDSNET QUANTITY:13,650 CUBIC YARDS EXPORTTHE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRICDIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUETO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC.THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES.APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OFCONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPEHINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADSFOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.LEGENDEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING PROPERTY LINECENTERLINEFENCELINEFLOWLINEEASEMENT LINESLOPE DIRECTION AND GRADEGRADE BREAKEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING OVERHEAD LINESPROPOSED PERMANENT SHORING BY OTHERSPROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING BY OTHERSFUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE OUTLINE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)APPROXIMATE OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION LIMITS OF FUTUREPARKING STRUCTURE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)XX315315OHW>2.0%MAXSSN:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-4.X Rough Grading Plan.dwg, C-4.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey ROUGH GRADING PLANC-4.190% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 BE TYPE 2 DURING STORM DRAIN INSTALLATIONS, AND TYPE 3 AFTER PAVING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, (SEE BMP GUIDANCE HANDOUT IN THE SWPPP FOR MORE INFORMATION). 13.THE STRAW WATTLES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT DIFFERENT PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL INCORPORATE THEIR USE AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. PHASING NOTES WDID No. __________ (PENDING) NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP EROSION CONTROL DETAILS PROJECT SITE N36°28'51"W 279.70'N53°36'43"E 213.48'184190190187189189193193 188189188187186186187189190186 1 8 8188187 187186186188185184185187188 184 186187 PALM STREETDANASTREETNIPOMO STREETMONTEREY STREETEXISTING TREES TOREMAIN; PROTECTIN PLACEEXISTING OAK TO REMAIN;PROTECT IN PLACEAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPE SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGCONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE UNDERSEPARATE COVER AND SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTION FENCING201202202201200TEMPORARY SHORING LINE (DESIGN BY OTHERS)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(DESIGN BY OTHERS)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(DESIGN BY OTHERS)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)A TEMPORARY PUMPWITH FILTER BAG MAY BEREQUIRED DURINGLARGER STORM EVENTSFUTURE SLO REP THEATRE UNDERSEPARATE COVER AND SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYSWPPP BMP LEGENDSILT FENCESTRAW WATTLEHYDROSEEDINGSTREET SWEEPING/VACUUMINGSTORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION(SEE PHASING NOTES ON C-8.0)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH WHEEL WASHAREAMATERIAL DELIVERY/STORAGE AREACONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREAGRAVEL BAGSSE-1SE-5EC-4SE-7SE-10TC-1WM-1WM-8SC-6__________ (PENDING)WDID:\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-8.1 Erosion Control.dwg, C-8.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey EROSION CONTROL PLANC-8.190% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET April 24, 2020 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.1 90% SUBMITTAL SET \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET April 24, 2020 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.2 90% SUBMITTAL SET \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.3, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.3 90% SUBMITTAL SETApril 24, 2020 Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:GENERAL NOTES1.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STARTED WITHOUT PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY BUILDINGDEPARTMENT. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TOSTARTING OF CONSTRUCTION AND OF THE TIME LOCATION OF THE PRECONSTRUCTIONCONFERENCE. ANY CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS OR PRIORNOTIFICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL BE REJECTED AND WILL BE AT THECONTRACTOR’S AND/OR OWNER’S RISK.2.FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS OR PERMITSAPPROVED FOR THE PROJECT THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAY REVOKE ALL ACTIVEPERMITS AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT PROVIDE A WRITTEN NOTICE ORSTOP WORK ORDER.3.ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENTCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND ALL WORK SHALL BESUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.4.THE PROJECT OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND/ORMAINTAINING ALL WEATHER ACCESS AT ALL TIMES TO EXISTING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THEVICINITY OF WORK. ADDITIONALLY, THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALLEXISTING SERVICES, INCLUDING UTILITY, GARBAGE COLLECTION, MAIL DISTRIBUTION, ETC, TOALL EXISTING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF WORK.5.ON-SITE HAZARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY SHALL BE SHIELDED BY CONSTRUCTION FENCING.FENCING SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCHTIME THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND OCCUPIED, POTENTIAL HAZARDS HAVE BEENMITIGATED, OR ALTERNATIVE PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.6.SOILS TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS. TESTS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO PLACING MATERIAL. THE TESTRESULTS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION AND SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL.7.ROADWAY COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE MADE ON SUBGRADE MATERIAL, AGGREGATE BASEMATERIAL, AND MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. SAID TESTS SHALL BE MADEPRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEXT MATERIAL LIFT.8.SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF 95% IN THEZONE BETWEEN FINISHED SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT BELOW. ALLMATERIAL IN FILL SECTIONS BELOW THE ZONE MENTIONED ABOVE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.9.A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN COMPLETEDARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS PRIOR TO THE REQUEST FOR A FINAL INSPECTION.RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIVILENGINEER CERTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARING AS-BUILT PLANS MAY BEPRESENT WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION IS MADE BY THE CITY .10.AN ENGINEER OF WORK AGREEMENT AND AN ENGINEER CHECKING AND INSPECTIONAGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDINGDEPARTMENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF ANY CHANGES TO THE ENGINEER OF WORKAGREEMENT. CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT PROCEED WITHOUT AN ENGINEER OF WORK.11.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.12.A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE CITYRIGHT-OF-WAY. THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MAY ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL UTILITY ANDTRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.13.THE CITY INSPECTOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIREREVISIONS IN THE PLANS TO SOLVE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE FIELD.ALL REVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER’S ENGINEER OFWORK.14.HYDROSEEDING OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE PLACED ANDESTABLISHED WITH 90% COVERAGE ON ALL DISTURBED SURFACES (OTHER THAN PAVED ORGRAVEL SURFACES) PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION.15.FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY , IF ENVIRONMENTALPERMITS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATERQUALITY CONTROL BOARD/STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OR THE CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL:15.a.SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL SUCH COMPLETED PERMITS TO THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENTOR,15.b.DOCUMENT THAT THE REGULATORY AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT SAID PERMIT IS NOTREQUIRED;PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY MAINTENANCE ANDRELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. ANY MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIRED BY SAIDPERMITS WILL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.16.WHEN THE PROJECT SITE EARTHWORK IS NOT INTENDED TO BALANCE THEN A SEPARATEGRADING PERMIT FOR THE SENDING OR RECEIVING PROPERTY MAY BE REQUIRED. A COPY OFTHE PERMIT/S OR EVIDENCE THAT NO PERMITS ARE REQUIRED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THEDEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING PROJECT EARTHWORK.PRO-ECT PRECONSTRUCTION 0EETINGPRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED WITHTHE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF RECORD, THESOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD, THE GRADING CONTRACTOR OF RECORD, THE OWNER/DEVELOPER,AND OTHERS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT AND TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THE OWNER/DEVELOPERSHALL COORDINATE THIS MEETING WITH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHER PARTIES.OBSER9ATION AND TESTING PROGRA0THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING TASKS:1.PLACEMENT, BACKFILL, AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIALBI-WEEKLY REPORTS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD TO THE GRADINGINSPECTOR, MONITORING THE JOB PROGRESS INCLUDING THE STATUS OF EROSION &SEDIMENTATION MONITORING.A FINAL REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR ENGINEERING GRADING INCLUDING ALL COMPACTIONREPORTS.PRO-ECT REPORT RE4UIRE0ENTSFINAL REPORTSFINAL REPORTS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.B.C. SECTION 3318.1PAD CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTA SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE GRADING PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT IS INSUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND IS SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THEINTENDED STRUCTURE(S). THE ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT A FINAL REPORT TO THE CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO.SOIL REPORT REQUIREMENTSTHE SOIL REPORT SL-16264-SA OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. AREPRESENTATIVE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SHALL OBSERVE ALL APPLICATIONS REGARDINGGENERAL GRADING, PAD GRADING, SLOPE CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY TRENCHES AND FOUNDATIONCONSTRUCTION.GRADING NOTES1.ALL GRADING CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE CODES AS NOTED UNDER"APPLICABLE CODES" HEADING.2.THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULING A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGWITH THE CITY AND OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITYBUILDING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED, ANDARRANGE FOR INSPECTION.3.GRADING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT#SL-16264-SA BY EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC. , DATE 4/21/2011 FILED WITH THE CITY OF SANLUIS OBISPO.4.SOILS ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE SOIL IS SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THE INTENDED STRUCTURE.SUCH REPORT INCLUDING PROGRESS AND/OR COMPACTION REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE FIELD INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION WHEN A SOILS REPORT IS OBTAINED. THECITY POLICY REGARDING PAD CERTIFICATION SHALL BE FOLLOWED. WHEN APPLICABLE THEENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE THE GRADING OPERATION(S) AND PROVIDE THE FIELD INSPECTORWITH REQUIRED COMPACTION REPORTS AND A REPORT STATING THAT THE GRADINGPERFORMED HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE UBC AND CITYORDINANCES.5.NO CUT OR FILL SLOPES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED STEEPER THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONEVERTICAL (2:1).6.DUST CONTROL IS TO BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.7.AREAS OF FILL SHALL BE SCARIFIED, BENCHED AND RECOMPACTED PRIOR TO REPLACING FILLAND OBSERVED BY A SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER.8.FILL MATERIAL WILL BE RECOMPACTED TO 90% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY.9.REMOVE ANY DELETERIOUS MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED BEFORE PLACING FILL.10.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HYDRO SEEDED OR PLANTED WITH APPROVED EROSIONCONTROL VEGETATION AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.11.MINIMUM SETBACK TO CREEKS AND BLUFFS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MINIMUM SETBACK OF TWOFEET FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL GRADING.12.MINIMUM SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS SHALL BE 5% FOR THE FIRST TEN FEET AROUNDPERIMETER.13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEYMARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL SUCH MONUMENTS OR MARKERS DISTURBED SHALL BERESET AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.14.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL HAVEAN APPROPRIATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE, A LOCAL BUSINESS LICENSE, AND SHALL OBTAIN ANENCROACHMENT PERMIT.15.ENGINEERING REPORTS FOR CUT OR FILL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 2:1 SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE FIELD INSPECTOR.UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES1.AN EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO DEFINE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHINTHE JOB SITE. HOWEVER, ALL EXISTING UTILITY AND OTHER UNDERGROUND STRUCTURESMAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND THEIR LOCATION WHERE SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE.THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETERESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCATING OR HAVING LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDOTHER FACILITIES AND FOR PROTECTING THEM DURING CONSTRUCTION.2.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT 811TWO TO TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF EXCAVATION AND SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OFANY KNOWN UTILITIES AND WHETHER OR NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH COMPANY WILL BEPRESENT DURING EXCAVATION.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS1.ALL CONSTRUCTION & INSPECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE(CBC) CHAPTER 17.2.SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, THE OWNER ORREGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ACTING AS THE OWNER'SAGENT SHALL EMPLOY ONE OR MORE SPECIAL INSPECTORS TO PROVIDE INSPECTIONSDURING CONSTRUCTION ON ALL TASKS IDENTIFIED BELOW.3.SPECIAL INSPECTORS SHALL BE A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO SHALL DEMONSTRATECOMPETENCE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NAMES ANDQUALIFICATIONS OF SPECIAL INSPECTOR(S) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY BUILDINGDEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL.4.EACH CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPONENTS LISTED IN THESPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THECITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THESTATEMENT SHALL CONTAIN THE ITEMS LISTED IN CBC 1706.1.5.A FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY A SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIELDINSPECTOR STATING THE WORK PERFORMED IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THEAPPROVED PLANS, APPLICABLE CODES, AND IS FOUND TO BE SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THEINTENDED STRUCTURE. SUCH REPORT SHALL INCLUDE ANY FIELD PROGRESS REPORTS,COMPACTION DATA ETC.SECTION 1705, STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:·1705.1 GENERAL. WHERE SPECIAL INSPECTION OR TESTING IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1704,1707 OR 1708, THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SHALLPREPARE A STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1705 FORSUBMITTAL BY THE PERMIT APPLICATION (SEE SECTION 1704.1.1).·1705.2 CONTENT OF STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. THE STATEMENT OF SPECIALINSPECTIONS SHALL IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING:a.THE MATERIALS, SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS AND WORK REQUIRED TO HAVE SPECIALINSPECTION OR TESTING BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR BY THE REGISTERED DESIGNPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH PORTION OF THE WORK.b.THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF EACH SPECIAL INSPECTION.c.THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF EACH TEST.d.ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION OR TESTING FOR SEISMIC OR WINDRESISTANCE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 1705.3, 1705.4, 1707 OR 1708.e.FOR EACH TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION, IDENTIFICATION AS TO WHETHER IT WILL BECONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OR PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION. SECTION (TABLE) 1704.7, REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF SOILS.a.VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN BEARINGCAPACITY SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.b.VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPERMATERIAL, SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.c.PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF CONTROLLED FILL MATERIALS, SHALL BEPERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.d.VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENTAND COMPACTION OF CONTROLLED FILL, SHALL BE PERFORMED CONTINUOUSLY DURINGTASK.e.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HADBEEN PREPARED PROPERLY, SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.OBSERVATION & TESTING PROGRAM.THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER SHALL PERFORM THE INSPECTION & TESTING FOR THEFOLLOWING TASKS:·FINAL PLANS·STRIPPING AND CLEARING OF VEGETATION·RECOMPACTION OF SCARIFICATION SOILS·FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION·OVER EXCAVATING·VERIFICATION OF SOILS TYPE & DEPTH·FINAL REPORTTHE SOIL ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC. SOILS REPORT#SL-16264-SA THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL PERFORM THE INSPECTION FOR THEFOLLOWING TASKS:·ROUGH GRADING & SITE PREPARATION·FINAL GRADING INSPECTION PRIOR TO FINAL CITY INSPECTIONTHE PROJECT ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE DANIEL SOTELO OF ENGINEERING DESIGNPROFESSIONALS, INC., RCE 81227, 2055-A 9TH STREET, LOS OSOS, CA 93402, PHONE (805) 602-6167THE ENGINEER OR WORK SHALL STATE IN WRITING THE WORK IS IN SUBSTANTIALCONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS.THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR BMP INSPECTION IS XXXXXXXXPHONE (805) XXX-XXXX.PRO-ECT SUR9EY 0ONU0ENTSEXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BE TIED OUT OR REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITHCITYSTANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONSGRADING AND 9EGETATION RE0O9ALTO CONTROL EROSION, ACTUAL GRADING SHALL BEGIN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF VEGETATION REMOVALOR THAT AREA SHALL BE PLANTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16.08.340. NOVEGETATION REMOVAL OR GRADING WILL BE ALLOWED WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE SILTATION OFWATER COURSE OR UNCONTROLLABLE EROSION (16.08.300 C.2)GROUND PREPARATIONPREPARATION OF GROUND FOR FILL. THE GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED TO RECEIVEFILL BY THE REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALS AS DETERMINED BY THESOILS ENGINEER.PREPARATION OF THE GROUND. THE GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED TO RECEIVE FILL BYREMOVING VEGETATION, NON-COMPLYING FILL, TOPSOIL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALSSCARIFYING TO PROVIDE A BOND WITH THE NEW FILL.FILL MATERIAL PERMITTED. NO ORGANIC MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED IN FILLS EXCEPT ASTOPSOIL USED FOR SURFACE PLANT GROWTH ONLY AND WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED 4 INCHES INDEPTH. (16.08.310 E)EROSION CONTROL 0EASURESEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MUST BE IN PLACE ANDFUNCTIONALEART+:OR. 4UANTITIESAREA OF DISTURBANCE = 0.86 ACESTIMATED CUT: 4,948 CY±ESTIMATED FILL: 183 CY±NET: 4,765 CY± FILLMAX CUT: 14'MAX FILL: 6'NOTE: EXACT SHRINKAGE, CONSOLIDATION, AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS AND LOSSES DUE TOCLEARING OPERATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE BASEDUPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AND PROPOSED FINISH GRADES,AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, AND SHOULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE INSPECTION AND QUANTITY TAKE OFF, AND SHALL BIDACCORDINGLY.LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||APPLICABLE CODES·2020 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, VOLS 1 & 2 (2016 IBC)·2020 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (2016 NEC)·2020 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (2016 IFC)·2020 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (2016 UPC)·2020 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE·2020 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (NEW) (2016 IRC)·CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: CURRENT EDITION·CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS: CURRENT EDITION·CITY FIRE CODE ORDINANCE·CITY LAND USE ORDINANCE·GRADING 2020 APPENDIX CHAPTER 33NOTE:IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ORPERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OFNORTHERN CALIFORNIA" BY PHONE AT 8-1-1 FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURSPRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER,TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.CONTRACTOR OR PERMITEE SHALL ALSO CONTACT THEAPPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V., WATER,SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOTESA.ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THEUTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENTEDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATION. (THE CURRENTADOPTED STANDARDS ARE DATED JANUARY 2016.)B.ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK, OR DRIVEWAYAPPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKSDIRECTOR.C.A SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY, WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS, OR FOR CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. WORKREQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS,UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK,DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDERDRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREETTREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTIONOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.D.CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT 781-7554 WITH AT LEAST A 48-HOURNOTICE FOR ANY REQUIRED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION OR FINAL INSPECTION.E.THE ADJOINING STREET SHALL BE CLEANED BY SWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST, MUD ANDCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH DAY.F.A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.G.ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAN 2% SHALLHAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINALINSPECTION APPROVALS.H.ANY EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE OR SHALL BE TIED OUTBY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE AND THEN REPLACED PRIOR TOOCCUPANCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8771 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE.I.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THESATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURING ALLDEMOLITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.J.ONE 15-GALLON STREET TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH 35 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE ORFRACTION THEREOF. TREE SPECIES AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PER CITYENGINEERING STANDARDS.GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPBENCHMARKFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)TOP BACK CURBFINISH GRADEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETE(00.00)TC(00.00)EG(00.00)EP(00.00)FL(00.00)ACTOP BACK CURBEXISTING GROUNDEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETEPROPOSEDEXISTING00.00TC00.00FG00.00EP00.00FL00.00ACLEGENDHIGH POINT00.00HP(00.00)TRW(00.00)TFTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTERTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTER00.00TRW00.00TF(0" CURB WHERE APPLIES)NOTE1.ANY DAMAGE, AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT, TO CITYFACILITIES, I.E. CURB/BURM, STREET, SEWER LINE, WATER LINE, OR ANY PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF MORRO BAY.2.NO WORK SHALL OCCUR WITHIN (OR USE OF) THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT ANENCROACHMENT PERMIT. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY OF MORROBAY PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE LOCATED AT 955 SHASTA AVE. THE ENCROACHMENT PERMITSHALL BE ISSUED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.3.DUE TO MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATERREQUIREMENTS NO PRESSURE WASHING IS ALLOWED UNLESS IT IS DIRECTLY DUE TOPROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF EXTERIOR PAINTING OF PROPERTY. NO DISCHARGE OFNON-STORMWATER IS ALLOWED INTO THE MUNICIPAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ANDCONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE MEASURES TO PREVENT ANY DISCHARGE FROM ENTERING THESTORMWATER SYSTEM.SITE DATAAPN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-HPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATEE N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/21PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-1.00720-02-UR19DATENOTESDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis ObispoNO.REVISIONDATE60% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/2020141ST SUBMITTAL4/23/202090% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 STOPEXISTING LEV: 198.91 BEGIN WALL STA: 1+23.14 TOF ELEV: 198.91 END WALL STA: 1+07.33 TOF ELEV: 198.91 BC STA: 1+16.77 TOF ELEV: 198.91 EC GRADE AT FACE OF WALLSTA: 1+00.00 TOW ELEV: 202.26 BEGIN WALL STA: 1+01.33 TOW ELEV: 202.26 STA: 1+01.33 TOW ELEV: 202.93 STEP WALL STA: 1+07.98 TOW ELEV: 202.93 STA: 1+07.98 TOW ELEV: 203.60 STEP WALL STA: 1+17.30 TOW ELEV: 203.60 STA: 1+17.30 TOW ELEV: 204.27 STEP WALL STA: 1+21.29 TOW ELEV: 204.27 STA: 1+21.29 TOW ELEV: 204.94 STEP WALL STA: 1+22.62 TOW ELEV: 204.94 STA: 1+22.62 TOW ELEV: 205.61 STEP WALL STA: 1+23.14 TOW ELEV: 205.61 END WALL GRADE AT BACK OF WALLBENCHMARKEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gFF2% MINCONCRETE8" MIN5% MINFOR 10'BUILDING SLAB SECTIONGEOTECHNICAL REPORTSITE DATAPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.APN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-H1005SCALE: 1" =1010'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)1FUTURE RETAINING WALL. SEE WALL PROFILES THIS SHEET FOR TOP OFWALL AND TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDEBACK OF WALL ASPHALTIC WATER PROOFING, DRAIN ROCK, ANDPERFORATED PIPE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. PERFORATED PIPE TODAYLIGHT. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WALL HEIGHT PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.CONSTRUCTION NOTESLEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||TOP BACK CURBFINISH GRADEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETE(00.00)TC(00.00)EG(00.00)EP(00.00)FL(00.00)ACTOP BACK CURBEXISTING GROUNDEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETEPROPOSEDEXISTING00.00TC00.00FG00.00EP00.00FL00.00ACLEGENDHIGH POINT00.00HP(00.00)TRW(00.00)TFTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTERTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTER00.00TRW00.00TF(0" CURB WHERE APPLIES)PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATE1E N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19NOTE TO CONTRACTOR:1.FOOTING DEPTH ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE MINIMUM DEPTH AS SPECIFIED BYTHE SOILS ENGINEER. FINAL FOOTING DEPTH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILSENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER OF RECORD WITH FINAL WALLDESIGN REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FOOTING CONSTRUCTION.2.SEE RETAINING WALL DETAIL X, ON SHEET XX FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 1 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 2 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 3 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-2.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATERETAINING WALLS PLAN & PROFILESDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis ObispoREVISION DATE60% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/202041ST SUBMITTAL4/23/2020(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 4 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'90% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 STOP SSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING WALLEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING CURB & SIDEWALKEXISTING CURB ANDSIDEWALKEXISTING CURB,GUTTER, ANDSIDEWALKEXISTING STREET TREEEXISTINGHANDICAPRAMPEXISTING SSCOEXISTINGWATER METERMONTEREY STREETDANA STREETEXISTING SSMHRIM EL = 191.85NIPOMO STREET N53° 05' 37"E 214.61'(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)20.07'31.48'STORAGEFF BLAC. BO;FF LOBBYFF BASE0ENTFF PROPOSED T+EATERFUTURELI0ITS OF YR FLOOD PLAINLINE OF DECK ABOVELINE OF STAIRS ABOVE0.5'1189.05 TG186.55 INV.1199.90 TG197.53 INV.1200.63 TG194.59 INV.2200.67 RIM198.17 INV.2199.31 RIM195.31 INV.188.96 TG(S) 181.00 INV.179.00 SUMP3197.00 TG(N) 189.00 INV.(S) 192.38 INV.187.00 SUMP446190.26 INV.8185.00 INV.3377± 7.00 LF19.4'26.9'9 CFFRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTS8184.00 INV.7.5'7.5'35.7'10.3'6193.98 INV.9.5' A4.1 B 4.1 C 4.1 9 CFD4.1INSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENT22.2'3.1'7.5'48.7'2.8'49 CF5194.37 INV.200.00 TG(W) 194.00 INV.(S) 198.00 INV.191.00 SUMP5194.09 INV.7±10.78 LF7±13.96 LF7±4.50 LF93,030 SF (ROOF AREA) VOL (95th) = 505 CF6,512 SF (ROOF AREA) VOL (95TH) = 1,085 CF7± 4.20 LF7± 28.83 LF7± 22.64 LF7± 8.37 LF97± 7.00 LF± 21.75 LF7± 14.25 LF7± 11.00 LF6185.67 INV.96192.38 INV.196.21 INV.192.63 INV.189.45 INV.BENCHMARKEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gFF2% MINCONCRETE8" MIN5% MINFOR 10'BUILDING SLAB SECTIONGEOTECHNICAL REPORTSITE DATAPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.APN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-H1005SCALE: 1" =1010'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||12ADS MANHOLE WITH GRATE COVER PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS. MANHOLE AND GRATE TO BE TRAFFIC RATED INDRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.3INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3,SHEET D-4.0.456789STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES(FUTURE) INSTALL 12"X12" MIDSTATE CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. GRATE TO BETRAFFIC RATED NEAR DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.(FUTURE) CONNECT ROOF DRAINS TO ADS EXPANDABLE DOWNSPOUTADAPTER WITH CLEAN OUT OR EQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS AND TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT DETAIL 1, SHEET D-4.0.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8"X8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE TEE OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 45° ELBOW OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE AT 2% MIN.PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL 2, SHEET D-4.0.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 90° ELBOW OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATEE N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-3.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATESTORM DRAIN PLANDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis Obispo160% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/202041ST SUBMITTAL4/23/2020(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" STORM DRAIN LATERAL CONNECTION POINT.90% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 CONC. FLOOR SLABF.F. ELEV. PER PLANTYPICAL DOWNSPOUT TIE INNTS1DOWNSPOUT FROM ROOF GUTTERDOWNSPOUT ADAPTORINSERTED IN RISER PIPECLEANOUT WITH ENDCAP ADJUST RIMELEVATION PER PLAN6" SDFINISH GRADESTORM DRAINPIPE PER PLAN.INV ELEVATIONPER PLAN.90° ELBOW45° BEND45° WYEHDPE PIPE (TYP.)NOTES:1.ALL PIPES/FITTINGS LOCATED WITHIN 5 FEET OF FOUNDATION SHALL BE WATER TIGHT2.ALL PIPES/FITTINGS LOCATED WITHIN OR ABOVE FOUNDATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE SHALL BE WATERTIGHT. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ZONE OF INFLUENCE LOCATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION3.ALL PIPES/FITTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS4.DO NOT GLUE DOWNSPOUT ADAPTER TO STORM DRAIN RISER - USE SMALL AMOUNT OF LUBRICANT ORGREASE TO SEAL CONNECTION AND ALLOW FOR FUTURE ADAPTER5.CLEANOUTS, FITTINGS, AND PIPE TO BE TRAFFIC RATED IF LOCATED IN AREAS NEAR OR IN VEHICULARTRAFFICNOTES:1.NO TREES OR LARGE BUSHES ARE TO BE PLANTED OVER SEWER/STORM DRAIN PIPE2.NATIVE MATERIAL MAY SUFFICE FOR BEDDING AND INITIAL BACKFILL - SEE SOILS REPORT3.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PIPE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS4.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MANUFACTURER'S MIN COVER AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION5.ALL PIPES/FITTINGS LOCATED WITHIN OR ABOVE FOUNDATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE SHALL BE WATER TIGHT. CONTRACTORTO VERIFY ZONE OF INFLUENCE LOCATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONS9" MAX DIA.FINISH GRADESTORM DRAIN/SEWER TRENCH (3" DIA. AND LARGER PIPES)NTS2LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL,WHERE OCCURSNATIVE MATERIAL@ 90% MIN R.C.CLEAN SAND@ 95% MIN R.C.3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)NON-VEHICULAR AREASS9" MAX DIA.PAVEMENT SECTION PERGEOTECHNICAL REPORTTOP 12" @ 95% MIN R.C.NATIVE MATERIAL@ 90% MIN R.C.CLEAN SAND@ 95% MIN R.C.3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)VEHICULAR AREASSTORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTS3PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATE1E N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-4.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATEDETAIL SHEET160% COMPLETION2/13/2020DSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis Obispo270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/2020LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING12 INCHES41ST SUBMITTAL4/23/202090% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 FF=189.78BUILDINGFF=189.38BUILDING11EXISTING GROUND7.5'7.5'10.4'INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTRWFF=189.78BUILDINGFF=203.40BUILDING11EXISTING GROUND9.5'19.4'MONTEREY ST (PUBLIC)FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTFRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)MONTEREY STCLRWEXISTING ASPHALT (PUBLIC) 11 From:accounting <accounting@watrydesign.com> Sent:Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:00 PM To:PW_AP; Kloepper, Shelsie Cc:Anju Ram; Gordon Knowles Subject:Watry Design, Inc. - July 2021 Billings for the 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S project Attachments:City of San Luis O_09-079_Palm Nipomo PS_941308_08-09-2021.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Attached please find your current Invoice for project 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S. Please do not hesitate to contact Anju Ram if you have any question regarding this invoice. We are transitioning towards receiving payments by ACH. If you offer payments by ACH and we are not currently set up with you for this, please forward the necessary paperwork required for us to complete this setup. Thank you Yvonne Squier Accounting Department | accounting@watrydesign.com WATRY DESIGN, INC. | Collaborating at full capacity from our home offices! San Jose, CA | Irvine, CA | Dallas, TX | Toll Free: 833.917.PARK watrydesign.com City of San Luis Obispo Invoice number 941308 Invoice date 08/09/2021 Page 1 of 2 Gordon T. Knowles 2.00 195.00 390.00 Senior Project Manager Hours Rate Billed Amount Labor 089 Add Service # 10 Invoice total 390.00 941068 05/17/2021 2,711.25 2,711.25 941308 08/09/2021 390.00 390.00 Total 3,101.25 390.00 0.00 2,711.25 0.00 0.00 Aging Summary Invoice Number Invoice Date Outstanding Current Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Over 120 ADD SERVICE # 10 3,250.00 3,101.25 2,711.25 390.00 148.75 Total 3,250.00 3,101.25 2,711.25 390.00 148.75 Invoice Summary Description Contract Amount Total Billed Prior Billed Current Billed Remaining Professional Services Rendered Through July 31, 2021 Heyd Adobe 614 Monterey Street PO. Number: 15911 Supplier Number: 10129 City Contact Name: Shelsie Kloepper City of San Luis Obispo Attention: Account Payable Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Invoice number 941308 Date 08/09/2021 Project 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S Date 08/09/2021 Invoice number 941308City of San Luis Obispo 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/SProject City of San Luis Obispo Invoice number 941308 Invoice date 08/09/2021 Page 2 of 2 Please Remit Payment to : Watry Design, Inc. 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95110 833.917.PARK 12 From:PW_AP <pw_ap@slocity.org> Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 3:51 PM To:Kloepper, Shelsie Subject:FW: Watry Design, Inc. - Apr 2021 Billings for the 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S project Attachments:City of San Luis O_09-079_Palm Nipomo PS_941068_05-17-2021.pdf From: accounting <accounting@watrydesign.com> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:41 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; PW_AP <pw_ap@slocity.org> Cc: Anju Ram <awram@watrydesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: Watry Design, Inc. - Apr 2021 Billings for the 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S project This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Attached please find our April Invoice for Add Service #10 for the project 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S. Please do not hesitate to contact Anju Ram if you have any question regarding this invoice. We are transitioning towards receiving payments by ACH. If you offer payments by ACH and we are not currently set up with you for this, please forward the necessary paperwork required for us to complete this setup. Thank you Yvonne Squier Accounting Department | accounting@watrydesign.com WATRY DESIGN, INC. | Collaborating at full capacity from our home offices! San Jose, CA | Irvine, CA | Dallas, TX | Toll Free: 833.917.PARK watrydesign.com City of San Luis Obispo Invoice number 941068 Invoice date 05/17/2021 Page 1 of 2 RRM Design Group 2,711.25 Consultant Billed Amount Consultant 089 Add Service # 10 Invoice total 2,711.25 941068 05/17/2021 2,711.25 2,711.25 Total 2,711.25 0.00 0.00 2,711.25 0.00 0.00 Aging Summary Invoice Number Invoice Date Outstanding Current Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Over 120 ADD SERVICE # 10 3,250.00 2,711.25 0.00 2,711.25 538.75 Total 3,250.00 2,711.25 0.00 2,711.25 538.75 Invoice Summary Description Contract Amount Total Billed Prior Billed Current Billed Remaining Professional Services Rendered Through April 30, 2021 Heyd Adobe 614 Monterey Street PO. Number: 15911 Supplier Number: 10129 City Contact Name: Richard Burde City of San Luis Obispo Attention: Account Payable Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Invoice number 941068 Date 05/17/2021 Project 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/S Date 05/17/2021 Invoice number 941068City of San Luis Obispo 09-079 Palm Nipomo P/SProject City of San Luis Obispo Invoice number 941068 Invoice date 05/17/2021 Page 2 of 2 Please Remit Payment to : Watry Design, Inc. 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95110 833.917.PARK Accounts PayableWatry Design, Inc.2099 Gateway Pla Accounts Payable 0720-02-03210720-02-UR19 4/16/2021 12:00:0 Palm Nipomo ParProfessional se4/16/2021 12:00:0 San Jose, CA 951 Contract Previously Current RemainingTime & Material NTE Amount Invoiced Invoice Contract 1.2.13 Stakeholder Meetings (Subtask A-P.1) - NTE $3,800.00 $2,947.50 $0.00 $852.50 1.2.14 Entitlement Submittal Package (Subtask A-P.2) - NTE $2,315.00 $2,301.25 $0.00 $13.75 1.2.15 Public Hearings (Subtask A-P.3) - NTE $9,885.00 $9,868.75 $0.00 $16.25 1.2.16 Project Management and City Meetings (Subtask A- P.4) - NTE $3,500.00 $3,476.25 $0.00 $23.75 1.2.17 Updating Grading, Utilities, & Drainage Exhibits for ARC Submittal (Subtask A-C.1) - NTE $4,700.00 $4,670.00 $0.00 $30.00 1.2.22 ARC/CHC/PC/CC Civil Revisions & Project Coordination (Subtask A-C.2) - NTE $1,500.00 $1,482.50 $0.00 $17.50 1.2.23 Supplemental Topographic - Surveying (Subtask A- C.3) - NTE $6,500.00 $6,415.00 $0.00 $85.00 1.2.24 Voluntary Lot Merger - Surveying (Subtask A-C.4) - NTE $2,500.00 $461.25 $0.00 $2,038.75 1.2.25 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits - Surveying (Subtask A-C.5) - NTE $2,000.00 $165.00 $0.00 $1,835.00 1.2.26 Agency & Title Company Processing & Coordination - Surveying (Subtask A-C.6) - NTE $750.00 $613.75 $0.00 $136.25 1.2.27 ARC/CHC/PC/CC Landscape Plan Preparation (Subtask A-L.1) - NTE $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.3.28 Civil Schematic Design (Subtask B-C.1) - NTE $5,500.00 $5,442.50 $0.00 $57.50 1.3.29 Landscape Schematic Design (Subtask B-L.1) - NTE $3,600.00 $3,581.25 $0.00 $18.75 1.4.21 Civil Design Development Package (Subtask C-C.1) - NTE $13,750.00 $13,745.00 $0.00 $5.00 1.4.22 Landscape Design Development Package (Subtask C- L.1) - NTE $9,600.00 $9,578.75 $0.00 $21.25 1.5.19 A Civil On-Site Improvement Plan Package (Subtask D- C.1) - NTE $26,250.00 $26,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.5.19 B Civil Off-Site Improvement Plan Package (Subtask D- C.1) - NTE $18,750.00 $18,748.75 $0.00 $1.25 1.5.20 A Landscape On-Site Construction Documents (Subtask D-L.1) - NTE $5,300.00 $4,882.50 $0.00 $417.50 Page 3Page 3 of 7 Accounts Payable Watry Design, Inc. 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95110 0720-02-0321 0720-02-UR19 April 16 2021 Invoice #: Project #: Invoice Date: Professional services rendered for: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (2019) AR 05/03/2021 Accounts PayableWatry Design, Inc.2099 Gateway Pla Accounts Payable 0720-02-03210720-02-UR19 4/16/2021 12:00:0 Palm Nipomo ParProfessional se4/16/2021 12:00:0 San Jose, CA 951 Contract Previously Current RemainingTime & Material NTE Amount Invoiced Invoice Contract 1.5.20 B Landscape Off-Site Construction Documents (Subtask D-L.1) - NTE $15,800.00 $14,416.00 $0.00 $1,384.00 1.5.21 Landscape Public Art Coordination (Subtask D-L.3) - NTE $2,150.00 $95.00 $0.00 $2,055.00 1.6 Plan Check Coordination (Subtasks D-C.2 & D-L.2) - NTE $7,000.00 $6,975.00 $0.00 $25.00 1.7 Bidding Coordination (Subtasks E-C.1 & E-L.1) - NTE $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 1.8.29 Civil Construction Administration (Subtask E-C.2) - NTE $3,500.00 $2,060.00 $0.00 $1,440.00 1.8.30 Civil Record Drawings/ Closeout (Subtask E-C.3) - NTE $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 1.8.31 Landscape Construction Administration (Subtask E- L.2) - NTE $6,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,300.00 1.8.32 Landscape Record Drawings/ Closeout (Subtask E- L.3) - NTE $2,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,300.00 AS.02 Additional ARC Meeting (Subtask X.01)$3,325.00 $3,275.00 $0.00 $50.00 AS.04 PG&E Rerouting (Subtask X.C.1) - NTE $1,200.00 $1,196.25 $0.00 $3.75 AS.06 Site Preparation Phase (Subtasks X.S.1, X.C.2, X.ST.1) - NTE $26,300.00 $26,135.00 $0.00 $165.00 AS.07 Planning Conditions and Site Phasing (Subtasks XC.3, XL.1, XL.2, XL.3 and XL.4) - NTE $31,776.00 $31,753.50 $0.00 $22.50 AS.09 Demolition Plan - Heyd Adobe (Subtasks XC.6, XC.7) - NTE $2,800.00 $0.00 $2,711.25 $88.75 Page 4Page 4 of 7 Accounts Payable Watry Design, Inc. 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95110 0720-02-0321 0720-02-UR19 April 16 2021 Invoice #: Project #: Invoice Date: Professional services rendered for: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (2019) Total Time & Material NTE $232,851.00 $204,735.75 $2,711.25 $25,404.00 SubTotal Time & Material NTE This Invoice $2,711.25 $2,711.25Total This Invoice Page 5Page 5 of 7 0720-02-0321 0720-02-UR19 April 16 2021 Invoice #: Project #: Invoice Date: Page 6Page 6 of 7 0720-02-0321 0720-02-UR19 April 16 2021 Invoice #: Project #: Invoice Date: Accounts Payable Watry Design, Inc. Professional services rendered for: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (2019) Detail of Charges Task: AS.09 Demolition Plan - Heyd Adobe (Subtasks XC.6, XC.7) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (2019) Professional Personnel Date Team Member Hours Rate Amount 3/22/2021 Yoshida, Scott 1.50 185.00 277.50 3/23/2021 Yoshida, Scott 1.75 185.00 323.75 3/24/2021 Yoshida, Scott 1.50 185.00 277.50 3/30/2021 Yoshida, Scott 4.50 185.00 832.50 3/24/2021 Anderson, Kevin 8.00 125.00 1,000.00 Description Heyd Adobe Demolition Plan. Heyd Adobe Demolition Plan. Heyd Adobe Demolition Plan. Heyd Adobe Demo Plan. Move to AS.09 Heyd Adobe Demolition Plan Total Labor Task AS.09 $2,711.25 Page 7Page 7 of 7 0720-02-0321 0720-02-UR19 April 16 2021 Invoice #: Project #: Invoice Date: 17 From:Burde, Richard Sent:Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:29 AM To:building Subject:RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Attachments:614 Monterey Heyd Adobe_Demo Permit Application.pdf; 2021-03-30_614 Monterey Heyd Adobe_Demolition Plan.pdf Please see the attached and let me know if you need anything else. Thanks you! From: building <building@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:07 AM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good morning, Please forward the attachments for your demo submittal and we will process. Thank you, Andy Torres CDD Permit Technician Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E atorres@slocity.org T 805.781.7572 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:58 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Cc: building <building@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Please submit the application and plans to our Rockstar Permit Techs via email (cc’d) and they can get this processed and routed for review. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor 18 Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:35 AM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, Attached are the Adobe Removal Plans that were prepared by RRM along with the Demo Permit Application. Please let me know what the next steps are for review and permit issuance. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:22 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Thanks for sending this over and for the explanation. To recap what I’m reading, the plan would be to demo everything above grade (walls, roof) and cap utilities either within or just outside the current building footprint. Is this correct? In terms of plans, just a site plan, enlarged site plan clearly depicting scope of work and any Planning conditions from the Council action. I would think the August/ September timeframe is definitely doable on our part for review once the plans are received. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org 19 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:08 AM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Mark, Originally this work was going to be done along with the rest of the site demo, attached is the plan set that covers this work along with the rest of the site prep (grading and some utility instillation). The project was originally suppose to start last fall but COVID has delayed construction until the parking fund can recover, likely 2022 – 23. The removal of the Adobe was a hot button issue for some community members and we want to move forward with the demo asap while Council’s approval to demolish it is still relatively fresh. I think that the concern is that if too much time passes we will have to rehash the issue and open ourselves up to more debate and delay. Attached is the most recent plan set that was prepared, I have identified the limits of work for the adobe removal on sheet C-2.1. Again the idea is to do as little as possible, just removing the vertical portion of the building is what I have in mind. If it would help streamline the process I can set a meeting with you and RRM to discuss what you would be expecting to see on the final demo plan. Please let me know what you think. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:44 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Do you have a current progress set of plans that shows the work being proposed that I could look at? I think that would help in getting a better understanding and providing the appropriate response. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 20 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:00 PM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, I’m in the process of putting together a demo plan to remove the Hyde adobe currently located at the site of the future Palm Nipomo garage. My intent is to simply remove the vertical components of the adobe structure itself without touching any of the other existing features or structures. I would direct contractors to plug or cap existing utilities at the foundation, which would also remain in place. In addition I’m planning on stabilizing the site for safety concerns and potential erosion until the garage project is funded at which point the rest of the property would be demo’ed along with the rest of the site. Can you provide some guidance regarding submitting the plan for a demo permit and provide estimated review times for permit issuance? I am hoping the demo can take place in August or September and will have a Plan Set ready by the end of the month. Please let me know what you think Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 ._may y Building & Saf_ety Division Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 #1 IDENTIFY YOUR BUILDING PROJECT Property Address; 614 MONTEREY STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Property Owner: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Owner's Mailing Address: 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Construction Permit Application T 805.781.7180 F 805.781.7182 sessor's Parcel # 002 _ 412 _ 012 Phone: (805) 781-7100 ❑✓ Licensed Design Professional In Responsible Charge or ❑Non -Licensed Designer (when allowed by statutes): Name: SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE (RRM DESIGN GROUP) License No. PE CIVIL - 78227 Address: 3765 SOUTH HIGUERA ST., SUITE 102, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 543-1794 Description of work; DEMOLITION OF HEYD ADOBE BUILDING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET Dwelling Units: 1 Occupancy Group: Const Type Fire Sprinklers Project Value $ Floor Area (Sq. Ft): Living 1,372 Garage Deck Other Permit Types Required: ❑Building ❑Mechanical ❑Electrical ❑Plumbing ❑Grading-C.Y ❑✓ Demolition Select Plan Check Consultant: ❑CCC ❑WILLDAN ❑BUREAU VERITAS #2 IDENTIFY WHO WILL PERFORM THE WORK (Select and Complete either2a or2b) ❑ 2a —CALIFORNIA LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. Contractor Name: License Class License No. ❑ 2b — OWNER -BUILDER'S DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the Contractors' State License Law for the reason(s) indicated below by the checkmark(s) I have placed next to the applicable item(s) (Section 7031.5, Business and Professions Code: Any city or county that requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for the permit to file a signed statement that he or she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractors' State License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he or she is exempt from licensure and the basis for the alleged exemption. An violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500).): bl, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do ❑all of or❑portions of the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. (Section 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors' State License Law does not apply to an owner of property who, through employees' or personal effort, builds or improves the property, provided that the improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the Owner -Builder will have the burden of proving that it was not built or improved for the purpose of sale) ❑ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed Contractors to construct the project (Section 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors' State License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for the projects with a licensed Contractor pursuant to the Contractors' State License Law). ❑ I am exempt from licensure under the Contractors' State License Law for the following reason: By my signature below I acknowledge that, except for my personal residence in which I must have resided for at least one year prior to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I cannot legally sell a structure that I have built as an owner -builder if it has not been constructed in its entirety by licensed contractors. I understand that a copy of the applicable law is available upon request or at htti2:llwww.leginto.ca.govicalaw.htmi. #3 IDENTIFY WORKERS' COMPENSTATION COVERAGE AND LENDING AGENCY (Complete 3a and 3b) WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000, in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in section 3706 of the labor code, interest, and attorney's fees. 3a -WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: ❑I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self -insure for workers' compensation, issued by the Director of Industrial Relations provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Policy No. ❑I have and will maintain workers' compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Carrier Policy No Expiration Date Phone ❑ I certify that, in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, 1 shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation laws of California, and agree that, if I should become subject to the workers' compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply with those provisions. 3b - CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Section 3097, Civil Code) as follows: Lender's Name and #4 DECLARATION BY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICANT By my signature below, I certify each of the following: I am❑a California licensed contractor or❑the property owner* or❑authorized to act on the property owner's behalf". I have read this permit application and the information I have provided is correct. I agree to comply with applicable city and county ordinances and state laws relating to building construction. I authorize re resentatives of this city or county to enter the above -identified property for inspection purposes. This permit is to be issued in the name of the Licensed Contractor or❑the Property Owner as the permit holder of record who will be responsible and liable for the construction. Print Name Signature Date *requires separate verification form **requires separate authorization form APPLICATION # Revised 2014 xxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx 20 1 0. 0 0 se t p c 20 2 0. 0 0 se t p c 20 3 0. 0 0 se t p c 20 4 0. 0 0 se t p cGMEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGGARAGECONC DWCONCCONC60" PINE40" PINE22" TREE20" TREE14" TREE8" PINE4" TREE6" TREE5" TREE8" PALM7" TREE10" PALM10" PALM3" TREE3" TREE3" TREE3" TREE3" TREE3" TREE4" TREE4" TREE10" TREE3" TREE18" TREE10" TREE4" TREE10" TREE3" TREE20" TREE3" TREE20520020020320 0 1 9 5190188188 190192195195195190190191 191190190 190191191192193191200 200196197 1 9 8 201200201199 193190189190192LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 AREA OF DISTURBANCE:0 ACRES MAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT:0 FEET MAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT:0 FEET RAW CUT:0 CUBIC YARDS RAW FILL:0 CUBIC YARDS ADJUSTED FILL: (ASSUMED 15% SHRINKAGE)0 CUBIC YARDS NET QUANTITY:0 CUBIC YARDS EXPORT N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-1.x Title and General Notes.dwg, C-1.1, Mar 30, 2021 2:27pm, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SETREPORT NAME: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT: PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATER DATE:DECEMBER 13, 2019 (REVISED JANUARY 7, 2020) PREPARER:NICK ZOETEWEY LICENSE:C-79891 FIRM:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 4378 OLD SANTA FE ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: (805) 544-3276 THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PROJECT BEING CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BENCHMARK NO. 372, A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET (15 M) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 190.00 FEET (NAVD88). GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: SCOTT K. YOSHIDA, P.E. C-78227 THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE CENTERLINE OF NIPOMO STREET BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS, BEARING BEING N36°15'10"W PER R1. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE HEYD ADOBE LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET. THE DEMOLITION WILL INCLUDE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, WALLS, ROOF AND ASSOCIATED ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES. THE EXISTING BUILDING FOUNDATION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE. THE EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES INCLUDING WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE TURNED OFF AS NEEDED, CUT AND CAPPED AT THE BUILDING. THE ON-SITE PAVERS, PATIO, CONCRETE, TREES, SHRUBS AND ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS WILL REMAIN. NO GROUND DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED. CITY PROJECT NUMBER: ____________________________ THERE IS NO GROUND DISTURBANCE PROPOSED WITH THIS PROJECT, THEREFORE IT IS EXEMPT FROM THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SHEET INDEX PROJECT DESCRIPTION BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARING STORMWATER COMPLIANCE 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANTITLE SHEETC-1.1 MARS H PACIFI C OLN TAIN BROADHILLU.S.101HIGHWAYHIGU E R A MONT E R E Y PEA C H MOU N HILL SAN TA RO SA PAL M MILL NIPOMO MILL PAL M MONT E R E YBRIZZOLARA DAN A GARDEN OSO S MORROCHORROHIG UE R A COURTBROADWAL N UT MORROOSO SLINC JOHN SONPEPP ER PISM O SAN TA RO SA ENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE APPROVAL BY THE CITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE ACCURACY NOR COMPLETENESS OF THESE PLANS. IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE OWNER TO BUILD THE PROJECT HEREON. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT APPEAR DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVED OR MODIFIED BY NOTES ON THESE PLANS. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE SUBMITTALS AS REQUIRED IN THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS. NOTICE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:REVISIONS DESCRIPTION CITY FILE NO.SHEET OF DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB NO. DATE APPROVAL ENGR CITY 1 DATE SAN LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC WORKS BY: 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBE DEMOLITION PLAN KWA SKY 0720-02-UR19 PROJECT SITE NOT TO SCALE CIVIL SHEETS C-1.1 TITLE SHEET C-2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-2.2 DEMOLITION PLAN C-8.0 EROSION CONTROL NOTES C-8.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-9.1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL C-9.2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL C-9.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS: AUGUST 2020 EDITION ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES: 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 2019 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC) TITLE 24, PART 1 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) TITLE 24, PART 2 CCR BASED ON 2012 IBC AND 2016 CA AMENDMENTS 2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARD CODE TITLE 24, PART 12 CCR EARTHWORK QUANTITIES PALM STREET NIPOMO STREETDANA STREET MONTEREY STREET PROJECT SITE APN 002-412-012 (614 MONTEREY STREET) APN'S AND ADDRESSES 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBE DEMOLITION PLAN PROJECT SITE IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT" (U.S.A.) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER, TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE SHALL ALSO CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V., WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. 1.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL START WITHOUT PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONSTRUCTION DONE WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS OR PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BE REJECTED AND WILL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S AND/OR OWNER'S RISK. 2.A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE PERTINENT CITY STAFF. AS A MINIMUM, THE ASSIGNED BUILDING INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER, AND CONTRACT PLANNER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THIS MEETING TO DISCUSS THE LIMIT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CORRESPONDING INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES. 3.ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 4.ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT (SEE TITLE SHEET FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CONTACT AND REPORT DETAILS). 5.RECORD PLANS ARE TO BE PREPARED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARING THE RECORD PLANS SHALL BE PRESENT WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION IS MADE. 6.AN INSPECTION AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 7.FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY, IF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD/STATE, OR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL EITHER SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL SUCH COMPLETED PERMITS TO THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OR DOCUMENT THAT THE REGULATORY AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT SAID PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED; PRIOR TO TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. ANY MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIRED BY SAID PERMIT WILL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER. 8.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES AND WERE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. 9.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10.CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF FORTY-EIGHT WORKING HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO TEN WORKING DAYS. 11.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCATING OR HAVING LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND RELATED FACILITIES AND FOR PROTECTING SAME DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT A MEMBER OF USA MUST ALSO BE NOTED. 12.A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WORK REQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDERDRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREET TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION OR CONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 13.CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT (805) 781-7200 WITH AT LEAST A 48 HOUR NOTICE FOR ANY REQUIRED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTIONS OR FINAL INSPECTIONS. 14.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LEGIBLE AND COMPLETE SET OF PLANS IDENTIFYING ALL MODIFICATIONS MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR THE RECORD DRAWINGS. 15.ANY PROPOSED DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, INCLUDING FIELD REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR. 16.THE DESIGN OF THE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS IS BASED ON THE CITY'S RECORD INFORMATION (SURVEYS AND DRAWINGS). IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IS AWARDED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE RELATIVE ELEVATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS AND NOTIFY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ELEVATIONS WILL THEN BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, AND A REVISED SET FURNISHED TO THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REQUIRED REWORK IF CONSTRUCTION BEGINS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SPECIFIED ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFYING THE DESIGN ENGINEER. 17.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OR PROPER RESETTING OF ALL EXISTING MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEY MARKERS. ANY SURVEY MONUMENTS DESTROYED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND CITY STANDARDS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 18.ALL PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS SHALL BE IN PLACE AND IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION REQUEST. 19.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 20.A COMPACTION REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A SOILS ENGINEER STATING THAT THE BASE AND SUBGRADE WERE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SOILS REPORT OR THE CITY PARKING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS. 21.IF DE-WATERING IS REQUIRED, A LOW THREAT DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM CITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MAY BE REQUIRED. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE. 23.THE CITY INSPECTOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY REQUIRE REVISIONS IN THE PLANS TO SOLVE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE FIELD. REVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER. 24.ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 25.DIGITAL DRAWINGS OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL PROVIDED TO SURVEY FOR PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL NOTES AND DETAILS PRESENTED ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES SHEETS. GENERAL NOTES 1.THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE PREPARATION PLAN (DEMOLITION PLAN) WAS PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ARCHITECT AND THE ENGINEER DO NOT REPRESENT THAT ALL ITEMS WHICH MAY REQUIRE DEMOLITION HAVE BEEN SHOWN. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE SITE AND DETERMINE WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK. 2.DEMOLITION WORK AND ABANDONMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. 3.NO DEMOLITION SHALL BE STARTED WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS. THE OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING DEMOLITION. 4.THE PLANS DO NOT AUTHORIZE SITE DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE LIMITS AS REPRESENTED ON THESE PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE ALL ITEMS DAMAGED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER STORAGE OF ANY ITEMS TO BE RELOCATED. 7. ALL ITEMS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ANY ITEMS AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER. 8. ALL DEBRIS FROM THE DEMOLITION PROCESS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO AN APPROVED DUMP SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD DISTURB THAT MATERIAL BY A LICENSED ABATEMENT CONTRACTOR. 10. IF ASBESTOS IS FOUND IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED, THEN ASBESTOS MUST BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES OR REQUIREMENTS. REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A CONTRACTOR LICENSED TO HANDLE ASBESTOS MATERIAL. 11. ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, VEHICULAR WAYS, SIDEWALKS, AND HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND CLEAR OF DEBRIS, DIRT AND DUST IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY. AT A MINIMUM, THESE AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN A "STOP WORK" NOTICE. SAID NOTICE WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE AREA HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY CLEANED. THE FLUSHING OF DIRT OR DEBRIS INTO STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. 12. ALL ABANDONED UTILITIES SHALL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD AND LOCATED ON THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WILL BE SUPPLIED TO BOTH THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE OWNER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEMOLITION WORK. 13. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES SURVEYS. UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY REMOVE THOSE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SPECIFICALLY NOTED FOR REMOVAL. DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES TO REMAIN SHALL BE CORRECTED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 15. THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 16. CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO 10 WORKING DAYS. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT INTERRUPT ANY SERVICES OR DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF ADJACENT BUSINESSES, RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR ON-SITE FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. 20. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL WOOD, CONCRETE, AC PAVING, AGGREGATE BASE, AND VEGETATION AS SHOWN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 21. REMOVE TREES, TOGETHER WITH THE BULK OF THE ROOTS, TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 FEET BELOW EXISTING GRADE AND WITHIN A RADIUS OF 7 FEET BEYOND THE PERIMETER OF THE TRUNK AT GROUND LINE. 22. FILL AND COMPACT HOLES RESULTING FROM TREES AND TREE STUMP REMOVAL TO REQUIRED DENSITY. FILLING SHALL NOT BE DONE UNTIL HOLES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 23. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY APCD. 24. CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIALS PER CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT. 25. PROTECT EXISTING FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 26. TREE REMOVALS MAY REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARBORIST. CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST TO REVIEW ANY PROPOSAL FOR TREE REMOVALS AND TO INITIATE AN APPLICATION FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF APPLICABLE. 27. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURING ALL DEMOLITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. DEMOLITION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS AB AGGREGATE BASE AC ASPHALT CONCRETE AP ANGLE POINT ARV AIR RELEASE VALVE BCR BEGIN CURVE BW BACK OF WALK CB CATCH BASIN CL/CL.CENTERLINE/CLASS CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONC.CONCRETE DBH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT [OF A TREE] DI DRAIN INLET DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE EG EXISTING GRADE EX.EXISTING ELEV ELEVATION FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE FP FINISHED PAD FW FIRE WATER HP HIGH POINT IPS IRON PIPE SIZE JT JOINT TRENCH LP LOW POINT EL.MAXIMUM MIN.MINIMUM NTS NOT TO SCALE PL PROPERTY LINE PCL PARCEL PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE POC POINT OF CURVE/POINT OF CONNECTION POT POINT OF TANGENT PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVE ROW RIGHT OF WAY RET. WALL RETAINING WALL RP REDUCED PRESSURE RW RECYCLED WATER SD STORM DRAIN SFM SEWER FORCE MAIN SL STREET LIGHT/SERVICE LATERAL SS SANITARY SEWER STA STATION STD.STANDARD TBD TO BE DETERMINED TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK TC TOP OF CURB TF TOP OF FOOTING TP TOP OF PAVEMENT TG TOP OF GRATE TYP.TYPICAL TW TOP OF WALL UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED W WATER WSE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION REMODELING OR DEMOLITION OF PRE-1978 STRUCTURES WITHOUT USING LEAD SAFE WORK PRACTICES IS A VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105256. CONTRACTORS, REMODELERS AND PAINTERS ARE REQUIRED TO USE “LEAD-SAFE” WORK PRACTICES PURSUANT TO TITLE 17, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 36050. 8 UTILITY NOTES 1.UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ACCURATE TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE RECORDS AND KNOWLEDGE. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES WHEN WORKING IN THEIR PROXIMITY. PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY POINTS OF CONNECTION AND ELEVATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, ETC., PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK. 2.THE DRY UTILITY SERVICE LINES AND BOXES SHOWN IN THESE PLANS ARE SCHEMATIC AND BASED ON PROVIDED PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE FINAL PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER AND VERIFY THE FINAL ALIGNMENT PER THEIR APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE SERVICE WIRE THROUGH THE CONDUIT RUNS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE SHOWN EQUIPMENT. A PART)APN: 002-412-011(NOT A PART)614 MONTEREY APN: 002-412-012 N53°05'37"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.52'N53°21'08"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.26'N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-2.1 Existing Conditions.dwg, C-2.1, Mar 30, 2021 3:28pm, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET0 feet20 SCALE: 1" = 10' 10 30 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANEXISTING CONDITIONSC-2.1 PP T CO IV FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE WATER METER DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE IRRIGATION VALVE GAS METER SEWER MANHOLE SEWER CLEANOUT STREET/PARKING LIGHT POWER POLE GUY WIRE TELEPHONE MANHOLE PARKING METER SIGN CURB CURB & GUTTER RETAINING WALL FENCE AC BERM EDGE OF PAVEMENT WATER LINE GAS LINE BRICK/STONE SLB STREET LIGHT BOX TEL TELEPHONE BOX/VAULT PED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PGE ELECTRICAL BOX/VAULT TRANS ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER CATV CABLE TELEVISION BOX UTIL UTILITY BOX/VAULT WM GM LEGEND NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FROM DAMAGE BY HEAVY LOADING AND/OR EQUIPMENT DURING THE COURSE OF DEMOLITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INCURRED DURING AND/OR DUE TO THE DEMOLITION WORK, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 2.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING 811 OR 1-800-642-2444 BEFORE ANY TRENCHING OR EXCAVATION WORK. 3.ALL EXISTING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCES TO BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED BY CONTRACTOR. 4.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE UTILITY SERVICES TO BE TURNED OFF AS NEEDED, CUT, STUBBED, CAPPED, AND ABANDONED IN PLACE AT THE BUILDNG. 5.NO GROUND DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED. DEMOLITION NOTES PROTECT EXISTING ON-SITE PAVERS, PATIO, AND CONCRETE. PROTECT EXISTING ON-SITE TREES AND SHRUBS. PROTECT EXISTING ON-SITE RETAINING WALL. PROTECT EXISTING FENCING. PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES. DEMOLISH AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE, WALLS, ROOF, AND ASSOCIATED ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES. FOUNDATION TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE. TURN OFF ALL EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES INCLUDING WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS, CUT, STUB AND CAP AT THE BUILDING (TYP). PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCING. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STRUCTURE STATISTICS BUILT IN 1939 1,372 SF HOUSE 3 BEDROOMS 1 BATHROOM XXXX7 7 4 6 7 1 3 3 1 1 N53°05'37"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.52'N53°21'08"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.26'3 4 5 5 5 N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-2.2 Demolition.dwg, C-2.2, Mar 30, 2021 2:40pm, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET0 feet20 SCALE: 1" = 10' 10 30 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANDEMOLITION PLANC-2.2 THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE HEYD ADOBE LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET. THE DEMOLITION WILL INCLUDE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, WALLS, ROOF AND ASSOCIATED ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES. THE EXISTING BUILDING FOUNDATION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE. THE EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES INCLUDING WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE TURNED OFF AS NEEDED, CUT AND CAPPED AT THE BUILDING. THE ON-SITE PAVERS, PATIO, CONCRETE, TREES, SHRUBS AND ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS WILL REMAIN. NO GROUND DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED. CITY PROJECT NUMBER: ____________________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION PP T CO IV FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE WATER METER DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE IRRIGATION VALVE GAS METER SEWER MANHOLE SEWER CLEANOUT STREET/PARKING LIGHT POWER POLE GUY WIRE TELEPHONE MANHOLE PARKING METER SIGN CURB CURB & GUTTER RETAINING WALL FENCE AC BERM EDGE OF PAVEMENT WATER LINE GAS LINE BRICK/STONE SLB STREET LIGHT BOX TEL TELEPHONE BOX/VAULT PED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PGE ELECTRICAL BOX/VAULT TRANS ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER CATV CABLE TELEVISION BOX UTIL UTILITY BOX/VAULT WM GM LEGEND OF THE MONITOR SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND APCD. AIR QUALITY CONTROL NOTES NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP EROSION CONTROL DETAILS DRAIN INLET TO HAVE FILTER FABRIC OR BASKET DRAIN INLET TO HAVE FILTER FABRIC OR BASKET 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANEROSION CONTROL NOTESC-8.0 PROJECT SITE SWPPP BMP LEGEND SILT FENCE STRAW WATTLE GRAVEL BAGS STREET SWEEPING/VACUUMING STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION (SEE PHASING NOTES ON C-8.0) HYDROSEEDING STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH WHEEL WASH AREA MATERIAL DELIVERY/STORAGE AREA CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA SE-1 SE-5 SE-6 SE-7 SE-10 EC-4 TC-1 WM-1 WM-8 002-412-012 N53°05'37"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.52'N53°21'08"E 59.00'N36°23'10"W 140.26'XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXN:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-8.1 Erosion Control.dwg, C-8.1, Mar 30, 2021 2:42pm, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET0 feet20 SCALE: 1" = 10' 10 30 614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANEROSION CONTROL PLANC-8.1 PP T CO IV FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE WATER METER DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE IRRIGATION VALVE GAS METER SEWER MANHOLE SEWER CLEANOUT STREET/PARKING LIGHT POWER POLE GUY WIRE TELEPHONE MANHOLE PARKING METER SIGN CURB CURB & GUTTER RETAINING WALL FENCE AC BERM EDGE OF PAVEMENT WATER LINE GAS LINE BRICK/STONE SLB STREET LIGHT BOX TEL TELEPHONE BOX/VAULT PED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PGE ELECTRICAL BOX/VAULT TRANS ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER CATV CABLE TELEVISION BOX UTIL UTILITY BOX/VAULT WM GM LEGEND N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.1, Mar 30, 2021 10:37am, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.1 DEMOLITION RELATED CONDITIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE: N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.2, Mar 30, 2021 10:38am, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE: N:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 0 - 614 Monterey Heyd Adobe\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.3, Mar 30, 2021 10:39am, skyoshidaPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 03/30/2021 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2021. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY KWA SKY PRELIMI N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROGRESS SET614 MONTEREY - HEYD ADOBEDEMOLITION PLANCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE: 21 From:Hussey, Gaven Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 4:10 PM To:Fuchs, Alexander Subject:Palm-Nipomo Building Removal Attachments:CAR - Heyd Adobe Removal.doc Hi Alex, Please take a look and be brutal. It needs a lot of work. Gaven Hussey Parking Program Manager Public Works 1260 Chorro, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ghussey@slocity.org T 805.781.7234 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 22 From:Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:54 PM To:Yoshida, Scott K. Cc:Burde, Richard Subject:RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe We'll have everything out today. Unfortunately PG&E have cut my power but should be back up in the next hour. Gordon Knowles | Senior Project Manager WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA | Irvine, CA | Dallas, TX | Toll Free 833.917.PARK watrydesign.com On Mar 19, 2021 13:52, "Yoshida, Scott K." <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> wrote: Yes, after our call/emails I sent it to Gordon last week for processing. I thought it was already forwarded to you. Once received from Gordon, we would like to request your email authorization to proceed by Wednesday (3/24). We tentatively have the work scheduled for the end of next week and wrapping up early the week following. We would need your green light to get started, this would target getting you a progress set for review by Wed (3/31). SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE, QSD/P Manager of Engineering Services 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com From: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 1:27 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Cc: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Subject: RE: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe Hi Richard. I believe we have had the information from Scott. I will have this processed and over to asap. Gordon Knowles | Senior Project Manager WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA | Irvine, CA | Dallas, TX | Toll Free 833.917.PARK watrydesign.com On Mar 19, 2021 13:22, "Burde, Richard" <rburde@slocity.org> wrote: 23 Hi Scott, Can you please provide an update regarding the proposal? During our call on the 4 th we discussed having the demo plan ready for review by the end of the month, is this still the case? Thanks From: Burde, Richard Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:25 PM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe Scott, I think you’ve got it! Thanks From: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:20 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Richard, Following-up on our conference call, I have prepared a draft scope of work for the Heyd Adobe demolition plan and application. See below for your review and input. I wanted to make sure we are on the same page moving forward before adding the fees and finalizing the ASA for your approval. Review the exclusions listed, as I 24 assumed they were either not applicable, would be provided to us and/or handled directly by the City. Please confirm that you concur with the exclusions list, or identify any that you would like to be included. Let me know if you would like anything added or changed. Task XC.6: Demolition Plan – Heyd Adobe 614 Monterey Street This task includes preparing the demolition plan for the existing Heyd Adobe located at 614 Monterey Street. Per direction from the City, only the above ground building structure and associated appurtenances will be demolished and properly removed from the site. The existing utility services including water, sewer, gas, electric and communications will be turned off as needed, cut and capped at the building. It is understood that the City desires the site disturbance to be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the building foundation, on-site pavers, patio, concrete, trees, shrubs and on-site retaining walls will not be a part of the demolition plan. They will remain protected and preserved in place until a later date associated with the Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure Phase 1 on-site demolition. Tree protection fencing will be added to the plan to delineate the areas intended to be protected. Also, notes will be added to the demolition plan to indicate that any on-site areas that are disturbed by the demolition work will be cleaned-up, compacted as needed and adequately stabilized using appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Instead of book specifications, it is assumed all notes will be added to the plans. Deliverables:  Title sheet  Demolition Plan and Notes Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Task XC.7: Coordination This task includes coordinating with the City, preparing the demolition permit application, preparing the submittal package, and plan check processing. This task assumes receiving one round of plan check comments from the City, along with time associated with reviewing and responding the plan check comments. The additional work includes:  Coordination with City (assumes two 30 minute conference calls)  City of San Luis Obispo Building Permit Application Form – filled out for demolition permit for existing single-family residence on-site  Reviewing and responding to one round of plan check comments, making plan set updates 25 Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Fee Footnote Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed” (T&M/NTE) establish the maximum that will be billed for each task. Amounts billed will reflect actual hours and will not exceed the maximum amount shown without prior approval by the Client. EXCLUSIONS The following services or tasks are specifically excluded from the scope:  Engineering other than specifically listed  Geotechnical Engineering and Report  Structural Engineering  Book specifications  Engineering Cost Estimate  Demolition contract cost  Demolition notification form  Coordination with utility companies  Utility company signatures, abandonment sign-off form  Coordination with San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCO APCD) for asbestos testing requirements.  Asbestos consultant, contractor, testing, and results  Contractor contact information, license number, type, and expiration date  Fees Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss. My direct line it: (805) 903-1221. Regards, 26 SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE, QSD/P Manager of Engineering Services 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:38 AM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: FW: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Scott, I checked in with our building department about the requirements for the adobe demo plans. Seems pretty simple, see the response below. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:22 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Thanks for sending this over and for the explanation. To recap what I’m reading, the plan would be to demo everything above grade (walls, roof) and cap utilities either within or just outside the current building footprint. Is this correct? In terms of plans, just a site plan, enlarged site plan clearly depicting scope of work and any Planning conditions from the Council action. I would think the August/ September timeframe is definitely doable on our part for review once the plans are received. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Richard, 27 Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:08 AM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Mark, Originally this work was going to be done along with the rest of the site demo, attached is the plan set that covers this work along with the rest of the site prep (grading and some utility instillation). The project was originally suppose to start last fall but COVID has delayed construction until the parking fund can recover, likely 2022 – 23. The removal of the Adobe was a hot button issue for some community members and we want to move forward with the demo asap while Council’s approval to demolish it is still relatively fresh. I think that the concern is that if too much time passes we will have to rehash the issue and open ourselves up to more debate and delay. Attached is the most recent plan set that was prepared, I have identified the limits of work for the adobe removal on sheet C-2.1. Again the idea is to do as little as possible, just removing the vertical portion of the building is what I have in mind. If it would help streamline the process I can set a meeting with you and RRM to discuss what you would be expecting to see on the final demo plan. Please let me know what you think. Thanks 28 From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:44 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Do you have a current progress set of plans that shows the work being proposed that I could look at? I think that would help in getting a better understanding and providing the appropriate response. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:00 PM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, 29 I’m in the process of putting together a demo plan to remove the Hyde adobe currently located at the site of the future Palm Nipomo garage. My intent is to simply remove the vertical components of the adobe structure itself without touching any of the other existing features or structures. I would direct contractors to plug or cap existing utilities at the foundation, which would also remain in place. In addition I’m planning on stabilizing the site for safety concerns and potential erosion until the garage project is funded at which point the rest of the property would be demo’ed along with the rest of the site. Can you provide some guidance regarding submitting the plan for a demo permit and provide estimated review times for permit issuance? I am hoping the demo can take place in August or September and will have a Plan Set ready by the end of the month. Please let me know what you think Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 On Mar 19, 2021 13:22, "Burde, Richard" <rburde@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Scott, Can you please provide an update regarding the proposal? During our call on the 4 th we discussed having the demo plan ready for review by the end of the month, is this still the case? Thanks 30 From: Burde, Richard Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:25 PM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe Scott, I think you’ve got it! Thanks From: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:20 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Richard, Following-up on our conference call, I have prepared a draft scope of work for the Heyd Adobe demolition plan and application. See below for your review and input. I wanted to make sure we are on the same page moving forward before adding the fees and finalizing the ASA for your approval. Review the exclusions listed, as I assumed they were either not applicable, would be provided to us and/or handled directly by the City. Please confirm that you concur with the exclusions list, or identify any that you would like to be included. Let me know if you would like anything added or changed. Task XC.6: Demolition Plan – Heyd Adobe 614 Monterey Street This task includes preparing the demolition plan for the existing Heyd Adobe located at 614 Monterey Street. Per direction from the City, only the above ground building structure and associated appurtenances will be demolished and properly removed from the site. The existing utility services including water, sewer, gas, electric and communications will be turned off as needed, cut and capped at the building. It is 31 understood that the City desires the site disturbance to be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the building foundation, on-site pavers, patio, concrete, trees, shrubs and on-site retaining walls will not be a part of the demolition plan. They will remain protected and preserved in place until a later date associated with the Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure Phase 1 on-site demolition. Tree protection fencing will be added to the plan to delineate the areas intended to be protected. Also, notes will be added to the demolition plan to indicate that any on-site areas that are disturbed by the demolition work will be cleaned-up, compacted as needed and adequately stabilized using appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Instead of book specifications, it is assumed all notes will be added to the plans. Deliverables:  Title sheet  Demolition Plan and Notes Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Task XC.7: Coordination This task includes coordinating with the City, preparing the demolition permit application, preparing the submittal package, and plan check processing. This task assumes receiving one round of plan check comments from the City, along with time associated with reviewing and responding the plan check comments. The additional work includes:  Coordination with City (assumes two 30 minute conference calls)  City of San Luis Obispo Building Permit Application Form – filled out for demolition permit for existing single-family residence on-site  Reviewing and responding to one round of plan check comments, making plan set updates Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Fee Footnote Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed” (T&M/NTE) establish the maximum that will be billed for each task. Amounts billed will reflect actual hours and will not exceed the maximum amount shown without prior approval by the Client. 32 EXCLUSIONS The following services or tasks are specifically excluded from the scope:  Engineering other than specifically listed  Geotechnical Engineering and Report  Structural Engineering  Book specifications  Engineering Cost Estimate  Demolition contract cost  Demolition notification form  Coordination with utility companies  Utility company signatures, abandonment sign-off form  Coordination with San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCO APCD) for asbestos testing requirements.  Asbestos consultant, contractor, testing, and results  Contractor contact information, license number, type, and expiration date  Fees Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss. My direct line it: (805) 903-1221. Regards, SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE, QSD/P Manager of Engineering Services 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com 33 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:38 AM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: FW: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Scott, I checked in with our building department about the requirements for the adobe demo plans. Seems pretty simple, see the response below. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:22 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Thanks for sending this over and for the explanation. To recap what I’m reading, the plan would be to demo everything above grade (walls, roof) and cap utilities either within or just outside the current building footprint. Is this correct? In terms of plans, just a site plan, enlarged site plan clearly depicting scope of work and any Planning conditions from the Council action. I would think the August/ September timeframe is definitely doable on our part for review once the plans are received. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor 34 Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:08 AM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Mark, Originally this work was going to be done along with the rest of the site demo, attached is the plan set that covers this work along with the rest of the site prep (grading and some utility instillation). The project was originally suppose to start last fall but COVID has delayed construction until the parking fund can recover, likely 2022 – 23. The removal of the Adobe was a hot button issue for some community members and we want to move forward with the demo asap while Council’s approval to demolish it is still relatively fresh. I think that the concern is that if too much time passes we will have to rehash the issue and open ourselves up to more debate and delay. Attached is the most recent plan set that was prepared, I have identified the limits of work for the adobe removal on sheet C-2.1. Again the idea is to do as little as possible, just removing the vertical portion of the building is what I have in mind. If it would help streamline the process I can set a meeting with you and RRM to discuss what you would be expecting to see on the final demo plan. Please let me know what you think. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:44 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe 35 Hi Richard, Do you have a current progress set of plans that shows the work being proposed that I could look at? I think that would help in getting a better understanding and providing the appropriate response. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:00 PM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, I’m in the process of putting together a demo plan to remove the Hyde adobe currently located at the site of the future Palm Nipomo garage. My intent is to simply remove the vertical components of the adobe structure itself without touching any of the other existing features or structures. I would direct contractors to plug or cap existing utilities at the foundation, which would also remain in place. In addition I’m planning on stabilizing the site for safety concerns and potential erosion until the garage project is funded at which point the rest of the property would be demo’ed along with the rest of the site. 36 Can you provide some guidance regarding submitting the plan for a demo permit and provide estimated review times for permit issuance? I am hoping the demo can take place in August or September and will have a Plan Set ready by the end of the month. Please let me know what you think Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 On Mar 19, 2021 13:22, "Burde, Richard" <rburde@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Scott, Can you please provide an update regarding the proposal? During our call on the 4 th we discussed having the demo plan ready for review by the end of the month, is this still the case? Thanks From: Burde, Richard Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:25 PM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe Scott, I think you’ve got it! Thanks From: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:20 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> 37 Cc: Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Heyd Adobe This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Richard, Following-up on our conference call, I have prepared a draft scope of work for the Heyd Adobe demolition plan and application. See below for your review and input. I wanted to make sure we are on the same page moving forward before adding the fees and finalizing the ASA for your approval. Review the exclusions listed, as I assumed they were either not applicable, would be provided to us and/or handled directly by the City. Please confirm that you concur with the exclusions list, or identify any that you would like to be included. Let me know if you would like anything added or changed. Task XC.6: Demolition Plan – Heyd Adobe 614 Monterey Street This task includes preparing the demolition plan for the existing Heyd Adobe located at 614 Monterey Street. Per direction from the City, only the above ground building structure and associated appurtenances will be demolished and properly removed from the site. The existing utility services including water, sewer, gas, electric and communications will be turned off as needed, cut and capped at the building. It is understood that the City desires the site disturbance to be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the building foundation, on-site pavers, patio, concrete, trees, shrubs and on-site retaining walls will not be a part of the demolition plan. They will remain protected and preserved in place until a later date associated with the Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure Phase 1 on-site demolition. Tree protection fencing will be added to the plan to delineate the areas intended to be protected. Also, notes will be added to the demolition plan to indicate that any on-site areas that are disturbed by the demolition work will be cleaned-up, compacted as needed and adequately stabilized using appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Instead of book specifications, it is assumed all notes will be added to the plans. Deliverables:  Title sheet  Demolition Plan and Notes Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Task XC.7: Coordination This task includes coordinating with the City, preparing the demolition permit application, preparing the submittal package, and plan check processing. This task assumes receiving one round of plan check comments from the City, along with time associated with reviewing and responding the plan check comments. The additional work includes:  Coordination with City (assumes two 30 minute conference calls)  City of San Luis Obispo Building Permit Application Form – filled out for demolition permit for existing single-family residence on- site  Reviewing and responding to one round of plan check comments, making plan set updates Estimated Fee: Time and Materials – Not to Exceed (NTE)  $(TBD) (see footnote) Fee Footnote Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed” (T&M/NTE) establish the maximum that will be billed for each task. Amounts billed will reflect actual hours and will not exceed the maximum amount shown without prior approval by the Client. EXCLUSIONS 38 The following services or tasks are specifically excluded from the scope:  Engineering other than specifically listed  Geotechnical Engineering and Report  Structural Engineering  Book specifications  Engineering Cost Estimate  Demolition contract cost  Demolition notification form  Coordination with utility companies  Utility company signatures, abandonment sign-off form  Coordination with San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCO APCD) for asbestos testing requirements.  Asbestos consultant, contractor, testing, and results  Contractor contact information, license number, type, and expiration date  Fees Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss. My direct line it: (805) 903-1221. Regards, SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE, QSD/P Manager of Engineering Services 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:38 AM To: Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Subject: FW: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Scott, I checked in with our building department about the requirements for the adobe demo plans. Seems pretty simple, see the response below. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:22 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Thanks for sending this over and for the explanation. To recap what I’m reading, the plan would be to demo everything above grade (walls, roof) and cap utilities either within or just outside the current building footprint. Is this correct? In terms of plans, just a site plan, enlarged site plan clearly depicting scope of work and any Planning conditions from the Council action. I would think the August/ September timeframe is definitely doable on our part for review once the plans are received. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks Richard, 39 Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 8:08 AM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Good Morning Mark, Originally this work was going to be done along with the rest of the site demo, attached is the plan set that covers this work along with the rest of the site prep (grading and some utility instillation). The project was originally suppose to start last fall but COVID has delayed construction until the parking fund can recover, likely 2022 – 23. The removal of the Adobe was a hot button issue for some community members and we want to move forward with the demo asap while Council’s approval to demolish it is still relatively fresh. I think that the concern is that if too much time passes w e will have to rehash the issue and open ourselves up to more debate and delay. Attached is the most recent plan set that was prepared, I have identified the limits of work for the adobe removal on sheet C-2.1. Again the idea is to do as little as possible, just removing the vertical portion of the building is what I have in mind. If it would help streamline the process I can set a meeting with you and RRM to discuss what you would be expecting to see on the final demo plan. Please let me know what you think. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:44 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Do you have a current progress set of plans that shows the work being proposed that I could look at? I think that would help in getting a better understanding and providing the appropriate response. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor 40 Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:00 PM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, I’m in the process of putting together a demo plan to remove the Hyde adobe currently located at the site of the future Palm Nipomo garage. My intent is to simply remove the vertical components of the adobe structure itself without touching any of the other existing features or structures. I would direct contractors to plug or cap existing utilities at th e foundation, which would also remain in place. In addition I’m planning on stabilizing the site for safety concerns and potential erosion until the garage project is funded at which point the rest of the property would be demo’ed along with the rest of the site. Can you provide some guidance regarding submitting the plan for a demo permit and provide estimated review times for permit issuance? I am hoping the demo can take place in August or September and will have a Plan Set ready by the end of the month. Please let me know what you think Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 41 From:Burde, Richard Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 8:08 AM To:Sadowski, Mark Subject:RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Attachments:Adobe Removal.pdf Good Morning Mark, Originally this work was going to be done along with the rest of the site demo, attached is the plan set that covers this work along with the rest of the site prep (grading and some utility instillation). The project was originally suppose to start last fall but COVID has delayed construction until the parking fund can recover, likely 2022 – 23. The removal of the Adobe was a hot button issue for some community members and we want to move forward with the demo asap while Council’s approval to demolish it is still relatively fresh. I think that the concern is that if too much time passes we will have to rehash the issue and open ourselves up to more debate and delay. Attached is the most recent plan set that was prepared, I have identified the limits of work for the adobe removal on sheet C-2.1. Again the idea is to do as little as possible, just removing the vertical portion of the building is what I have in mind. If it would help streamline the process I can set a meeting with you and RRM to discuss what you would be expecting to see on the final demo plan. Please let me know what you think. Thanks From: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:44 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Richard, Do you have a current progress set of plans that shows the work being proposed that I could look at? I think that would help in getting a better understanding and providing the appropriate response. Thanks Richard, Mark Sadowski Building & Safety Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E msadowski@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 C 805.431.7162 slocity.org 42 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:00 PM To: Sadowski, Mark <msadowsk@slocity.org> Subject: Demo Permit for the Hyde adobe Hi Mark, I’m in the process of putting together a demo plan to remove the Hyde adobe currently located at the site of the future Palm Nipomo garage. My intent is to simply remove the vertical components of the adobe structure itself without touching any of the other existing features or structures. I would direct contractors to plug or cap existing utilities at the foundation, which would also remain in place. In addition I’m planning on stabilizing the site for safety concerns and potential erosion until the garage project is funded at which point the rest of the property would be demo’ed along with the rest of the site. Can you provide some guidance regarding submitting the plan for a demo permit and provide estimated review times for permit issuance? I am hoping the demo can take place in August or September and will have a Plan Set ready by the end of the month. Please let me know what you think Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 AREA OF DISTURBANCE:1.2 ACRESMAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT:18 FEETMAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT:3 FEETRAW CUT:15,300 CUBIC YARDSRAW FILL:1,430 CUBIC YARDSADJUSTED FILL:(ASSUMED 15% SHRINKAGE)1,650 CUBIC YARDSNET QUANTITY:13,650 CUBIC YARDS EXPORTTHE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRICDIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUETO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC.THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES.APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OFCONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPEHINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADSFOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-1.X Title and General Notes.dwg, C-1.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREPORT NAME: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT: PALM-NIPOMOSTREET PARKING STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATERDATE:DECEMBER 13, 2019 (REVISED JANUARY 7, 2020)PREPARER:NICK ZOETEWEYLICENSE:C-79891FIRM:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC4378 OLD SANTA FE ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P: (805) 544-3276THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PROJECT BEING CITY OF SLOBENCHMARK NO. 372, A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLYCURB 50 FEET (15 M) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO &DANA, ELEVATION BEING 190.00 FEET (NAVD88).GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANSCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401(805) 543-1794UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:SCOTT K. YOSHIDA, P.E. C-78227THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE CENTERLINEOF NIPOMO STREET BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS, BEARINGBEING N36°15'10"W PER R1.THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF DEMOLITION, CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING,TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SHORING (BY OTHERS), UNDERGROUNDSTORMWATER STORAGE CHAMBERS FOR THE FUTURE PARKINGSTRUCTURE, SLO REPERTORY THEATRE, LINER BUILDING. FUTURE ON-SITEBUILDINGS, PRECISE GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND FRONTAGEIMPROVEMENTS ARE PART OF PHASE 2 AND UNDER SEPARATE COVER.BUILDING OUTLINES ARE SHOWN HEREIN FOR REFERENCE ONLY ANDARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT.CITY PROJECT NUMBER: __________ (PENDING)THE PROJECT CREATES AND/OR REPLACES GREATER THAN22,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND SUBSEQUENTLYCOMPLIES WITH CENTRAL COAST POST-CONSTRUCTIONSTORMWATER REQUIREMENTS PER RESOLUTION R3-2013-0032.SITE AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 1.2 ACRESWDID NUMBER: __________ (PENDING)VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALESHEET INDEXPROJECT DESCRIPTIONBENCHMARKBASIS OF BEARINGSTORMWATER COMPLIANCEPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey TITLE SHEETC-1.190% SUBMITTAL SET MARSHPACI F IC OLNTAIN BROADHI L L U.S. 101 HIG H W A Y HIGUERAMONTEREYPEACH MOUNHILLSANTA ROSAPALM MI L LNIPOMOMI L L PALMMONT EREY BRI Z Z O L A R A DANAGARDENOSOSMORROCHORROHIGUERA COURTBROADWALNU T MORROOSOSL INC JOHNSONPEPPERPI SMOSANTA ROSAENGINEER OF RECORD:DATEAPPROVAL BY THE CITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE ACCURACY NORCOMPLETENESS OF THESE PLANS. IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE OWNER TO BUILDTHE PROJECT HEREON. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER ANDENGINEER OF RECORD TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT APPEARDURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERINGSTANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY WAIVEDOR MODIFIED BY NOTES ON THESE PLANS. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALLPROVIDE SUBMITTALS AS REQUIRED IN THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS.NOTICEPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONCITY FILE NO.SHEETOFDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB NO.DATEAPPROVALENGRCITYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY UTILITIES ENGINEERRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BYOTHERELECTRIC CO.GAS CO.TELEPHONE CO.TELEVISION CO.OTHER UTILITYDATEDATEDATEDATEDATE115DATEDATEDATEDATEDATESAN LUIS OBISPOPUBLIC WORKS BY:OTHERDATELOTS 1, 2, AND 3 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE CITYPALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 PALM, 970 & 972 NIPOMO, 610, 614, & 630 MONTEREYBLMSKY0720-02-UR19__________(PENDING)PROJECT SITENOT TO SCALECIVIL SHEETSC-1.1TITLE SHEETC-1.2GENERAL NOTESC-2.1EXISTING CONDITIONSC-2.2DEMOLITION PLANC-4.1ROUGH GRADING PLANC-8.0EROSION CONTROL NOTESC-8.1EROSION CONTROL PLANC-9.1CONDITIONS OF APPROVALC-9.2CONDITIONS OF APPROVALC-9.3CONDITIONS OF APPROVALEDP CIVIL SHEETSD-1.0NOTESD-2.0RETAINING WALLS PLAN AND PROFILESD-3.0STORM DRAIN PLAND-4.0DETAIL SHEETD-5.0DETAIL SHEETFUTUREPARKINGSTRUCTUREFUTURE SLOREP THEATREIT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT" (U.S.A.) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 FORTY-EIGHT (48)HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER, TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEESHALL ALSO CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V., WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS:MAY 2018 EDITIONALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES:2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS2019 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC)TITLE 24, PART 1 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR)2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)TITLE 24, PART 2 CCR BASED ON 2012 IBC AND 2016 CA AMENDMENTS2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARD CODETITLE 24, PART 12 CCRGENERAL NOTESEARTHWORK QUANTITIESPALM STREETNIPOMO STREETDANA STREETMONTEREY STREETPROJECT SITEAPN 002-412-001 (609 PALM STREET)APN 002-412-002 (972 NIPOMO STREET)APN 002-412-003 (633 PALM STREET)APN 002-412-004 (630 MONTEREY STREET)APN 002-412-011 (970 NIPOMO STREET & 610 MONTEREY STREET)(2 ADDRESSES ON 1 APN)APN 002-412-012 (614 MONTEREY STREET)APN'S AND ADDRESSES \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-1.X Title and General Notes.dwg, C-1.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL START WITHOUT PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOURHOURS PRIOR TO STARTING OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONSTRUCTION DONE WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS OR PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BEREJECTED AND WILL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S AND/OR OWNER'S RISK.2.A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE COORDINATED BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE PERTINENT CITY STAFF. AS A MINIMUM,THE ASSIGNED BUILDING INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER, AND CONTRACT PLANNER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THIS MEETING TODISCUSS THE LIMIT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CORRESPONDING INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES.3.ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECTTO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.4.ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT (SEE TITLE SHEET FOR GEOTECHNICALENGINEER CONTACT AND REPORT DETAILS).5.RECORD PLANS ARE TO BE PREPARED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARING THE RECORDPLANS SHALL BE PRESENT WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION IS MADE.6.AN INSPECTION AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.7.FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY, IF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE CALIFORNIAREGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD/STATE, OR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL EITHER SUBMIT ACOPY OF ALL SUCH COMPLETED PERMITS TO THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OR DOCUMENT THAT THE REGULATORY AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT SAIDPERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED; PRIOR TO TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. ANYMITIGATION MONITORING REQUIRED BY SAID PERMIT WILL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.8.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTINGUTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES AND WERE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY.9.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR.10.CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF FORTY-EIGHT WORKING HOURS PRIOR TO THE STARTOF CONSTRUCTION. FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO TEN WORKING DAYS.11.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCATING OR HAVING LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDRELATED FACILITIES AND FOR PROTECTING SAME DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT A MEMBER OF USA MUST ALSO BE NOTED.12.A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WORK REQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT ISNOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALKUNDERDRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREET TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION OR CONSTRUCTIONSTAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.13.CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT (805) 781-7200 WITH AT LEAST A 48 HOUR NOTICE FOR ANY REQUIRED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTIONS ORFINAL INSPECTIONS.14.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LEGIBLE AND COMPLETE SET OF PLANS IDENTIFYING ALL MODIFICATIONS MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE DESIGNENGINEER FOR THE RECORD DRAWINGS.15.ANY PROPOSED DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, INCLUDING FIELD REVISIONS REQUESTEDBY THE CITY INSPECTOR.16.THE DESIGN OF THE SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS IS BASED ON THE CITY'S RECORD INFORMATION (SURVEYS AND DRAWINGS). IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACT IS AWARDED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE RELATIVE ELEVATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS AND NOTIFY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. THECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ELEVATIONS WILL THEN BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, AND A REVISED SET FURNISHED TO THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEHELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REQUIRED REWORK IF CONSTRUCTION BEGINS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SPECIFIED ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFYING THE DESIGN ENGINEER.17.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OR PROPER RESETTING OF ALL EXISTING MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEY MARKERS. ANY SURVEYMONUMENTS DESTROYED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND CITY STANDARDS AT THECONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.18.ALL PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS SHALL BE IN PLACE AND IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION REQUEST.19.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AND OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIABUILDING CODE.20.A COMPACTION REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A SOILS ENGINEER STATING THAT THE BASE AND SUBGRADE WERE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECTSOILS REPORT OR THE CITY PARKING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS.21.IF DE-WATERING IS REQUIRED, A LOW THREAT DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM CITY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MAY BE REQUIRED.22.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALPRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.23.THE CITY INSPECTOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY REQUIRE REVISIONS IN THE PLANS TO SOLVE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS THATMAY ARISE IN THE FIELD. REVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER.24.ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THEPUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.25.DIGITAL DRAWINGS OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL PROVIDED TO SURVEY FOR PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION.26.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL NOTES AND DETAILS PRESENTED ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES SHEETS.1.ALL GRADING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY GRADING ORDINANCES, THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING THERETO, THIS PLAN, AND THERECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUPERVISING SOILS ENGINEER.2.ALL EXPORT MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY GRADING INSPECTOR.3.DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY GRADING ORDINANCE AND COUNTY APCD REQUIREMENTS.4.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE JOBSITE AND THAT HE/SHE SHALL AT HIS/HER EXPENSE, REPAIR OR REPLACE TO ORIGINAL CONDITION ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE JOB SITEWHICH ARE DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL AND WHICH ARE DAMAGED OR REMOVED AS A RESULT OF HIS/HER OPERATIONS.5.NO CUT OR FILL SLOPES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED STEEPER THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (2:1). UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.6.MINIMUM DRAINAGE GRADIENT OF 5% IS REQUIRED FOR A MINIMUM OF10' AWAY FROM THE BUILDING PAD/FOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDINGCODES FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS (SEE CBC SECTION 1804.3)7.ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAN 2% SHALL HAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEERPRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.8.SOILS TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL TESTS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO PLACING THEMATERIAL. THE TEST RESULTS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION AND SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL.9.COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE MADE ON SUBGRADE MATERIAL AND MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. SAID TESTS SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO THE PLACING OFTHE NEXT MATERIAL. GRADING AND COMPACTIONS REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER REPORT AND/OR CITYSTANDARDS.10.SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF 95% INTHE ZONE BETWEEN FINISHED SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND ONE FOOT BELOW,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (i.e. BIO-RETENTION AREAS). ALL MATERIAL IN FILL SECTIONS BELOW THE ZONE MENTIONED ABOVE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%RELATIVE COMPACTION.11.FINAL REPORTS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CBC12.DURING CONSTRUCTION/GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING PARTICULATE (DUST) CONTROL MEASURES, THESEMEASURES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE GRADING AND BUILDING PLANS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR OR BUILDER SHALL DESIGNATE A PERSON OR PERSONS TOMONITOR THE DUST CONTROL PROGRAM AND TO ORDER INCREASED WATERING AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT TRANSPORT OF DUST OFF SITE. THEIR DUTIES SHALLINCLUDE HOLIDAY AND WEEKEND PERIODS WHEN WORK MAY NOT BE IN PROGRESS. THE NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE PROVIDED TOTHE APCD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.A. USE OF WATER TRUCKS OR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO PREVENT AIRBORNE DUST FROM LEAVING THE SITE. INCREASED WATERINGFREQUENCY WOULD BE REQUIRED WHENEVER WIND SPEEDS EXCEED 15 MPH. RECLAIMED (NON POTABLE) WATER SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.13.CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES, A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST SITE MONITOR SHALL BE PRESENT DURING SITEDISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. IF EXCAVATIONS ENCOUNTER SIGNIFICANT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES,ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR CULTURAL MATERIALS, THEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY AFFECT THEM SHALL CEASE UNTIL THE EXTENT OF THERESOURCE IS DETERMINED AND APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THE EXTENT AND LOCATION OF DISCOVERED MATERIALS SO THAT THEY MAY BE RECORDED BY A QUALIFIEDARCHAEOLOGIST. IF PRE-HISTORIC NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACTS ARE ENCOUNTERED, A NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR SHOULD BE CALLED IN TO WORK WITH THEARCHAEOLOGIST TO DOCUMENT AND REMOVE THE ITEMS. DISPOSITIONS OF ARTIFACTS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.14.ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SLOPED FOUR HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (4:1) AND GREATER AND AREAS USED TO CONVEY CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE SHALL BEPREPARED AND MAINTAINED TO CONTROL EROSION BY EFFECTIVE PLANTING TO BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO A REQUEST FOR FINALINSPECTION APPROVALS.15.ALL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION SHALL COMPLY AT ALL TIMES WITH ALL CURRENT APCD RULES AND REGULATIONS AS APPLICABLE,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PM-10, NOx EMISSIONS, BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND PHASINGTECHNIQUES.16.A FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF FUEL IS STORED ON-SITE.17.TRACKING ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE MINIMIZED. THE ADJOINING STREET AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE CLEANED BY SWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST,MUD, AND CONSTRUCTION. DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.1.THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE PREPARATION PLAN (DEMOLITION PLAN) WAS PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ARCHITECT ANDTHE ENGINEER DO NOT REPRESENT THAT ALL ITEMS WHICH MAY REQUIRE DEMOLITION HAVE BEEN SHOWN. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TOCAREFULLY EXAMINE THE SITE AND DETERMINE WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK.2.DEMOLITION WORK AND ABANDONMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, AND ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECTTO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.3.NO DEMOLITION SHALL BE STARTED WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS. THE OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING DEMOLITION.4.THE PLANS DO NOT AUTHORIZE SITE DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE LIMITS AS REPRESENTED ON THESE PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE ALL ITEMS DAMAGED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THESATISFACTION OF THE CITY.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER STORAGE OF ANY ITEMS TO BE RELOCATED.7. ALL ITEMS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ANY ITEMS AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER.8. ALL DEBRIS FROM THE DEMOLITION PROCESS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO AN APPROVED DUMP SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.9. ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD DISTURB THAT MATERIAL BY A LICENSED ABATEMENTCONTRACTOR.10. IF ASBESTOS IS FOUND IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED, THEN ASBESTOS MUST BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY, COUNTY,STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES OR REQUIREMENTS. REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A CONTRACTOR LICENSED TO HANDLE ASBESTOSMATERIAL.11. ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, VEHICULAR WAYS, SIDEWALKS, AND HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND CLEAR OF DEBRIS, DIRT AND DUST IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TOTHE CITY. AT A MINIMUM, THESE AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN A "STOP WORK" NOTICE. SAIDNOTICE WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE AREA HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY CLEANED. THE FLUSHING OF DIRT OR DEBRIS INTO STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWERFACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.12. ALL ABANDONED UTILITIES SHALL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD AND LOCATED ON THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WILL BE SUPPLIED TO BOTHTHE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE OWNER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEMOLITION WORK.13. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING UTILITIES ANDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FROM RECORD SOURCES SURVEYS. UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY REMOVE THOSE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SPECIFICALLY NOTED FOR REMOVAL. DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES TO REMAINSHALL BE CORRECTED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.15. THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.16. CONTRACTOR TO TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) TOLL FREE AT (800) 642-2444 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.FOR BEST RESPONSE, PROVIDE AS MUCH NOTICE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO 10 WORKING DAYS.17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT INTERRUPT ANY SERVICES OR DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF ADJACENT BUSINESSES, RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR ON-SITE FACILITIES OUTSIDE THELIMITS OF DEMOLITION.18. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.20. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL WOOD, CONCRETE, AC PAVING, AGGREGATE BASE, AND VEGETATION AS SHOWN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ONTHE PLANS.21. REMOVE TREES, TOGETHER WITH THE BULK OF THE ROOTS, TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 FEET BELOW EXISTING GRADE AND WITHIN A RADIUS OF 7 FEET BEYOND THEPERIMETER OF THE TRUNK AT GROUND LINE.22. FILL AND COMPACT HOLES RESULTING FROM TREES AND TREE STUMP REMOVAL TO REQUIRED DENSITY. FILLING SHALL NOT BE DONE UNTIL HOLES HAVE BEENAPPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.23. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY APCD.24. CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIALS PER CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.25. PROTECT EXISTING FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.26. TREE REMOVALS MAY REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARBORIST. CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST TO REVIEW ANY PROPOSAL FOR TREE REMOVALS AND TO INITIATEAN APPLICATION FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF APPLICABLE.27. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURINGALL DEMOLITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.UTILITY NOTESGENERAL NOTESGRADING NOTESDEMOLITION NOTES1.UTILITIES SHOWN ARE ACCURATE TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE RECORDS AND KNOWLEDGE. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OFEXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES WHEN WORKING IN THEIR PROXIMITY. PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, THECONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY POINTS OF CONNECTION AND ELEVATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OFRECORD IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, ETC., PRIOR TOCONTINUING WORK.2.THE ENGINEERED DRY UTILITY PLANS WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEM. THE ENGINEERED DRY UTILITY PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TOREVIEW FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIORTO COMMENCING ANY ON-SITE OF OFF-SITE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION.3.ALL WATER VALVES THAT ARE DEEPER THAN 4' SHALL BE A EQUIPPED WITH A STEEL VALVE STEM EXTENSION THAT WILL ALLOW VALVE OPERATION WITH STANDARDLENGTH VALVE KEY. VALVE OPERATING NUTS SHALL BE BETWEEN 2' TO 4' BELOW GRADE. THE STEEL VALVE STEM EXTENSION SHALL BE STEEL ONLY BY PIPE LINEPRODUCTS OR APPROVED EQUAL4.THE DRY UTILITY SERVICE LINES AND BOXES SHOWN IN THESE PLANS ARE SCHEMATIC AND BASED ON PROVIDED PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER. THECONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE FINAL PLANS FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDER AND VERIFY THE FINAL ALIGNMENT PER THEIR APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE SERVICE WIRE THROUGH THE CONDUIT RUNS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE SHOWN EQUIPMENT.ABBREVIATIONSABAGGREGATE BASEACASPHALT CONCRETEAPANGLE POINTARVAIR RELEASE VALVEBCRBEGIN CURVEBWBACK OF WALKCBCATCH BASINCL/CL.CENTERLINE/CLASSCMPCORRUGATED METAL PIPECONC.CONCRETEDBHDIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT [OF A TREE]DIDRAIN INLETDIPDUCTILE IRON PIPEEGEXISTING GRADEEX.EXISTINGELEVELEVATIONFDCFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONFGFINISHED GRADEFLFLOWLINEFSFINISHED SURFACEFPFINISHED PADFWFIRE WATERHPHIGH POINTIPSIRON PIPE SIZEJTJOINT TRENCHLPLOW POINTEL.MAXIMUMMIN.MINIMUMNTSNOT TO SCALEPLPROPERTY LINEPCLPARCELPCCPORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEPOCPOINT OF CURVE/POINT OF CONNECTIONPOTPOINT OF TANGENTPRCPOINT OF REVERSE CURVEROWRIGHT OF WAYRET. WALLRETAINING WALLRPREDUCED PRESSURERWRECYCLED WATERSDSTORM DRAINSFMSEWER FORCE MAINSLSTREET LIGHT/SERVICE LATERALSSSANITARY SEWERSTASTATIONSTD.STANDARDTBDTO BE DETERMINEDTBMTEMPORARY BENCHMARKTCTOP OF CURBTFTOP OF FOOTINGTPTOP OF PAVEMENTTGTOP OF GRATETYP.TYPICALTWTOP OF WALLUONUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDWWATERWSEWATER SURFACE ELEVATIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey GENERAL NOTESC-1.290% SUBMITTAL SET APN: 002-411-002 MISSION COLLEGE A PART)APN: 002-421-001SAN LUIS OBISPOCHILDREN'S MUSEUM(NOT A PART)MIXED-USE/ HOTEL(FUTURE PROJECT)APN: 002-421-033LEITCHERBUILDING(NOT A PART)APN: 002-412-013HAYS-LATIMER ADOBE(PRIVATE RESIDENCE)(NOT A PART)APN: 002-412-005APARTMENTS(NOT A PART)APN: 002-401-010REIS FAMILYMORTUARY(NOT A PART)APN: 002-402-015CENTRAL COASTREALTY GROUP(NOT A PART)SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWM WM WM WM WMWMWMWMWMWMWMSSMHRIM = 188.15'INV = 178.1'SSMHRIM = 188.13'INV = 179.4'SSMHRIM = 190.66'INV = 182.8'SSMHRIM = 193.14'INV = 178.5'SDMHRIM = 193.75'SSMHRIM = 202.15'INV = 191.44'12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE12" PALM TREE14" PALM TREE14" PALM TREE16" TREE6" TREE6" TREE16" TREE10" TREE16" TREE16" TREE40" TREE28" TREE36" OAK TREE12" TREE6" TREE3-12" TREES6" TREE12" TREE8" TREE12" TREE6" TREE2-6" TREE6" TREE10" TREEW W W W W W W W W WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWW 64'N53°05'37"E 214.61'N36°28'51"W 279.70'N53°36'43"E 213.48'3333333333333311333334444446665555566107101010888881099999APPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPE SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGX XXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X 10777221010NOTES1.DEMOLITION PLAN APPLIES TO EXISTING ON-SITE COMPONENTS, INFRASTRUCTURE,AND APPURTENANCES ONLY. ALL FRONTAGE AND OFF-SITE ITEMS ARE SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY (SEE NOTE 2).2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO PROPOSED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT PLANSAND DRY UTILITY HANDOUT PACKAGES PREPARED BY PG&E (AND OTHERS) FORALL DEMOLITION WORK ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE, UNDERGROUNDRELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, AND EXTENTS OF PRESERVATION OF EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCES.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS TOREMAIN FROM DAMAGE BY HEAVY LOADING AND/OR EQUIPMENT DURING THECOURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR, AT OWNER'S EXPENSE,AND AND ALL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INCURRED DURING AND/ORDUE TO CONSTRUCTION, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPECTIVE PERMITTINGAGENCY.4.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING 811 OR 1-800-642-2444 BEFORE ANYTRENCHING OR EXCAVATION WORK.5.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE MISCELLANEOUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCESTO BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.6.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE UNDERGROUND UTILITY SERVICES TO BE REMOVED,STUBBED, CAPPED, AND ABANDONED AT PROJECT FRONTAGE OR REMOVED.7.CLEAR AND GRUB ALL EXISTING VEGETATION, GRASSES AND SHRUBS PRIOR TOEARTHWORK OPERATIONS.8.REFER TO PROJECT SWPPP AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DRAWINGS(WPCDS) FOR SITE PREPARATION, MOBILIZATION, STORMWATER REQUIREMENTSAND ALL SITE EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL BMPS.9.REFER TO TREE PLAN BY LANDSCAPE FOR REMOVAL OF ON- AND OFF-SITE TREES.10.ANY HISTORIC MATERIALS SHALL BE NOTED AND SHALL INCLUDE A MATRIX OF THEPROPOSED DISPOSITION. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROPOSED OR REQUIRED TO BERE-USED WITHIN THE PROJECT, THE HISTORIC GRANITE CURBING, WALLS, ANDSTAIRS LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE PRESERVED AND DELIVERED TOAN APPROVED LOCATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.DEMOLITION NOTESPROTECT EXISTING TREE IN PLACE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREE PLAN.PROTECT PORTION OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL EXTENDING TO LIMITS OF PROPOSEDTEMPORARY SHORING.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREEPLAN.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURES.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STRUCTURESAND APPURTENANCES.SAFELY REMOVE AND PRESERVE EXISTING HISTORIC BISHOP PEAK GRANITE CURB(APPROXIMATE LENGTH=56.5-FEET). STOCKPILE ON-SITE FOR FUTURE USE BYREPERTORY THEATRE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR COORDINATE WITH CITY TOPRESERVE AND DELIVER TO AN APPROVED LOCATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THECITY. (SEE ALSO NOTE #10).REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING BRICKWORK.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING FENCE.REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING BLOCK WALL.12345678910DEMOLITION QUANTITIES±5,600SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING±29,200SF ASPHALT PAVING±1,300SF BRICK PAVING±3,600SF CONCRETE FLATWORK±1,300LF 6" CURB±56.5LF HISTORIC GRANITE CURBING (SEE NOTE 10 AND DEMOLITION NOTE 7)±650LF BLOCK WALL±500LF FENCE33TREES\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-2.2 Demolition.dwg, C-2.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey DEMOLITION PLANC-2.290% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY203.4FG201.2FG190.5FG190.5FG190.5FG192.6MATCH EG200.4FG190.4FG200.4FG187.9FG202.0FG188.0FG201.0FG188.0FG188.0FG198.5±EG188.0FG197.1±EG188.0FG187.9FG194.4FG187.5FL/HP187.0FL186.4FL186.1FL184.9FL184.6FL183.1FL/LP183.8FL185.8FL186.1FL186.6FL188187186186187188189190186 1 8 8188187 187186186187188185 184185186187188 184185 186187 204.6±EG205.0±EG203.8±EG203.1±EG202.1±EG195.9±EG192.6±EG201CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(SEE NOTE 1)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PROPOSED TREEPROTECTION FENCINGPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGCHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(SEE NOTE 1)CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.PAD = 188.0197.3±EG191 198.5MATCH EG188.6MATCH EG195.0±EGPROTECT EXISTING BLOCK WALL TOLIMITS OF TEMPORARY SHORINGFEMA FLOOD PLAIN LIMITSFUTURE PARKING STRUCTUREOVEREX/RECOMPACT LIMITS(SEE NOTE 7)FUTURE PARKING STRUCTUREOVEREX/RECOMPACT LIMITS(SEE NOTE 7)78.4'18.1'20'11.2'78.6'47.1'35.9'192191FUTURE PARKINGSTRUCTURE LIMITS(SEE NOTE 10)FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE LIMITS(SEE NOTE 10)88.5' 49.7'FEMA FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS3:1MAX3:1MAX3:1 MA X3:1MAX3:1MAX3:1MAX201202202200201.0MATCH EG201FEATHER GRADING TO MATCHEXISTING BACK OF WALK @ 3:1 MAXWHERE CURBING IS REMOVED, TYP.FUTURE THEATREOVEREX/RECOMPACTLIMITS (SEE NOTE 7)FUTURE THEATRELIMITS (SEE NOTE 10)1881891901911922051961931921911901891881 9 8 1 9 9 20 0 2 0 1 20 2 20 3 EXISTING OAK TO REMAIN;PROTECT IN PLACE1901891881871861851851861871881891881871861851851861871881941931 9 9 20 0 2 0 0 201204204200NOTES1.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSHORING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND METHODS.2.NO GRADING, TRENCHING, OR GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BECONDUCTED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF TREES TO REMAIN.3.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR SIGNAGE, SITE FURNISHINGS, AND PAVEMENTFINISHING.4.THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, SHALL BECONSIDERED A PART OF THESE PLANS.5.REFER TO PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS BY EDP FOR ON-SITE STORM DRAIN CHAMBERDESIGN AND INFRASTRUCTURE.6.ALL EXISTING ON-SITE STRUCTURES, ASPHALT PAVING, FLATWORK, WALLS, ANDAPPURTENANCES SHALL BE REMOVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7.APPROXIMATE OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION LIMITS OF FUTUREPARKING STRUCTURE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) ARE SHOWN 5' FROM BUILDINGFOUNDATIONS, NOT TO CROSS ANY PROPERTY LINES.8.PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FLATWORK AND SLABS SHALL BE SUPPORTED ON ATLEAST 18 INCHES OF NONEXPANSIVE IMPORTED SOILS.9.PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, EXISTING FILL MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED DURINGEXCAVATION SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH PROPERLY MOISTURECONDITIONED AND COMPACTED SOIL.10.PUBLIC STREET AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING STRUCTURE, ANDSLO REPERTORY THEATRE AND PLAZA ARE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNDERSEPARATE COVER.EARTHWORK QUANTITIESAREA OF DISTURBANCE:1.2 ACRESMAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT:18 FEETMAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT:3 FEETRAW CUT:15,300 CUBIC YARDSRAW FILL:1,430 CUBIC YARDSADJUSTED FILL:(ASSUMED 15% SHRINKAGE)1,650 CUBIC YARDSNET QUANTITY:13,650 CUBIC YARDS EXPORTTHE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRICDIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUETO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC.THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES.APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OFCONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPEHINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADSFOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.LEGENDEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING PROPERTY LINECENTERLINEFENCELINEFLOWLINEEASEMENT LINESLOPE DIRECTION AND GRADEGRADE BREAKEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING OVERHEAD LINESPROPOSED PERMANENT SHORING BY OTHERSPROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING BY OTHERSFUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE OUTLINE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)APPROXIMATE OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION LIMITS OF FUTUREPARKING STRUCTURE (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)XX315315OHW>2.0%MAXSSN:\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-4.X Rough Grading Plan.dwg, C-4.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:25am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey ROUGH GRADING PLANC-4.190% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 INSTALLATIONS, AND TYPE 3 AFTER PAVING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, (SEE BMP GUIDANCE HANDOUT IN THE SWPPP FOR MORE INFORMATION). 13.THE STRAW WATTLES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT DIFFERENT PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL INCORPORATE THEIR USE AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. PHASING NOTES WDID No. __________ (PENDING) NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP EROSION CONTROL DETAILS PROJECT SITE N36°28'51"W 279.70'N53°36'43"E 213.48'184190190187189189193193 188189188187186186187189190186 1 8 8188187 187186186188185184185187188 184 186187 PALM STREETDANASTREETNIPOMO STREETMONTEREY STREETEXISTING TREES TOREMAIN; PROTECTIN PLACEEXISTING OAK TO REMAIN;PROTECT IN PLACEAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPE SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYAPPROXIMATE BUILDINGENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGCONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.CONSTRUCT MIN. 6" DEEPSWALE @ 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPESAND S=0.01 FT/FT MIN.FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE UNDERSEPARATE COVER AND SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYPROPOSED TREEPROTECTION FENCING201202202201200TEMPORARY SHORING LINE (DESIGN BY OTHERS)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(DESIGN BY OTHERS)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)PERMANENTSHORING LINE(DESIGN BY OTHERS)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)CHAMBER SYSTEM DESIGN PEREDP CIVIL PLANS (SEE NOTE 5)A TEMPORARY PUMPWITH FILTER BAG MAY BEREQUIRED DURINGLARGER STORM EVENTSFUTURE SLO REP THEATRE UNDERSEPARATE COVER AND SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLYSWPPP BMP LEGENDSILT FENCESTRAW WATTLEHYDROSEEDINGSTREET SWEEPING/VACUUMINGSTORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION(SEE PHASING NOTES ON C-8.0)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH WHEEL WASHAREAMATERIAL DELIVERY/STORAGE AREACONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREAGRAVEL BAGSSE-1SE-5EC-4SE-7SE-10TC-1WM-1WM-8SC-6__________ (PENDING)WDID:\\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-8.1 Erosion Control.dwg, C-8.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchell PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETApril 24, 20200720-02-UR19DATErrmdesign.com | (805) 543-17943765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTSREPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGNGROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS ORUSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIEDPROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGSOR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEWSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONNO.REVISIONDATESKYBLMSKYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPALM AND NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey EROSION CONTROL PLANC-8.190% SUBMITTAL SET0feet40SCALE: 1" = 20'2060 \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.1, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET April 24, 2020 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.1 90% SUBMITTAL SET \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.2, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET April 24, 2020 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.2 90% SUBMITTAL SET \\RRMPZ\on-site\0701\0720-02-UR19-Palm-Nipomo-Parking-Structure-(2019)\Engineering\ConDocs\Phase 1 - Rough Grading\Sheet-Files\C-9.x Conditions of Approval.dwg, C-9.3, Apr 24, 2020 9:26am, blmarchellPROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY PROJECT NUMBER CHECKED BY SHEET 0720-02-UR19 DATE rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS. RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2020. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION NO.REVISION DATE SKY BLM SKY PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PALM AND NIPOMOPHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 MontereyCONDITIONS OFAPPROVALC-9.3 90% SUBMITTAL SETApril 24, 2020 Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:GENERAL NOTES1.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STARTED WITHOUT PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY BUILDINGDEPARTMENT. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TOSTARTING OF CONSTRUCTION AND OF THE TIME LOCATION OF THE PRECONSTRUCTIONCONFERENCE. ANY CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS OR PRIORNOTIFICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL BE REJECTED AND WILL BE AT THECONTRACTOR’S AND/OR OWNER’S RISK.2.FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS OR PERMITSAPPROVED FOR THE PROJECT THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAY REVOKE ALL ACTIVEPERMITS AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT PROVIDE A WRITTEN NOTICE ORSTOP WORK ORDER.3.ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENTCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND ALL WORK SHALL BESUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.4.THE PROJECT OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND/ORMAINTAINING ALL WEATHER ACCESS AT ALL TIMES TO EXISTING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THEVICINITY OF WORK. ADDITIONALLY, THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALLEXISTING SERVICES, INCLUDING UTILITY, GARBAGE COLLECTION, MAIL DISTRIBUTION, ETC, TOALL EXISTING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF WORK.5.ON-SITE HAZARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY SHALL BE SHIELDED BY CONSTRUCTION FENCING.FENCING SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCHTIME THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND OCCUPIED, POTENTIAL HAZARDS HAVE BEENMITIGATED, OR ALTERNATIVE PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.6.SOILS TESTS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS. TESTS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO PLACING MATERIAL. THE TESTRESULTS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION AND SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL.7.ROADWAY COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE MADE ON SUBGRADE MATERIAL, AGGREGATE BASEMATERIAL, AND MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. SAID TESTS SHALL BE MADEPRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEXT MATERIAL LIFT.8.SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF 95% IN THEZONE BETWEEN FINISHED SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT BELOW. ALLMATERIAL IN FILL SECTIONS BELOW THE ZONE MENTIONED ABOVE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.9.A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN COMPLETEDARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS PRIOR TO THE REQUEST FOR A FINAL INSPECTION.RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIVILENGINEER CERTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARING AS-BUILT PLANS MAY BEPRESENT WHEN THE FINAL INSPECTION IS MADE BY THE CITY .10.AN ENGINEER OF WORK AGREEMENT AND AN ENGINEER CHECKING AND INSPECTIONAGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDINGDEPARTMENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF ANY CHANGES TO THE ENGINEER OF WORKAGREEMENT. CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT PROCEED WITHOUT AN ENGINEER OF WORK.11.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.12.A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE CITYRIGHT-OF-WAY. THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MAY ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL UTILITY ANDTRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.13.THE CITY INSPECTOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIREREVISIONS IN THE PLANS TO SOLVE UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE FIELD.ALL REVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER’S ENGINEER OFWORK.14.HYDROSEEDING OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE PLACED ANDESTABLISHED WITH 90% COVERAGE ON ALL DISTURBED SURFACES (OTHER THAN PAVED ORGRAVEL SURFACES) PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION.15.FOR ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY , IF ENVIRONMENTALPERMITS FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATERQUALITY CONTROL BOARD/STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OR THE CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL:15.a.SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL SUCH COMPLETED PERMITS TO THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENTOR,15.b.DOCUMENT THAT THE REGULATORY AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT SAID PERMIT IS NOTREQUIRED;PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY MAINTENANCE ANDRELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. ANY MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIRED BY SAIDPERMITS WILL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.16.WHEN THE PROJECT SITE EARTHWORK IS NOT INTENDED TO BALANCE THEN A SEPARATEGRADING PERMIT FOR THE SENDING OR RECEIVING PROPERTY MAY BE REQUIRED. A COPY OFTHE PERMIT/S OR EVIDENCE THAT NO PERMITS ARE REQUIRED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THEDEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING PROJECT EARTHWORK.PRO-ECT PRECONSTRUCTION 0EETINGPRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED WITHTHE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF RECORD, THESOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD, THE GRADING CONTRACTOR OF RECORD, THE OWNER/DEVELOPER,AND OTHERS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT AND TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THE OWNER/DEVELOPERSHALL COORDINATE THIS MEETING WITH THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHER PARTIES.OBSER9ATION AND TESTING PROGRA0THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING TASKS:1.PLACEMENT, BACKFILL, AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIALBI-WEEKLY REPORTS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD TO THE GRADINGINSPECTOR, MONITORING THE JOB PROGRESS INCLUDING THE STATUS OF EROSION &SEDIMENTATION MONITORING.A FINAL REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR ENGINEERING GRADING INCLUDING ALL COMPACTIONREPORTS.PRO-ECT REPORT RE4UIRE0ENTSFINAL REPORTSFINAL REPORTS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.B.C. SECTION 3318.1PAD CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTA SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE GRADING PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT IS INSUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND IS SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THEINTENDED STRUCTURE(S). THE ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT A FINAL REPORT TO THE CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO.SOIL REPORT REQUIREMENTSTHE SOIL REPORT SL-16264-SA OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. AREPRESENTATIVE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SHALL OBSERVE ALL APPLICATIONS REGARDINGGENERAL GRADING, PAD GRADING, SLOPE CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY TRENCHES AND FOUNDATIONCONSTRUCTION.GRADING NOTES1.ALL GRADING CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE CODES AS NOTED UNDER"APPLICABLE CODES" HEADING.2.THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULING A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGWITH THE CITY AND OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITYBUILDING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED, ANDARRANGE FOR INSPECTION.3.GRADING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT#SL-16264-SA BY EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC. , DATE 4/21/2011 FILED WITH THE CITY OF SANLUIS OBISPO.4.SOILS ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE SOIL IS SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THE INTENDED STRUCTURE.SUCH REPORT INCLUDING PROGRESS AND/OR COMPACTION REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE FIELD INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION WHEN A SOILS REPORT IS OBTAINED. THECITY POLICY REGARDING PAD CERTIFICATION SHALL BE FOLLOWED. WHEN APPLICABLE THEENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE THE GRADING OPERATION(S) AND PROVIDE THE FIELD INSPECTORWITH REQUIRED COMPACTION REPORTS AND A REPORT STATING THAT THE GRADINGPERFORMED HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE UBC AND CITYORDINANCES.5.NO CUT OR FILL SLOPES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED STEEPER THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONEVERTICAL (2:1).6.DUST CONTROL IS TO BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.7.AREAS OF FILL SHALL BE SCARIFIED, BENCHED AND RECOMPACTED PRIOR TO REPLACING FILLAND OBSERVED BY A SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER.8.FILL MATERIAL WILL BE RECOMPACTED TO 90% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY.9.REMOVE ANY DELETERIOUS MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED BEFORE PLACING FILL.10.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE HYDRO SEEDED OR PLANTED WITH APPROVED EROSIONCONTROL VEGETATION AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.11.MINIMUM SETBACK TO CREEKS AND BLUFFS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MINIMUM SETBACK OF TWOFEET FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL GRADING.12.MINIMUM SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS SHALL BE 5% FOR THE FIRST TEN FEET AROUNDPERIMETER.13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEYMARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL SUCH MONUMENTS OR MARKERS DISTURBED SHALL BERESET AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.14.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL HAVEAN APPROPRIATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE, A LOCAL BUSINESS LICENSE, AND SHALL OBTAIN ANENCROACHMENT PERMIT.15.ENGINEERING REPORTS FOR CUT OR FILL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 2:1 SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE FIELD INSPECTOR.UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES1.AN EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO DEFINE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHINTHE JOB SITE. HOWEVER, ALL EXISTING UTILITY AND OTHER UNDERGROUND STRUCTURESMAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND THEIR LOCATION WHERE SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE.THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETERESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCATING OR HAVING LOCATED ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDOTHER FACILITIES AND FOR PROTECTING THEM DURING CONSTRUCTION.2.ALL UTILITY COMPANIES MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT 811TWO TO TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF EXCAVATION AND SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OFANY KNOWN UTILITIES AND WHETHER OR NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH COMPANY WILL BEPRESENT DURING EXCAVATION.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS1.ALL CONSTRUCTION & INSPECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE(CBC) CHAPTER 17.2.SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, THE OWNER ORREGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ACTING AS THE OWNER'SAGENT SHALL EMPLOY ONE OR MORE SPECIAL INSPECTORS TO PROVIDE INSPECTIONSDURING CONSTRUCTION ON ALL TASKS IDENTIFIED BELOW.3.SPECIAL INSPECTORS SHALL BE A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO SHALL DEMONSTRATECOMPETENCE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NAMES ANDQUALIFICATIONS OF SPECIAL INSPECTOR(S) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY BUILDINGDEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL.4.EACH CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPONENTS LISTED IN THESPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THECITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THESTATEMENT SHALL CONTAIN THE ITEMS LISTED IN CBC 1706.1.5.A FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY A SOIL OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIELDINSPECTOR STATING THE WORK PERFORMED IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THEAPPROVED PLANS, APPLICABLE CODES, AND IS FOUND TO BE SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THEINTENDED STRUCTURE. SUCH REPORT SHALL INCLUDE ANY FIELD PROGRESS REPORTS,COMPACTION DATA ETC.SECTION 1705, STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:·1705.1 GENERAL. WHERE SPECIAL INSPECTION OR TESTING IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1704,1707 OR 1708, THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SHALLPREPARE A STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1705 FORSUBMITTAL BY THE PERMIT APPLICATION (SEE SECTION 1704.1.1).·1705.2 CONTENT OF STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. THE STATEMENT OF SPECIALINSPECTIONS SHALL IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING:a.THE MATERIALS, SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS AND WORK REQUIRED TO HAVE SPECIALINSPECTION OR TESTING BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR BY THE REGISTERED DESIGNPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH PORTION OF THE WORK.b.THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF EACH SPECIAL INSPECTION.c.THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF EACH TEST.d.ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION OR TESTING FOR SEISMIC OR WINDRESISTANCE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 1705.3, 1705.4, 1707 OR 1708.e.FOR EACH TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION, IDENTIFICATION AS TO WHETHER IT WILL BECONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION OR PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION. SECTION (TABLE) 1704.7, REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF SOILS.a.VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN BEARINGCAPACITY SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.b.VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPERMATERIAL, SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.c.PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF CONTROLLED FILL MATERIALS, SHALL BEPERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.d.VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENTAND COMPACTION OF CONTROLLED FILL, SHALL BE PERFORMED CONTINUOUSLY DURINGTASK.e.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HADBEEN PREPARED PROPERLY, SHALL BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DURING TASK.OBSERVATION & TESTING PROGRAM.THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER SHALL PERFORM THE INSPECTION & TESTING FOR THEFOLLOWING TASKS:·FINAL PLANS·STRIPPING AND CLEARING OF VEGETATION·RECOMPACTION OF SCARIFICATION SOILS·FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION·OVER EXCAVATING·VERIFICATION OF SOILS TYPE & DEPTH·FINAL REPORTTHE SOIL ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC. SOILS REPORT#SL-16264-SA THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL PERFORM THE INSPECTION FOR THEFOLLOWING TASKS:·ROUGH GRADING & SITE PREPARATION·FINAL GRADING INSPECTION PRIOR TO FINAL CITY INSPECTIONTHE PROJECT ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE DANIEL SOTELO OF ENGINEERING DESIGNPROFESSIONALS, INC., RCE 81227, 2055-A 9TH STREET, LOS OSOS, CA 93402, PHONE (805) 602-6167THE ENGINEER OR WORK SHALL STATE IN WRITING THE WORK IS IN SUBSTANTIALCONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS.THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR BMP INSPECTION IS XXXXXXXXPHONE (805) XXX-XXXX.PRO-ECT SUR9EY 0ONU0ENTSEXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BE TIED OUT OR REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITHCITYSTANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONSGRADING AND 9EGETATION RE0O9ALTO CONTROL EROSION, ACTUAL GRADING SHALL BEGIN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF VEGETATION REMOVALOR THAT AREA SHALL BE PLANTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16.08.340. NOVEGETATION REMOVAL OR GRADING WILL BE ALLOWED WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE SILTATION OFWATER COURSE OR UNCONTROLLABLE EROSION (16.08.300 C.2)GROUND PREPARATIONPREPARATION OF GROUND FOR FILL. THE GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED TO RECEIVEFILL BY THE REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALS AS DETERMINED BY THESOILS ENGINEER.PREPARATION OF THE GROUND. THE GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE PREPARED TO RECEIVE FILL BYREMOVING VEGETATION, NON-COMPLYING FILL, TOPSOIL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALSSCARIFYING TO PROVIDE A BOND WITH THE NEW FILL.FILL MATERIAL PERMITTED. NO ORGANIC MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED IN FILLS EXCEPT ASTOPSOIL USED FOR SURFACE PLANT GROWTH ONLY AND WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED 4 INCHES INDEPTH. (16.08.310 E)EROSION CONTROL 0EASURESEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MUST BE IN PLACE ANDFUNCTIONALEART+:OR. 4UANTITIESAREA OF DISTURBANCE = 0.86 ACESTIMATED CUT: 4,948 CY±ESTIMATED FILL: 183 CY±NET: 4,765 CY± FILLMAX CUT: 14'MAX FILL: 6'NOTE: EXACT SHRINKAGE, CONSOLIDATION, AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS AND LOSSES DUE TOCLEARING OPERATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE BASEDUPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AND PROPOSED FINISH GRADES,AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, AND SHOULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE INSPECTION AND QUANTITY TAKE OFF, AND SHALL BIDACCORDINGLY.LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||APPLICABLE CODES·2020 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, VOLS 1 & 2 (2016 IBC)·2020 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (2016 NEC)·2020 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (2016 IFC)·2020 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (2016 UPC)·2020 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE·2020 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (NEW) (2016 IRC)·CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: CURRENT EDITION·CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS: CURRENT EDITION·CITY FIRE CODE ORDINANCE·CITY LAND USE ORDINANCE·GRADING 2020 APPENDIX CHAPTER 33NOTE:IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ORPERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OFNORTHERN CALIFORNIA" BY PHONE AT 8-1-1 FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURSPRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF POWER,TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.CONTRACTOR OR PERMITEE SHALL ALSO CONTACT THEAPPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OF CABLE T.V., WATER,SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOTESA.ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THEUTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENTEDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATION. (THE CURRENTADOPTED STANDARDS ARE DATED JANUARY 2016.)B.ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK, OR DRIVEWAYAPPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKSDIRECTOR.C.A SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY, WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS, OR FOR CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. WORKREQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS,UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK,DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDERDRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREETTREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTIONOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.D.CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT 781-7554 WITH AT LEAST A 48-HOURNOTICE FOR ANY REQUIRED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION OR FINAL INSPECTION.E.THE ADJOINING STREET SHALL BE CLEANED BY SWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST, MUD ANDCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH DAY.F.A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.G.ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAN 2% SHALLHAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINALINSPECTION APPROVALS.H.ANY EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE OR SHALL BE TIED OUTBY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE AND THEN REPLACED PRIOR TOOCCUPANCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8771 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE.I.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THESATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURING ALLDEMOLITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.J.ONE 15-GALLON STREET TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH 35 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE ORFRACTION THEREOF. TREE SPECIES AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PER CITYENGINEERING STANDARDS.GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPBENCHMARKFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)TOP BACK CURBFINISH GRADEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETE(00.00)TC(00.00)EG(00.00)EP(00.00)FL(00.00)ACTOP BACK CURBEXISTING GROUNDEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETEPROPOSEDEXISTING00.00TC00.00FG00.00EP00.00FL00.00ACLEGENDHIGH POINT00.00HP(00.00)TRW(00.00)TFTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTERTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTER00.00TRW00.00TF(0" CURB WHERE APPLIES)NOTE1.ANY DAMAGE, AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT, TO CITYFACILITIES, I.E. CURB/BURM, STREET, SEWER LINE, WATER LINE, OR ANY PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF MORRO BAY.2.NO WORK SHALL OCCUR WITHIN (OR USE OF) THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT ANENCROACHMENT PERMIT. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY OF MORROBAY PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE LOCATED AT 955 SHASTA AVE. THE ENCROACHMENT PERMITSHALL BE ISSUED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.3.DUE TO MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATERREQUIREMENTS NO PRESSURE WASHING IS ALLOWED UNLESS IT IS DIRECTLY DUE TOPROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF EXTERIOR PAINTING OF PROPERTY. NO DISCHARGE OFNON-STORMWATER IS ALLOWED INTO THE MUNICIPAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ANDCONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE MEASURES TO PREVENT ANY DISCHARGE FROM ENTERING THESTORMWATER SYSTEM.SITE DATAAPN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-HPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATEE N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/21PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-1.00720-02-UR19DATENOTESDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis ObispoNO.REVISIONDATE60% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/2020141ST SUBMITTAL4/23/202090% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 STOPEXISTING LEV: 198.91 BEGIN WALL STA: 1+23.14 TOF ELEV: 198.91 END WALL STA: 1+07.33 TOF ELEV: 198.91 BC STA: 1+16.77 TOF ELEV: 198.91 EC GRADE AT FACE OF WALLSTA: 1+00.00 TOW ELEV: 202.26 BEGIN WALL STA: 1+01.33 TOW ELEV: 202.26 STA: 1+01.33 TOW ELEV: 202.93 STEP WALL STA: 1+07.98 TOW ELEV: 202.93 STA: 1+07.98 TOW ELEV: 203.60 STEP WALL STA: 1+17.30 TOW ELEV: 203.60 STA: 1+17.30 TOW ELEV: 204.27 STEP WALL STA: 1+21.29 TOW ELEV: 204.27 STA: 1+21.29 TOW ELEV: 204.94 STEP WALL STA: 1+22.62 TOW ELEV: 204.94 STA: 1+22.62 TOW ELEV: 205.61 STEP WALL STA: 1+23.14 TOW ELEV: 205.61 END WALL GRADE AT BACK OF WALLBENCHMARKEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gFF2% MINCONCRETE8" MIN5% MINFOR 10'BUILDING SLAB SECTIONGEOTECHNICAL REPORTSITE DATAPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.APN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-H1005SCALE: 1" =1010'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)1FUTURE RETAINING WALL. SEE WALL PROFILES THIS SHEET FOR TOP OFWALL AND TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDEBACK OF WALL ASPHALTIC WATER PROOFING, DRAIN ROCK, ANDPERFORATED PIPE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. PERFORATED PIPE TODAYLIGHT. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WALL HEIGHT PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.CONSTRUCTION NOTESLEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||TOP BACK CURBFINISH GRADEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETE(00.00)TC(00.00)EG(00.00)EP(00.00)FL(00.00)ACTOP BACK CURBEXISTING GROUNDEDGE OF PAVEMENTFLOW LINEASPHALT CONCRETEPROPOSEDEXISTING00.00TC00.00FG00.00EP00.00FL00.00ACLEGENDHIGH POINT00.00HP(00.00)TRW(00.00)TFTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTERTOP OF RET. WALLTOP OF FOOTER00.00TRW00.00TF(0" CURB WHERE APPLIES)PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATE1E N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19NOTE TO CONTRACTOR:1.FOOTING DEPTH ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE MINIMUM DEPTH AS SPECIFIED BYTHE SOILS ENGINEER. FINAL FOOTING DEPTH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILSENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER OF RECORD WITH FINAL WALLDESIGN REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FOOTING CONSTRUCTION.2.SEE RETAINING WALL DETAIL X, ON SHEET XX FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 1 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 2 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 3 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-2.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATERETAINING WALLS PLAN & PROFILESDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis ObispoREVISION DATE60% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/202041ST SUBMITTAL4/23/2020(FUTURE) RETAINING WALL 4 - PROFILE VIEWHORZ: 1" = 10'VERT: 1" = 10'90% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 STOP SSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING CURB & SIDEWALKEXISTING CURB ANDSIDEWALKEXISTING CURB,GUTTER, ANDSIDEWALKEXISTING STREET TREEEXISTINGHANDICAPRAMPEXISTING SSCOEXISTINGWATER METERMONTEREY STREETDANA STREETEXISTING SSMHRIM EL = 191.85NIPOMO STREET N53° 05' 37"E 214.61'(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)20.07'31.48'STORAGEFF BLAC. BO;FF LOBBYFF BASE0ENTFF PROPOSED T+EATERFUTURELI0ITS OF YR FLOOD PLAINLINE OF DECK ABOVELINE OF STAIRS ABOVE0.5'1189.05 TG186.55 INV.1199.90 TG197.53 INV.1200.63 TG194.59 INV.2200.67 RIM198.17 INV.2199.31 RIM195.31 INV.188.96 TG(S) 181.00 INV.179.00 SUMP3197.00 TG(N) 189.00 INV.(S) 192.38 INV.187.00 SUMP446190.26 INV.8185.00 INV.3377± 7.00 LF19.4'26.9'9 CFFRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE IMPROVEMENTS8184.00 INV.7.5'7.5'35.7'10.3'6193.98 INV.9.5' A4.1 B 4.1 C 4.1 9 CFD4.1INSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENT22.2'3.1'7.5'48.7'2.8'49 CF5194.37 INV.200.00 TG(W) 194.00 INV.(S) 198.00 INV.191.00 SUMP5194.09 INV.7±10.78 LF7±13.96 LF7±4.50 LF93,030 SF (ROOF AREA) VOL (95th) = 505 CF6,512 SF (ROOF AREA) VOL (95TH) = 1,085 CF7± 4.20 LF7± 28.83 LF7± 22.64 LF7± 8.37 LF97± 7.00 LF± 21.75 LF7± 14.25 LF7± 11.00 LF6185.67 INV.96192.38 INV.196.21 INV.192.63 INV.189.45 INV.BENCHMARKEXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HERON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTALLOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON. THEENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPERLOCATION.DISCLAIMER NOTE:Avoid cutting undergroundutility lines. It's costly.CallOR1-800-642-2444Call before you D gFF2% MINCONCRETE8" MIN5% MINFOR 10'BUILDING SLAB SECTIONGEOTECHNICAL REPORTSITE DATAPROJECT No. SL-16264-SADATED: APRIL 21, 2011AS PREPARED BY:EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC, INC.APN No.002-412-011ACREAGE:0.89ZONINGO-H1005SCALE: 1" =1010'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No. 2005512DATED: JUNE 2006AS PREPARED BY:RRM DESIGN GROUPFLOOD ZONE INFORMATIONA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE X, AN AREA OUTSIDE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEOF FLOOD HAZARD PER FEMA PANEL NO. 06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE, AN AREA TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE A 1%ANNUAL CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 188 PER FEMA PANEL NO.06079C1068G, EFFECTIVE DATE 11/16/2012.THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY BEING A LEAD AND TACK ON THE WESTERLY CURB 50 FEET(15 m) NORTH OF THE NWC OF NIPOMO & DANA, ELEVATION BEING 189.99 FEET (57.910 m)LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARYRIGHT OF WAYPROPERTY LINESECTION LINECENTER LINEEASEMENTEXISTING BACK OF CURBEXISTING FACE OF CURBEXISTING LIP OF CURBEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING FENCEEXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALKBUILDINGSCONCRETEBACK OF CURBFACE OF CURBCURB LIPFLOW LINEGRADE BREAKSAWCUTSIDEWALKSETBACKXXX(100)(101)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||12ADS MANHOLE WITH GRATE COVER PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS. MANHOLE AND GRATE TO BE TRAFFIC RATED INDRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.3INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3,SHEET D-4.0.456789STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES(FUTURE) INSTALL 12"X12" MIDSTATE CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. GRATE TO BETRAFFIC RATED NEAR DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.(FUTURE) CONNECT ROOF DRAINS TO ADS EXPANDABLE DOWNSPOUTADAPTER WITH CLEAN OUT OR EQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS AND TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT DETAIL 1, SHEET D-4.0.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8"X8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE TEE OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 45° ELBOW OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE AT 2% MIN.PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL 2, SHEET D-4.0.(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" ADS-N12 WT HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 90° ELBOW OREQUIVALENT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATEE N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-3.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATESTORM DRAIN PLANDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis Obispo160% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/202041ST SUBMITTAL4/23/2020(FUTURE) INSTALL 8" STORM DRAIN LATERAL CONNECTION POINT.90% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 CONC. FLOOR SLABF.F. SEAL CONNECTION AND ALLOW FOR FUTURE ADAPTER5.CLEANOUTS, FITTINGS, AND PIPE TO BE TRAFFIC RATED IF LOCATED IN AREAS NEAR OR IN VEHICULARTRAFFICNOTES:1.NO TREES OR LARGE BUSHES ARE TO BE PLANTED OVER SEWER/STORM DRAIN PIPE2.NATIVE MATERIAL MAY SUFFICE FOR BEDDING AND INITIAL BACKFILL - SEE SOILS REPORT3.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PIPE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS4.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MANUFACTURER'S MIN COVER AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION5.ALL PIPES/FITTINGS LOCATED WITHIN OR ABOVE FOUNDATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE SHALL BE WATER TIGHT. CONTRACTORTO VERIFY ZONE OF INFLUENCE LOCATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONS9" MAX DIA.FINISH GRADESTORM DRAIN/SEWER TRENCH (3" DIA. AND LARGER PIPES)NTS2LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL,WHERE OCCURSNATIVE MATERIAL@ 90% MIN R.C.CLEAN SAND@ 95% MIN R.C.3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)NON-VEHICULAR AREASS9" MAX DIA.PAVEMENT SECTION PERGEOTECHNICAL REPORTTOP 12" @ 95% MIN R.C.NATIVE MATERIAL@ 90% MIN R.C.CLEAN SAND@ 95% MIN R.C.3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)3" MIN SAND COVER(HAND-TAMPED)VEHICULAR AREASSTORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTS3PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATE1E N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-4.00720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATEDETAIL SHEET160% COMPLETION2/13/2020DSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis Obispo270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/2020LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING12 INCHES41ST SUBMITTAL4/23/202090% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 FF=189.78BUILDINGFF=189.38BUILDING11EXISTING GROUND7.5'7.5'10.4'INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTRWFF=189.78BUILDINGFF=203.40BUILDING11EXISTING GROUND9.5'19.4'MONTEREY ST (PUBLIC)FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTINSTALL 30 MIL HDPE MOISTUREBARRIER LINER OR EQUIVALENTFRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)MONTEREY STCLRWEXISTING ASPHALT (PUBLIC)EXISTING GROUNDINSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDFUTURE RETAININGWALL (BY OTHERS)3.9'52.5'5.0'PL2.8'INSTALL STORMTECH MC-4500CHAMBERS W/ MANHOLE PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.SEE STORMTECH DETAIL 3, SHEET D-4.0.PROPOSED GROUNDPROPOSED GROUNDFUTURE RETAININGWALL (BY OTHERS)FUTURE RETAININGWALL (BY OTHERS)10.4'EXISTING GROUND4.1'SECTION @ STORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTSAPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETDATENO.REVISIONDATE1E N G I E E R I N GN D E S GI N P R O F E S S I O N A L S ,I N C . L 0 S 0 S C A 0 5 .6 0 2 .6 1 6 7 |E D P I N C 0 R P O R A T E D .C O M 0 S 8 R EGISTE R E D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSTATE OF CALIFORNI A EXP.CIVILNO. 81227D A NI EL A. SOTELO9/30/19PROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BYPROJECT NUMBERCHECKED BYSHEETD-4.10720-02-UR19DATENO.REVISIONDATEDETAIL SHEETDSDSDSPALM & NIPOMO PHASE 1 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 630 Monterey, San Luis Obispo SECTION @ STORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTSBSECTION @ STORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTSCSECTION @ STORM TECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION CHAMBERSNTSD60% COMPLETION2/13/2020270% COMPLETION3/31/2020390% COMPLETION4/9/202041ST SUBMITTAL4/23/202090% SUBMITTAL SET April 24, 2020 56 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 3:54 PM To:Burde, Richard Subject:RE: SLO REP agreement Attachments:SLO REP ENA FINAL SIGNED.pdf Hi Richard, The last time I spoke with Kevin Harris, which was a couple months ago now, they were definitely planning on de- coupling the projects with the idea that they might be going first. By now the economic realities are likely hitting them, too, though. Who knows, maybe in 2023 we will sync up again? Attached is the approved Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. They submitted their required documents for 12/31/19 and Derek approved. They have another set of deliverables for 12/31/20 and Kevin had indicated they will be continuing to work towards those. Thanks and let me know how I can help in the near-term. Bob From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 2:05 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP agreement Hi Bob, I have been given word that we will not be moving forward with construction of the Palm – Nipomo garage until 2023 at the earliest. With this in mind I am starting to think through how best to shelve the design of the garage so we can hopefully pick up where we left off when the time comes. Many of the design aspects that have been considered and included into the garage were a direct result of our efforts to incorporate the Theater’s design into the broader site design. These days it feels like things are changing day to day and I’m having trouble trying to predict how things might move forward once the project gets up and running again. With this in mind I would like to know what communications you have had with the REP since the shutdown. Also can you please pass along the most recent version of the agreement the City has drafted? Thanks Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org 66 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:17 AM To:Sadowski, Mark; Hannula, Hal Subject:Lot Merger for Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Attachments:SBDV-0197-2020 - APN Map (APN 002-411).pdf; SBDV-0197-2020 - Title Report (2-7-14).pdf; SBDV-0197-2020 - Existing Lots Legal Map.pdf; SBDV-0197-2020- Mergerd Lot Legal Map.pdf; SBDV-0197-2020 - Planning Application.pdf Hi Mark and Hal- Richard Burde and his team have submitted the documents for the merger of all the lots that make up the property of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the SLO Rep Theatre. The EnerGov Cade number is SBDV-0197-2020. All of the documents are on EnerGov, but I am also attaching them to this email in case you have other folks who need to review. I am NOT sending out a paper routing. Please let me know if you need anything or, Mark, in your case, please let me know if building needs to be on this routing. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org EXISTING LOTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: (APN: 002-412-001) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: (APN: 002-412-002) LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: (APN: 002-412-003) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D: (APN: 002-412-004) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 123 FEET 7 INCHES NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION, 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST, 179 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON AND FRANCES R. HAMPTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY DEED DATED AUGUST 1, 1944 AND RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1944 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 56 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON, ET UX.; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 46 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 280 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL E: (APN: 002-412-011) THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET 65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE LINE OF NIPOMO STREET, 140 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHWESTERLY 65 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET 140 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL F: (APN: 002-412-012) THE NORTHEASTERLY FIFTY-NINE FEET OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN PROPERTY GRANTED TO WILLIAM B. HALEY IN DEED WHICH RECORDED MARCH 30, 1871 IN BOOK C, PAGE 281 OF DEEDS. PLANNING APPLICATION Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 781-7170 Project Address and Assessors Parcel Number(s): What do you want to do? What is your final goal? Applicant (Who is proposing the project?): Day Phone: Applicant’s Address: Representative (if any): Day Phone: Representative’s Address: Property Owner (if other than applicant): Day Phone: Owner’s Address: Email Address Contact: Please send all correspondence to: The Applicant The representative The property owner Property Owner Authorization: By signing this application I certify that I have reviewed this completed application and the attached material and consent to its filing. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for the processing of the application. Applicant/Representative Certification: By signing this application I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand the City might not approve what I’m applying for, or might set conditions of approval. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for processing of the application. Signed Date Signed Date This section is to be completed by the property owner and/or occupant who controls access to the property. To adequately evaluate many project proposals Community Development Department Staff, Commissioners and City Council Members will have to gain access to the exterior of the real property in order to adequately review and report on the proposed project. Your signature below certifies that you agree to give the City permission to access the project site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, as part of the normal review of this planning application. Occasionally, Community Development Department staff may need access to one or more buildings on the project site. If this is the case, Staff will use the contact information below to arange an appointment. Permission to Access Property:Interior Inspection Contact Information: Signed Date Name: Address: Day Phone: Check Review Application No. Fee Paid Rezoning/PD Use Permit Variance ARC Review Env. Review Subdivision GP Amendment Annexation Other Application fee paid by: the applicant the representative the property owner Received by: Date: Notes to file: Office Use Only6-16 Indemnification Agreement: The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City’s approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or pro- ceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Signed Date City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Authorization of Agent Please fill in the following form including signatures. All signatures must be completed. If one or more of these signatures are the same, simply re-sign. Thank You. I hereby authorize the following person to act as my agent for the property located at: STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:________________________________________________ OWNER: NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ DAYTIME PHONE:_____________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME:_________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE:__________________________________________________________________ TITLE:_______________________________________________________________________ (PROPERTY OWNER, PARTNER, CORPORATION OFFICER, SPECIFY OTHER) DATE:________________________________________________________________________ AGENT: NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ DAYTIME PHONE:____________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE -AGENT:__________________________________________________________ DATE:________________________________________________________________________ Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 1 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE GUARANTEE CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Nebraska corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES against loss or damage not exceeding the Amount of Liability stated in Schedule A sustained by the Assured by reason of any incorrectness in the Assurances set forth in Schedule A By: Authorized Countersignature This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 2 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Except as expressly provided by the assurances in Schedule A, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters against the title to any property beyond the lines of the Land. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters , whether or not shown by the Public Records (1) that are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; or, (2) that result in no loss to the Assured. (c) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters not shown by the Public Records. (d) The identity of any party shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (e) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (f) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the Public Records. (g) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the Public Records. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: a. the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in Schedule A, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company. b. "Land": the Land described or referred to in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. c. "Mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. d. "Public Records": those records established under California statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. e. "Date of Guarantee": the Date of Guarantee set forth in Schedule A. f. “Amount of Liability”: the Amount of Liability as stated in Schedule A. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured. The Assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge shall come to an Assured of any assertion of facts, or claim of title or interest that is contrary to the assurances set forth in Schedule A and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable under this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: a. The Company shall have the right, at its sole option and cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in Paragraph 4 (b), or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. b. If the Company elects to exercise its options as stated in Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. c. Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. d. In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 3 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) GUARANTEE CONDITIONS (Continued) the Company, the Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. a. In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Assured furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. b. In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonable necessary information from third parties, as required in the above paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: a. To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Liability together with any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. b. To pay or otherwise settle with the Assured any claim assured against under this Guarantee. In addition, the Company will pay any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that where authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay; or c. To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for the loss or damage provided for under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in 6 (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph the Company’s obligations to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any duty to continue any and all litigation initiated by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 4. 7. Limitation Liability. a. This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in Schedule A and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Guarantee. b. If the Company, or the Assured under the direction of the Company at the Company’s expense, removes the alleged defect, lien, or encumbrance or cures any other matter assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. c. In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company’s consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom. d. The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 8. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the Amount of Liability under this Guarantee pro tanto. 9. Payment of Loss. a. No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. b. When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 4 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) GUARANTEE CONDITIONS (Continued) 10. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 11. Arbitration. Either the Company or the Assured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association (“Rules”). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this Guarantee. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $2,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. Arbitration pursuant to this Guarantee and under the Rules shall be binging upon the parties. Judgment upon the aware rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. a. This Guarantee together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. b. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. c. No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 13. Severability. In the event any provision of this Guarantee, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the Guarantee shall be deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Choice of Law; Forum. a. Choice of Law: The Assured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this Guarantee and determined the premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests in real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of Guaranties of the jurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land is located to determine the validity of claims that are adverse to the Assured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this Guarantee. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law. b. Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Assured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United State of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction. 15. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at First American Title Insurance Company, Attn: Claims National Intake Center, 5 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707. Phone: 888-632-1642 (claims.nic@firstam.com). Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 5 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Schedule A CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 File No.: 6144530 Guarantee No. 6144530 Amount of Liability: $2,500.00 Date of Guarantee:February 5, 2020 at 7:30 A.M. Fee: $2,400.00 1. Name of Assured: City of San Luis Obispo 2. The estate or interest in the Land which is covered by this Guarantee is: Fee 3. The Land referred to in this Guarantee is described as follows: Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 002-412-001) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: (APN: 002-412-002) LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 6 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: (APN: 002-412-003) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4: (APN: 002-412-004) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 123 FEET 7 INCHES NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION, 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST, 179 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORN ER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON AND FRANCES R. HAMPTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY DEED DATED AUGUST 1, 1944 AND RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1944 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 56 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON, ET UX.; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 46 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 280 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 5: (APN: 002-412-011) THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET 65 FEET; Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 7 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE LINE OF NIPOMO STREET, 140 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHWESTERLY 65 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET 140 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 6: (APN: 002-412-012) THE NORTHEASTERLY FIFTY-NINE FEET OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAP S. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN PROPERTY GRANTED TO WILLIAM B. HALEY IN DEED WHICH RECORDED MARCH 30, 1871 IN BOOK C, PAGE 281 OF DEEDS. APN: as listed above. 4. ASSURANCES: According to the Public Records as of the Date of Guarantee, a. Title to the estate or interest in the Land is vested in: The City of San Luis Obispo, a Chartered Municipal Corporation of the State of California b. Title to the estate or interest is subject to defects, liens, or encumbrances shown in Schedule B which are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 8 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Schedule B CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 File No.: 6144530 1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2020-2021, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2019-2020 are exempt. 3. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. 4. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of matters, if any, disclosed by that certain Record of Survey filed June 5, 2001 in book 81, page 25 . 5. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of matters, if any, disclosed by that certain Record of Survey filed August 15, 2006 in book 95, page 33 . MERGED LOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1995 IN DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ALSO BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED JUNE 29, 1992 IN BOOK 3912, PAGE 475 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AND THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED JUNE 9, 1998 IN DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 36° 22’00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 280 FEET MOR OR LESS TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO STREET AND MONTEREY STREET; THENCE, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 IN DOCUMENT NO. 2006067008 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1976 IN BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 53° 38’00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 215.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED MAY 21, 2004 IN DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 36° 22’00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 280 FEET MOR OR LESS TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS SOUTH 53° 38’00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 215.00 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 67 From:Burde, Richard Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:51 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Palm & Nipomo (0720-02) Lot Merger Attachments:SLO City Merger Check List.pdf; SLO City Plan Appl SLO Merger.pdf; CLTA 28 Condition of Title Guarantee (2-7-14).pdf; EXISTING LOTS LEGAL.pdf; MERGED LOT LEGAL.pdf; APN 002-411.pdf Hi Rachel, I received the docs for the lot merger at Palm – Nipomo, what are our next steps to finalize this process? From: Webster, Steve B. <SBWebster@rrmdesign.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 2:25 PM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Cc: GKnowles@watrydesign.com; Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Subject: Palm & Nipomo (0720-02) Lot Merger Mr. Burde, I have attached files for the Lot Merger submittal. Please review and sign the application and submit all the attached documents with the city planning department for processing. Thank you your assistance in this matter. Steven B. Webster Supervisor of Surveying 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 1 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE GUARANTEE CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Nebraska corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES against loss or damage not exceeding the Amount of Liability stated in Schedule A sustained by the Assured by reason of any incorrectness in the Assurances set forth in Schedule A By: Authorized Countersignature This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 2 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Except as expressly provided by the assurances in Schedule A, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters against the title to any property beyond the lines of the Land. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters , whether or not shown by the Public Records (1) that are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; or, (2) that result in no loss to the Assured. (c) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters not shown by the Public Records. (d) The identity of any party shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (e) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in any of the schedules of this Guarantee. (f) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the Public Records. (g) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the Public Records. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: a. the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in Schedule A, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company. b. "Land": the Land described or referred to in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. c. "Mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. d. "Public Records": those records established under California statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. e. "Date of Guarantee": the Date of Guarantee set forth in Schedule A. f. “Amount of Liability”: the Amount of Liability as stated in Schedule A. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured. The Assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge shall come to an Assured of any assertion of facts, or claim of title or interest that is contrary to the assurances set forth in Schedule A and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable under this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: a. The Company shall have the right, at its sole option and cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in Paragraph 4 (b), or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. b. If the Company elects to exercise its options as stated in Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. c. Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. d. In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 3 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) GUARANTEE CONDITIONS (Continued) the Company, the Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the correctness of the assurances set forth in Schedule A to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. a. In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Assured furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. b. In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company pursuant to this paragraph shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonable necessary information from third parties, as required in the above paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: a. To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Liability together with any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. b. To pay or otherwise settle with the Assured any claim assured against under this Guarantee. In addition, the Company will pay any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that where authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay; or c. To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for the loss or damage provided for under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred by the Assured that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in 6 (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph the Company’s obligations to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any duty to continue any and all litigation initiated by the Company pursuant to Paragraph 4. 7. Limitation Liability. a. This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in Schedule A and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Guarantee. b. If the Company, or the Assured under the direction of the Company at the Company’s expense, removes the alleged defect, lien, or encumbrance or cures any other matter assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. c. In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company’s consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom. d. The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 8. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the Amount of Liability under this Guarantee pro tanto. 9. Payment of Loss. a. No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. b. When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 4 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) GUARANTEE CONDITIONS (Continued) 10. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 11. Arbitration. Either the Company or the Assured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association (“Rules”). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this Guarantee. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $2,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. Arbitration pursuant to this Guarantee and under the Rules shall be binging upon the parties. Judgment upon the aware rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. a. This Guarantee together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. b. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. c. No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 13. Severability. In the event any provision of this Guarantee, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the Guarantee shall be deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Choice of Law; Forum. a. Choice of Law: The Assured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this Guarantee and determined the premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests in real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of Guaranties of the jurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land is located to determine the validity of claims that are adverse to the Assured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this Guarantee. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law. b. Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Assured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United State of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction. 15. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at First American Title Insurance Company, Attn: Claims National Intake Center, 5 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707. Phone: 888-632-1642 (claims.nic@firstam.com). Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 5 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Schedule A CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 File No.: 6144530 Guarantee No. 6144530 Amount of Liability: $2,500.00 Date of Guarantee:February 5, 2020 at 7:30 A.M. Fee: $2,400.00 1. Name of Assured: City of San Luis Obispo 2. The estate or interest in the Land which is covered by this Guarantee is: Fee 3. The Land referred to in this Guarantee is described as follows: Real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: (APN: 002-412-001) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: (APN: 002-412-002) LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 6 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: (APN: 002-412-003) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4: (APN: 002-412-004) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 123 FEET 7 INCHES NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION, 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST, 179 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORN ER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON AND FRANCES R. HAMPTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY DEED DATED AUGUST 1, 1944 AND RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1944 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 56 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON, ET UX.; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 46 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 280 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 5: (APN: 002-412-011) THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET 65 FEET; Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 7 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE LINE OF NIPOMO STREET, 140 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHWESTERLY 65 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET 140 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 6: (APN: 002-412-012) THE NORTHEASTERLY FIFTY-NINE FEET OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAP S. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN PROPERTY GRANTED TO WILLIAM B. HALEY IN DEED WHICH RECORDED MARCH 30, 1871 IN BOOK C, PAGE 281 OF DEEDS. APN: as listed above. 4. ASSURANCES: According to the Public Records as of the Date of Guarantee, a. Title to the estate or interest in the Land is vested in: The City of San Luis Obispo, a Chartered Municipal Corporation of the State of California b. Title to the estate or interest is subject to defects, liens, or encumbrances shown in Schedule B which are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. Form 5026900 (1-29-15) Page 8 of 8 CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title (Rev. 6-5-14) Schedule B CLTA Guarantee Form No. 28 - Condition of Title ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5026900-6144530 File No.: 6144530 1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2020-2021, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2019-2020 are exempt. 3. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. 4. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of matters, if any, disclosed by that certain Record of Survey filed June 5, 2001 in book 81, page 25 . 5. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of matters, if any, disclosed by that certain Record of Survey filed August 15, 2006 in book 95, page 33 . EXISTING LOTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: (APN: 002-412-001) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE THEREOF 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: (APN: 002-412-002) LOT 1 IN BLOCK 9 IN THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53° 38’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 123.5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: (APN: 002-412-003) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D: (APN: 002-412-004) THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET, 123 FEET 7 INCHES NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION, 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST, 179 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON AND FRANCES R. HAMPTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY DEED DATED AUGUST 1, 1944 AND RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1944 IN BOOK 369, PAGE 56 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 45 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GEORGE V. HAMPTON, ET UX.; THENCE SOUTH 53° 38’ WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PALM STREET, 46 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 36° 22’ EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 280 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL E: (APN: 002-412-011) THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO AND MONTEREY STREETS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MONTEREY STREET 65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 22’ WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE LINE OF NIPOMO STREET, 140 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHWESTERLY 65 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF NIPOMO STREET 140 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL F: (APN: 002-412-012) THE NORTHEASTERLY FIFTY-NINE FEET OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK 9 OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MAY 1, 1878, IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN PROPERTY GRANTED TO WILLIAM B. HALEY IN DEED WHICH RECORDED MARCH 30, 1871 IN BOOK C, PAGE 281 OF DEEDS. MERGED LOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN BLOCK 9 AS SHOWN ON HARRIS AND WARD’S MAP OF THE TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP FILED FOR RECORD MAY 1, 1878 IN BOOK A, PAGE 168 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1995 IN DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ALSO BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED JUNE 29, 1992 IN BOOK 3912, PAGE 475 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AND THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED JUNE 9, 1998 IN DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 36° 22’00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 280 FEET MOR OR LESS TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NIPOMO STREET AND MONTEREY STREET; THENCE, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1998-034333 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 IN DOCUMENT NO. 2006067008 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1976 IN BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 53° 38’00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 215.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID BOOK 3939, PAGE 444 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECORDED MAY 21, 2004 IN DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 36° 22’00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 280 FEET MOR OR LESS TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE, SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 2004043901 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE GRANT DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 1995-035347 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS SOUTH 53° 38’00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 215.00 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Application Checklist Community Development Department 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7170 Completed Planning Application Form: Applications can be obtained from the Community Development Department or by mail, fax, or at: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development Effective: 7-01-19 Applications for development permits must include, at minimum, the information in this checklist in order to be accepted for processing and evaluation for final action. Additional information may be required following initial review by staff. Applications missing information in this checklist will not be accepted for review. Preliminary Title Report that is current within 3 months and covers all of the properties proposed for merger. Legal Description of parcel(s) Each parcel proposed for merger shall be described seperately (i.e. Parcel A & B) An Authorization consenting to the proposed merger signed by all parties having a record title interest in the parcel to be merged. Assessor Parcel Map(s) with the affected properties highlighted. Lot Merger (Voluntary) Application Fee: $827.30* *Plus Recording Fees Map(s) of proposed Lot Merger •2 copies at full size (8.5” x 11”) Show all property lines and dimensions for affected parcels. X X X X X X PLANNING APPLICATION Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805) 781-7170 Project Address and Assessors Parcel Number(s): What do you want to do? What is your final goal? Applicant (Who is proposing the project?): Day Phone: Applicant’s Address: Representative (if any): Day Phone: Representative’s Address: Property Owner (if other than applicant): Day Phone: Owner’s Address: Email Address Contact: Please send all correspondence to: The Applicant The representative The property owner Property Owner Authorization: By signing this application I certify that I have reviewed this completed application and the attached material and consent to its filing. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for the processing of the application. Applicant/Representative Certification: By signing this application I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand the City might not approve what I’m applying for, or might set conditions of approval. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for processing of the application. Signed Date Signed Date This section is to be completed by the property owner and/or occupant who controls access to the property. To adequately evaluate many project proposals Community Development Department Staff, Commissioners and City Council Members will have to gain access to the exterior of the real property in order to adequately review and report on the proposed project. Your signature below certifies that you agree to give the City permission to access the project site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, as part of the normal review of this planning application. Occasionally, Community Development Department staff may need access to one or more buildings on the project site. If this is the case, Staff will use the contact information below to arange an appointment. Permission to Access Property:Interior Inspection Contact Information: Signed Date Name: Address: Day Phone: Check Review Application No. Fee Paid Rezoning/PD Use Permit Variance ARC Review Env. Review Subdivision GP Amendment Annexation Other Application fee paid by: the applicant the representative the property owner Received by: Date: Notes to file: Office Use Only6-16 Indemnification Agreement: The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City’s approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or pro- ceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Signed Date City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Authorization of Agent Please fill in the following form including signatures. All signatures must be completed. If one or more of these signatures are the same, simply re-sign. Thank You. I hereby authorize the following person to act as my agent for the property located at: STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:________________________________________________ OWNER: NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ DAYTIME PHONE:_____________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME:_________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE:__________________________________________________________________ TITLE:_______________________________________________________________________ (PROPERTY OWNER, PARTNER, CORPORATION OFFICER, SPECIFY OTHER) DATE:________________________________________________________________________ AGENT: NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:_______________________________________________________ DAYTIME PHONE:____________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME:_______________________________________________________________________ SIGNATURE -AGENT:__________________________________________________________ DATE:________________________________________________________________________ 68 From:Yoshida, Scott K. <skyoshida@rrmdesign.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 2:26 PM To:Burde, Richard Cc:Gordon Knowles; Andre Beaudoin; Marchell, Brandon L.; Daniel Sotelo Subject:Palm Nipomo (90% Progress Phase 1 On-site plans and SWCP) Attachments:2020-04-24_Palm and Nipomo_90% Ph 1 On-Site Plans.pdf; 2020-04-24_Palm and Nipomo_60% Ph 1 On-Site Plans_Responses.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Richard, I hope you are doing well. See the attached, updated 90% Progress Phase 1 On-site plans for your review. We have incorporated your comments and for reference, attached a highlighted 60% mark-up response set showing how items were addressed. As previously discussed, due to geotechnical and structural concerns, the bioretention area that was previously sandwiched between the parking structure and northeast property line has been removed. All of the parking structure roof area now drains to the proposed subsurface stormdrain chambers on the theatre’s portion, shown on the revised EDP’s plans included in the set. Due the large file size, I will send the SWCP prepared by EDP in a second email. Also, due to geotechnical and structural concerns, the retaining wall along the northeast property line has been changed to a permanent shoring system , to be designed by others. It is shown and labeled in the plans that way. Watry and the shoring designer are working through the existing conditions, design considerations and assumptions. After you review we can set-up a conference call to discuss any comments or questions you have. Regards, SCOTT YOSHIDA, PE Project Manger Civil Engineering 3765 S. Higuera Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com 77 From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 2:56 PM To:Leveille, Brian Subject:Heyd Background Attachments:06_06_2006 C6 - PURCHASE OF 614 MONTEREY STREET.pdf i.;i j councit June 6,2006 j ac,Enaa Repoizt CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BI.SP0 FROM: Jay Walter,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF 614 MONTEREY STREET CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the purchase of property located at 614 Monterey Street for $1,165,000 and an allocation of $20,000 to cover the costs associated with closing escrow and property acquisition. 2. Authorize the preparation of a letter of`-`friendly" condemnation. 3. Allocate $435,000 from the Parking Fund working capital balance for this property purchase. and related costs. 4. Authorize the CAO to sign purchase and other necessary documents and the Mayor to execute a certificate of acceptance. DISCUSSION Recently staff became aware that the owners of property at 614 Monterey Street (Attachment 1) may be interested in selling their property. As the City Council has an informal policy of acquiring properties that serve its long-term interest and that do not involve the use of eminent domain, staff was directed to investigate the site and obtain an appraisal prior to any negotiations for purchase. The City has long term interest in the site. It is one of the few shown for eventual City use in the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (Downtown Plan). The Plan currently identifies the site for part of a cultural/parking/office or retail complex. Although the ultimate use of the site will be determined by Council in the future, the property is the one remaining privately owned parcel within the project area.referred to as the "PalmNipomo site 614 Monterey is currently used as a single family residence. Staff recommends that, if purchased, this property be left in its current use until such time as the entire site is redeveloped. Staff feels that the best property management strategy would be to contract with a professional residential property management company (rather than the Housing Authority) similar to what was done for the City property at 663 Palm Street (adjacent to this location). This would minimize disruption to the current renter and the Parking Fund would receive the bulk of the rents (less a property management fee and maintenance costs which are anticipated to be minor) rather than the typical 1/year paid by the Housing Authority. One of the current Council's goals is to consider future development scenarios of the site — especially a proposed parking garage. Pursuing that goal, the City's recently hired consultants C4 f I Purchase of 614 Monterey Street Page 2 working on the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage conceptual plan are to prepare ideas of how the site can be developed with and without this property. However, the consultants feel that adding this property to the site would increase the design possibilities and make for a more efficient parking garage layout. Staff recommends the purchase 614 Monterey because of beneficial use in the City's long range plans. With this purchase, and the others made previously, the City will own a rectangular piece of property of over an acre that will offer many possibilities for future use. These could include the currently expected combination of office, cultural and parking uses called for by the Downtown Concept Plan or other future uses that deemed of benefit for the City. The seller has requested that the City offer its use of eminent domain to assist in financial issues associated with selling the property. This does not mean that there are adverse relations between the seller and the City. By indicating the City's willingness to use its powers of eminent domain the seller is given (by law) a longer period in which to find and purchase a suitable replacement property. This is an advantage that municipalities can offer when negotiating a property purchase and the City has done this on numerous occasions in the past. Staff recommends that this procedure also be utilized in this transaction. CONCURRENCES The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed property acquisition for General Plan conformity on May 24, 2006. The Commission unanimously found the proposed acquisition to be in conformance with the General Plan. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report is attached (Attachment No. 2). While the Downtown Association has not been involved in this particular purchase, they are on record as being strongly supportive of a parking facility at this location as our next parking structure priority. FISCAL IMPACT The City solicited an independent appraisal from Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick, and Jecker of San Luis Obispo, California. The appraiser used similar property sales and gross multipliers to arrive at its conclusion that the estimated current fair market value of the property at $1,165,000. There is approximately $750,000 already budgeted for property acquisition in the current Parking Services budget. Should the Council decide to pursue this project, additional funding of$435,000 for the purchase, plus closing costs presently estimated at $20,000, would be needed from the unappropriated working capital balance of the Parking Fund. Based on the current parking enterprise Fund review, the projected working capital at the end of.2005-07 is $2.7 million, which is adequate to fund this purchase and retain working capital balances at policy levels. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not purchase the property. Given the unique opportunity to purchase a key site identified in the Downtown Plan with a willing seller at a reasonable cost, we do not recommend this option. C ^. Purchase of 614 Monterey Street Page 3 2. Renegotiate the selling price or other terms of the sale. Because the City approached the property owner about purchasing their property, the City must offer the appraised value of the property and not a lower price. 3. Fund the purchase from another source. While the ultimate use of this site, if purchased by the City, has not been yet finalized, it is likely that it will be incorporated in some fashion into the plans for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure, which are currently being developed. As such, funding from the Parking Fund is appropriate at this time. In the event that the site is not used for parking at some time in the future, then the Parking Fund will be reimbursed from the appropriate funding source at that time. In the interim, the Parking Fund will receive the rental income from the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Planning Commission staff report AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL OFFICES Purchase Agreement L\-CAR Reparts\2006\Parldng\614 Palm 6-6-06 cc agenda report.DOC CU 3 Attachment 1 Site Map from GIS Land Use Map X vp i Note: Shaded area denotes City owned property Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# FROM: Jeff Hook, Interim Deputy Director MEETING DATE: May 24, 2006 BY:Peggy Mandeville, Principal.Transportation Planner FILE NUMBER: GPC 75-06 PROJECT ADDRESS: 614 Monterey Street SUBJECT: General Plan conformity determination for a potential property acquisition at 614 Monterey Street, to enable the development of a public facility. RECOMMENDATION Determine and report to the City Council that the property acquisition, if pursued, is in conformance with the General Plan. DISCUSSION Data Summary Property Owner. Greenaway,David Heirs and Etux Owner's Representative: Scott and Wally Greenaway General Plan Land Use Designation: Office Current Zoning: O-H Surrounding Uses: Public parking (n & e), children's museum and private parking (s), City owned single family residence(w) Environmental Status: Categorically exempt as an existing facility (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301; future development of a public or cultural facility will be subject to environmental review. Site Description The proposed property acquisition is an 8,290 square-foot lot containing one single family residence constructed in 1939. The City lists the property's historical designation as a contributing"property and the site is located within the Downtown Historic District. Why.is the City thinking of buying this property? The City tries to obtain sites intended for public facilities from willing sellers as opportunities arise, rather than by condemnation. The subject site is one of those opportunities. The Downtown Concept Plan shows eventual public ownership of a larger rectangle of property located between Monterey and Palm bordering on Nipomo Street (see Attachment 1). The Greenaway property is the one remaining piece that has not yet been acquired by the City. The Plan calls for a number of uses on the entire site: cultural or historical uses along the Monterey Street frontage; retail or office along the Nipomo Street.frontage; a parking garage behind the . uses on Monterey and Nipomo and pedestrian access paths along the boundary with nearby Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page residential properties. The City Council has designated planning for the eventual parking garage as one of its goals for the FY 2003-05 and FY 2005-07 financial periods and as such, the City has been working with a design consultant to develop possible design options for a structure at this location. To maintain design flexibility, the Council to date has requested that the consultant develop some designs that impact only the rear half of the Greenaway property and some designs that impact the entire property,but maintain the oak tree in the front yard. What will the City do with the property? For the immediate future, the house would remain as rental housing. The property's ultimate use will be determined by this or future City Councils. What is the Planning Commission's role? California law requires that before the City acquires real property, it must first refer the item to the Planning Commission for a determination of conformity with the General Plan (Government Code Section 65402). The Commission must then hold a public hearing and report its findings to the City Council. A finding that a proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan does not necessarily mean the Commission endorses a particular project for the site. There are no specific sanctions in State law if an acquisition is found not to conform to the General Plan. A finding of nonconformance could make a project vulnerable to legal challenge through Government Code provisions requiring General Plan conformity for new development. What does the General Plan say? The Land Use Map shows the site as Office. (Typically, the Land Use Map designates property as Public only if it is owned by a government agency, to avoid potential "takings" issues.) Land Use Element Figure 4 shows the site as being within the Downtown Planning Area and just outside the Downtown Core(see Attachment 2). Land Use Element policy 4.2.1 says, "Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Land Use Element policy 4.2.2 says, "Residential uses within some downtown areas designated Office prior to this element's 1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City should amend the Downtown Housing Conversion. Pennit process to preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added." There is no proposal to eliminate housing at this time and thus this policy will be reviewed when the City Council determines a final use for Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page the site. Land Use Element policy 4.10 says, "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The acquisition is consistent with this policy as the Concept Plan placed the area for off-site parking just outside the edge of the core as defined by Figure 4 of the Land Use Element. Land Use Element policy 5.2.2 says, "An appropriate area for cultural facilities is the vicinity of Mission Plaza." Figure 5 shows a "Cultural Facilities Area" extending approximately from Monterey Street to San Luis Obispo Creek and from Nipomo Street to the Mission. The subject site is at the edge of the mapped area and is consistent with the text policy. Land Use Element program 5.6 says, "The City will attempt to acquire land for cultural facilities or Mission Plaza extension as sites become available." The acquisition is consistent with this program as the property owner has expressed an interest in selling their property, and the site would potentially allow improvements and facilities that support cultural uses. Housing Element policy.3.2.1 says "Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Housing Element policy 3.2.5 says "Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features." As this purchase does not propose to remove the historic house, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail if and when a proposal to demolish or relocate the house is made. Housing Element program 3.3.5 says "Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit Ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 3.21.3 says "Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished for substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible." As this purchase does not propose to remove the historic house, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail if and when a proposal to demolish or relocate is made. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 3.21.5 says "In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing and Master List historic properties." There i Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page are three Master List historic properties and three Contributing historic properties on this block, between Broad and Nipomo. The purchase and conversion of private residential property to public parking has the potential of further changing the uses and visual character of this older, historic residential neighborhood. In this case, it would encourage the neighborhood's transition into a mixed-use neighborhood with dwellings, offices, parking and cultural facilities. That transition began with previous parking lot and office development and with the construction of the Children's Museum. If the City opts to purchase and redevelop this and adjacent city-owned properties, it must address this policy in more detail in the project's site layout, architectural and landscape design and uses. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 7.22.1 says that "Significant trees", particularly native species, shall be protected. There is a large Coast Live Oak on the property that may be determined "significant" given its size and aesthetic value. No changes are proposed at this time that would affect the tree. If the City opts to purchase and redevelop this and adjacent city- owned properties, it must address this policy in more detail in the project's site layout, architectural and landscape design. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may determine that the acquisition does not conform to the General Plan. The Commission may continue the item. There is no legally mandated deadline for Commission action. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Element Map 3. Figure 4—Downtown Planning Area 4. Figure 5—Public Facilities Areas JH CLO r' 84 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Friday, November 22, 2019 5:36 PM To:Johnson, Derek Cc:Fuchs, Alexander; Stanwyck, Shelly Subject:RE: Heyd Adobe Attachments:white Paper - May 1, 2000.pdf; Municipal Code - Parking Fund Expenditure Limitaitons.pdf; 06_ 06_2006, C6 - PURCHASE OF 614 MONTEREY STREET.pdf Derek, here is the 614 Palm CAR when we acquired the property. I also included two other documents that might help since I know you like to know background on issues. 1) The “White” Paper – This is the infamous Bill Statler White Paper on the Parking Fund and properties that was done in 2000. It’s intent was to help guide staff and council on use of revenues for the parking fund as well as properties that were being considered for disposal (Chinatown, Court Street, Little Theater, etc). You’ll see that one property at the Palm-Nipomo/SLO Rep site was purchased using GF monies way back when. Previous staff discussions for the project (Palm Nipomo and Little Theater) set a goal to have a final ratio of property for the SLO Rep/parking structure areas roughly the same as the areas that each fund was used to acquire each of the properties. That way transfers to or from fund to fund wouldn’t need to be done as long as they were close in area. Its also how the area for the structure and SLO Rep was previously determined with the concept drawings from a number of years ago. I don’t know if I still have some of those layouts but might be able to find them if interested. 2) Also out of this effort the Council wanted to clarify what uses the Parking Fund monies that we collect could be used. There was clarification including some code changes as I recall but it’s been a while. I’ve attached the sections of the MC that detail out allowable uses of Parking Fund Revenues. (In case you didn’t know already). I think you and I talked about the White paper before but if you need additional info just let me know. Maybe something to discuss at the Heyd meeting? From: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 4:29 PM To: Department Heads <DepartmentHeads@slocity.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Heyd Adobe Mayor and Council: On November 12, 2019, the Council took its final design actions based on previous actions that certified the EIR in Summer 2018 that allowed for the potential demolition of the Heyd Adobe. In light of public comment, the Council took the following action:  Immediately begin the process of advertising for a private partner to relocate the Heyd adobe.  Authorize the City Manager to use his purchasing authority to incentivize a public/private partnership for the relocation of the Heyd adobe. 85 Staff has not been able to convene the team to chart out the path for implementing Council direction and positioning and marketing the relocation of the Heyd Adobe. We hope to do that shortly after the Thanksgiving Holiday. Staff is committed to creating an environment where there is the best chance to relocate the building. Last week, volunteers immediately began meeting and discussing ideas and staff has suggested that once we have a process laid out, that proposals be submitted so that the City can evaluate any interest and hopefully select an idea that has the best chance of preserving and restoring the building. More to follow and please let us know if you have any questions as evaluate the best way to implement council direction. Derek Johnson City Manager City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E djohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 slocity.org BCC: CC i.;i j councit June 6,2006 j ac,Enaa Repoizt CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BI.SP0 FROM: Jay Walter,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF 614 MONTEREY STREET CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the purchase of property located at 614 Monterey Street for $1,165,000 and an allocation of $20,000 to cover the costs associated with closing escrow and property acquisition. 2. Authorize the preparation of a letter of`-`friendly" condemnation. 3. Allocate $435,000 from the Parking Fund working capital balance for this property purchase. and related costs. 4. Authorize the CAO to sign purchase and other necessary documents and the Mayor to execute a certificate of acceptance. DISCUSSION Recently staff became aware that the owners of property at 614 Monterey Street (Attachment 1) may be interested in selling their property. As the City Council has an informal policy of acquiring properties that serve its long-term interest and that do not involve the use of eminent domain, staff was directed to investigate the site and obtain an appraisal prior to any negotiations for purchase. The City has long term interest in the site. It is one of the few shown for eventual City use in the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (Downtown Plan). The Plan currently identifies the site for part of a cultural/parking/office or retail complex. Although the ultimate use of the site will be determined by Council in the future, the property is the one remaining privately owned parcel within the project area.referred to as the "PalmNipomo site 614 Monterey is currently used as a single family residence. Staff recommends that, if purchased, this property be left in its current use until such time as the entire site is redeveloped. Staff feels that the best property management strategy would be to contract with a professional residential property management company (rather than the Housing Authority) similar to what was done for the City property at 663 Palm Street (adjacent to this location). This would minimize disruption to the current renter and the Parking Fund would receive the bulk of the rents (less a property management fee and maintenance costs which are anticipated to be minor) rather than the typical 1/year paid by the Housing Authority. One of the current Council's goals is to consider future development scenarios of the site — especially a proposed parking garage. Pursuing that goal, the City's recently hired consultants C4 f I Purchase of 614 Monterey Street Page 2 working on the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage conceptual plan are to prepare ideas of how the site can be developed with and without this property. However, the consultants feel that adding this property to the site would increase the design possibilities and make for a more efficient parking garage layout. Staff recommends the purchase 614 Monterey because of beneficial use in the City's long range plans. With this purchase, and the others made previously, the City will own a rectangular piece of property of over an acre that will offer many possibilities for future use. These could include the currently expected combination of office, cultural and parking uses called for by the Downtown Concept Plan or other future uses that deemed of benefit for the City. The seller has requested that the City offer its use of eminent domain to assist in financial issues associated with selling the property. This does not mean that there are adverse relations between the seller and the City. By indicating the City's willingness to use its powers of eminent domain the seller is given (by law) a longer period in which to find and purchase a suitable replacement property. This is an advantage that municipalities can offer when negotiating a property purchase and the City has done this on numerous occasions in the past. Staff recommends that this procedure also be utilized in this transaction. CONCURRENCES The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed property acquisition for General Plan conformity on May 24, 2006. The Commission unanimously found the proposed acquisition to be in conformance with the General Plan. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report is attached (Attachment No. 2). While the Downtown Association has not been involved in this particular purchase, they are on record as being strongly supportive of a parking facility at this location as our next parking structure priority. FISCAL IMPACT The City solicited an independent appraisal from Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick, and Jecker of San Luis Obispo, California. The appraiser used similar property sales and gross multipliers to arrive at its conclusion that the estimated current fair market value of the property at $1,165,000. There is approximately $750,000 already budgeted for property acquisition in the current Parking Services budget. Should the Council decide to pursue this project, additional funding of$435,000 for the purchase, plus closing costs presently estimated at $20,000, would be needed from the unappropriated working capital balance of the Parking Fund. Based on the current parking enterprise Fund review, the projected working capital at the end of.2005-07 is $2.7 million, which is adequate to fund this purchase and retain working capital balances at policy levels. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not purchase the property. Given the unique opportunity to purchase a key site identified in the Downtown Plan with a willing seller at a reasonable cost, we do not recommend this option. C ^. Purchase of 614 Monterey Street Page 3 2. Renegotiate the selling price or other terms of the sale. Because the City approached the property owner about purchasing their property, the City must offer the appraised value of the property and not a lower price. 3. Fund the purchase from another source. While the ultimate use of this site, if purchased by the City, has not been yet finalized, it is likely that it will be incorporated in some fashion into the plans for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure, which are currently being developed. As such, funding from the Parking Fund is appropriate at this time. In the event that the site is not used for parking at some time in the future, then the Parking Fund will be reimbursed from the appropriate funding source at that time. In the interim, the Parking Fund will receive the rental income from the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Planning Commission staff report AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL OFFICES Purchase Agreement L\-CAR Reparts\2006\Parldng\614 Palm 6-6-06 cc agenda report.DOC CU 3 Attachment 1 Site Map from GIS Land Use Map X vp i Note: Shaded area denotes City owned property Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# FROM: Jeff Hook, Interim Deputy Director MEETING DATE: May 24, 2006 BY:Peggy Mandeville, Principal.Transportation Planner FILE NUMBER: GPC 75-06 PROJECT ADDRESS: 614 Monterey Street SUBJECT: General Plan conformity determination for a potential property acquisition at 614 Monterey Street, to enable the development of a public facility. RECOMMENDATION Determine and report to the City Council that the property acquisition, if pursued, is in conformance with the General Plan. DISCUSSION Data Summary Property Owner. Greenaway,David Heirs and Etux Owner's Representative: Scott and Wally Greenaway General Plan Land Use Designation: Office Current Zoning: O-H Surrounding Uses: Public parking (n & e), children's museum and private parking (s), City owned single family residence(w) Environmental Status: Categorically exempt as an existing facility (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301; future development of a public or cultural facility will be subject to environmental review. Site Description The proposed property acquisition is an 8,290 square-foot lot containing one single family residence constructed in 1939. The City lists the property's historical designation as a contributing"property and the site is located within the Downtown Historic District. Why.is the City thinking of buying this property? The City tries to obtain sites intended for public facilities from willing sellers as opportunities arise, rather than by condemnation. The subject site is one of those opportunities. The Downtown Concept Plan shows eventual public ownership of a larger rectangle of property located between Monterey and Palm bordering on Nipomo Street (see Attachment 1). The Greenaway property is the one remaining piece that has not yet been acquired by the City. The Plan calls for a number of uses on the entire site: cultural or historical uses along the Monterey Street frontage; retail or office along the Nipomo Street.frontage; a parking garage behind the . uses on Monterey and Nipomo and pedestrian access paths along the boundary with nearby Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page residential properties. The City Council has designated planning for the eventual parking garage as one of its goals for the FY 2003-05 and FY 2005-07 financial periods and as such, the City has been working with a design consultant to develop possible design options for a structure at this location. To maintain design flexibility, the Council to date has requested that the consultant develop some designs that impact only the rear half of the Greenaway property and some designs that impact the entire property,but maintain the oak tree in the front yard. What will the City do with the property? For the immediate future, the house would remain as rental housing. The property's ultimate use will be determined by this or future City Councils. What is the Planning Commission's role? California law requires that before the City acquires real property, it must first refer the item to the Planning Commission for a determination of conformity with the General Plan (Government Code Section 65402). The Commission must then hold a public hearing and report its findings to the City Council. A finding that a proposed acquisition conforms to the General Plan does not necessarily mean the Commission endorses a particular project for the site. There are no specific sanctions in State law if an acquisition is found not to conform to the General Plan. A finding of nonconformance could make a project vulnerable to legal challenge through Government Code provisions requiring General Plan conformity for new development. What does the General Plan say? The Land Use Map shows the site as Office. (Typically, the Land Use Map designates property as Public only if it is owned by a government agency, to avoid potential "takings" issues.) Land Use Element Figure 4 shows the site as being within the Downtown Planning Area and just outside the Downtown Core(see Attachment 2). Land Use Element policy 4.2.1 says, "Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Land Use Element policy 4.2.2 says, "Residential uses within some downtown areas designated Office prior to this element's 1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City should amend the Downtown Housing Conversion. Pennit process to preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added." There is no proposal to eliminate housing at this time and thus this policy will be reviewed when the City Council determines a final use for Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page the site. Land Use Element policy 4.10 says, "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The acquisition is consistent with this policy as the Concept Plan placed the area for off-site parking just outside the edge of the core as defined by Figure 4 of the Land Use Element. Land Use Element policy 5.2.2 says, "An appropriate area for cultural facilities is the vicinity of Mission Plaza." Figure 5 shows a "Cultural Facilities Area" extending approximately from Monterey Street to San Luis Obispo Creek and from Nipomo Street to the Mission. The subject site is at the edge of the mapped area and is consistent with the text policy. Land Use Element program 5.6 says, "The City will attempt to acquire land for cultural facilities or Mission Plaza extension as sites become available." The acquisition is consistent with this program as the property owner has expressed an interest in selling their property, and the site would potentially allow improvements and facilities that support cultural uses. Housing Element policy.3.2.1 says "Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Housing Element policy 3.2.5 says "Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features." As this purchase does not propose to remove the historic house, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail if and when a proposal to demolish or relocate the house is made. Housing Element program 3.3.5 says "Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit Ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added." As this purchase does not propose to eliminate housing, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail when a proposal to change the residential use is presented. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 3.21.3 says "Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished for substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible." As this purchase does not propose to remove the historic house, this policy will need to be addressed in more detail if and when a proposal to demolish or relocate is made. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 3.21.5 says "In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing and Master List historic properties." There i Planning Commission Staff Report—633 Palm Street Page are three Master List historic properties and three Contributing historic properties on this block, between Broad and Nipomo. The purchase and conversion of private residential property to public parking has the potential of further changing the uses and visual character of this older, historic residential neighborhood. In this case, it would encourage the neighborhood's transition into a mixed-use neighborhood with dwellings, offices, parking and cultural facilities. That transition began with previous parking lot and office development and with the construction of the Children's Museum. If the City opts to purchase and redevelop this and adjacent city-owned properties, it must address this policy in more detail in the project's site layout, architectural and landscape design and uses. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 7.22.1 says that "Significant trees", particularly native species, shall be protected. There is a large Coast Live Oak on the property that may be determined "significant" given its size and aesthetic value. No changes are proposed at this time that would affect the tree. If the City opts to purchase and redevelop this and adjacent city- owned properties, it must address this policy in more detail in the project's site layout, architectural and landscape design. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may determine that the acquisition does not conform to the General Plan. The Commission may continue the item. There is no legally mandated deadline for Commission action. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Element Map 3. Figure 4—Downtown Planning Area 4. Figure 5—Public Facilities Areas JH CLO r' The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 4.30.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes fees in lieu of providing on-site parking spaces within the parking in-lieu fee area as established by council through resolution, as provided in the zoning regulations (Section 17.16.060 of this code). Fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall become part of the parking fund and shall be used solely for the development or maintenance of parking that satisfies the demand requirements of new development projects within the parking in-lieu fee area. (Ord. 1422 § 2, 2002: Ord. 1101 § 3 (part), 1987) 4.30.010 Purpose | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 1 of 1 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 10.64.010 Use of moneys collected from parking meters. All moneys collected from parking meters in this city shall be placed in a special fund, and then distributed for the following purposes: A. For the purchasing, leasing, installing, repairing, maintaining, operating, removing, regulating and policing of parking meters in this city, and for the payment of any and all expenses relating or incidental thereto; B. For the purchasing, leasing, acquiring, improving, operating and maintaining of off-street parking facilities in this city; C. For the installation and maintenance of traffic-control devices and signals; D. For the painting and marking of streets and curbs required for the direction of traffic and parking of motor vehicles; E. For the proper regulation, control and inspection of parking and traffic upon the public streets; F. To be pledged as security for the payment of principal of and interest on off-street parking revenue bonds issued by this city, of any parking district organized within this city. (Prior code § 3217) 10.64.010 Use of moneys collected from parking meters | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 1 of 1 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.org City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishing Company 10.64.040 Disposition of fine and forfeitures. All fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this title, shall be paid into the city treasury and one hundred percent shall be deposited into the parking fund except that the net bail amount received for citations generated by the police department may be allocated to the general fund. For the purposes of this section the net bail shall be determined by the council or by subtracting the total collected bail generated by police services and then subtracting the overhead costs for parking services including: citation processing, program administration and maintenance. All remaining “parking fund” moneys shall be distributed for the purposes described in Section 10.64.010. (Ord. 1532 § 4, 2009: Ord. 1165 § 1, 1990: Ord. 1100 § 2, 1987: prior code § 3217.3) 10.64.040 Disposition of fine and forfeitures | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 1 of 1 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1667, passed September 17, 2019. 120 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:54 PM To:John McKenzie Cc:Bell Jr., Charles; Codron, Michael; Leveille, Brian; Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Nipomo Parking Structure Attachments:Palm Nipomo MMRP.pdf Hi John- I will be sure to provide details (location, size, etc.) of the viewing area on the top deck of the parking structure as part of presentation. The MMRP is attached. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: John McKenzie < Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:34 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Bell Jr., Charles <cbell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Nipomo Parking Structure Hi Rachel, Thank you for your responses. With one follow-up question, they satisfy my concerns. I will get back to you on possible Addendum/EIR language. My follow-up question is on #3. I did see there are ground-level public viewing areas. However, most distant views will be blocked by the new structures (or from new taller surrounding development in the future). Will your discussion include the inclusion of a viewing area on the top level of the parking structure? If yes, can or will you provide any details on what it will look like (types of amenities) and about how large it will be? Lastly, where can I review the previously approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan? Thank you. John McKenzie -----Original Message----- From: "Cohen, Rachel" Sent: Oct 22, 2019 12:54 PM To: John McKenzie Cc: "charlesthemens@yahoo.com" , "Bell Jr., Charles" , "Codron, Michael" , "Leveille, Brian" , "Corey, Tyler" Subject: RE: Nipomo Parking Structure Hi John- 121 Thank you for your e-mail. I have provided responses to your questions below. Some of the questions will be addressed in the presentation to provide clarity for the Commission and the public. Please let me know if you have other questions. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:48 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Cc: Subject: Nipomo Parking Structure Hi Rachel, I have had a chance to review the Nipomo Parking/SLO Rep project. Here are my questions: 1. On the lot consolidation will there be ljust one lot or multiple lots to recognize each distinct use? It would seem prudent should there be a future need to have separate owners. It will become all one lot with assumed property lines for lease agreements. Because of the close proximity of the proposed buildings on the site to one another, having real property lines would make construction of the structure very difficult because of California building code requirements related to property lines. 2. What happened to the 5,000 sf of commercial? Packet Page 58 includes a project description element of a 4600 to 6900 sf res/office/retail in 2-3 story stand alone building in a second phase. Staff report is silent on this – what is correct? The “liner” building as we are calling it will come as part of phase two. I will clarify this in the presentation. 3. The EIR identified that a public viewing area was originally proposed on the top level of the parking garage and this would partially mitigate for the visual impacts. This seems like a good idea since we are building up with fewer public areas where we can go to enjoy our distant views. Is this being proposed or can it be brought forward into the project? Public viewing areas are proposed as part of the project. I will clarify this in the presentation. 4. Given that what is proposed is very close to what was proposed in the EIR, why did the EIR (or staff) not propose the C-D category as a part of the initial request? In reviewing the originally proposed PF zoning it appears what was analyzed in the EIR could not have been built as designed. Seems like it should have been called out at that time on its limitations. The EIR did identify and acknowledge the limitations of the PF zoning. Because of these limitations, staff realized that the C-D zone would better suit the proposed development, hence the proposed addendum. 5. Since it appears the historic structures will be removed, why retain the historic overlay? The Historic overlay is to continue to acknowledge the Downtown Historic District. The site is situated between historic properties and the overlay maintains the continuity of the historic district along Monterey Street. The Historic overlay ensures that any current or future development on the site is reviewed for compatibility with the historic district and is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 6. The proposed parking structure building height is 50’. The proposed projections include the elevator tower (17+ feet above building height) and solar panels (10’ above). Sec. 17.70.80 (C) (2) says projections can be up to 10’ above bldg. height. Sec. 17.70.80 (C)(3)(a) references increased height exceptions allowed but only references building height sections, and does not address projections. 17.70.80 (C)(3)(c) allows for a variance for any other requests for additional height. Unless the elevator tower is included as part of the building height measurement, I do not see any other place to allow the extra 7+ feet except for the variance for projection height. Of course if the elevator tower becomes a part of the 122 bldg. height, it would trigger other requirements that would not work well for this type of use. Where else can I go in the ordinance to allay my concerns? Section 17.86.200 states that “Where parking as a primary use is permitted in compliance with Table 2-1: Uses Allowed by Zone or Table 2-24: Airport Overlay Zone – Maximum Allowed Persons, discretionary permit approval may include deviations from otherwise applicable development standards.” I should have made this clear in my report and will clarify in the presentation. 7. The EIR includes historic bldg removal mitigation that requires detailed documentation of historic structures before they are removed/ moved. Did not see this as a condition nor mentioned in the staff report – did I miss it? The resolution refers to the resolution where the Council adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. All of these mitigation measures will need to be followed by the project. Staff does not typically duplicate mitigation measures into conditions of approval since the mitigation measures are to be followed. 8. In reviewing the Reso, it appears some clarification on the Addendum and Certified EIR would be helpful. As currently written the 5 supporting items listed are just to support the Addendum. Should there not be two paragraphs - one that states why the Addendum is appropriate, and another that speaks to the use of the certified EIR and its overriding considerations and the mitigation measures? Since there are numerous measures that relate to project specific details, it would also be helpful if there was language included along the lines of 'prior to final project design, all applicable mitigation measures shall be reviewed and integrated into all construction drawings and construction practices'. Another potentially helpful sentence might be to list out the general issue areas where mitigation measures are required. Thank you for this comment John. Do you have language that you would recommend be added to the Resolution that staff can review prior to the Planning Commission Meeting? Is there a process in place when an approved mitigation measure differs from what is done under current policy or conducted by another department/agency (e.g., differing or competing transportation related measures, etc.)? If commercial is no longer being proposed, are there any commercial-only mitigation measures that should be identified as no longer applicable? All Mitigations measures will apply to the project through the course of its development. If the project changes, the changes would have to reviewed. Thanks for your attention to these items. John McKenzie Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project, proposed in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires that a Lead Agency adopt an MMRP before approving a project in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts that have been identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the required mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented as part of the overall project development process. In addition to ensuring implementation of mitigation measures, the MMRP provides guidance to agency staff and decision-makers during project implementation, and identifies the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. The following table summarizes the mitigation measures for each issue area identified in the EIR for the project. Specifically, the table identifies each mitigation measure; the action required for the measure to be implemented; the time at which the monitoring is to occur; the monitoring conditions; and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In addition, the table includes columns for compliance verification. City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 2 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Aesthetics AES-3(a) Lighting Plan Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls e. Any signage visible from offsite shall not be internally laminated Review lighting plan to verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of building permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department AES-3(b) Glare Reduction To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non-reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. Review final building plans to verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of building permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 3 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Air Quality AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) requirements.  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible  Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible  All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed  Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) on any unpaved surface at the construction site  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of Review final grading plans to verify measure requirements have been listed Field verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading permit During construction Once during plan review Periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 4 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible  All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site:  Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications  Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road)  Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel Review final grading plans to verify standard control measures have been listed Feld verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading permit During construction Once Periodically during constriction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 5 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation  Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance  All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors  Electrify equipment when feasible  Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible:  Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible  Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available  Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters (these Review final grading plans to verify measures have been listed Field verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading permit During construction Once Periodically during constriction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 6 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments strategies are listed at: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm) AQ-2(c) Architectural Coating To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. Review final building plans to verify requirement has been listed Field verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of building permit During construction Once Periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Biological Resources BIO-1 Nesting Bird Protection To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction If grading or construction is to occur between February and August, verify that a pre-construction/ grading bird nest survey has been completed If an active bird nest is identified, verify that a buffer zone has been established by a qualified biologist and field verify compliance Prior to construction Following identification of active nest Once Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 7 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Cultural and Tribal Resources CR-1 Historical Building Documentation Packages Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the lead agency. Verify archival documentation has been completed by a qualified architectural historian in accordance with standards and provided to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County Prior to issuance of demolition permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 8 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator A qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. Retain a qualified principal investigator Prior to issuance of demolition permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department CR-2(b) City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include (1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City’s Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; (4) the completion of special studies, such as faunal analysis, if appropriate, and the curation of recovered artifacts; and (5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. Verify a Research Design and Mitigation Plan has been prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with measure requirements Field verify compliance with monitoring and fieldwork activities Verify completion of technical report Prior to issuance of demolition permit Once during demolition activities and once after pavement removal Upon completion of archaeological investigations Once prior to issuance of demolition permit Once during demolition activities and once after pavement removal Once upon completion of investigation City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 9 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments CR-2(c) Archaeological Monitoring An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project- related ground-disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be onsite on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. Field verify presence of archaeological monitor during ground- disturbing construction activities During ground- disturbing construction activities Periodically City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department CR-2(d) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of mitigation measures CR-2b or CR-2c, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist’s direction and the testing plan outlined under MM CR-2b. Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. Review construction plans for stop work requirement in the event of discovery If cultural resources are found, verify work has been halted until the discovery has been evaluated. Verify report has been prepared to evaluate the find and identify mitigation Prior to issuance of grading permit Upon finding of cultural resources Once prior to issuance of grading permit Once upon finding of cultural resource City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department CR-3(a) Qualified Project Paleontologist A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Retain a qualified paleontologist Prior to issuance of demolition permits Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 10 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments CR-3(b) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. Verify WEAP completed Prior to construction Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department CR-3(c) Paleontological Monitoring Ground-disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. Review final construction plans to verify compliance with measure requirements. Field verify presence of paleontological monitor during ground- disturbing construction activities Prior to issuance of construction permit During construction Once Periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 11 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments CR-3(d) Fossil Discoveries In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils. The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. Verify the requirement that construction work be stopped in the event of discovery of paleontological resources is be included on construction plans If paleontological resources are found, verify work has been halted until the discovery has been evaluated Prior to issuance of grading permit Upon finding of paleontological resource Once Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 12 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Geology and Soils GEO-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to onsite soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following:  Use imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork  Provide a layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick  Use post-tensioned slabs-on-grade  Implement shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls  Use over-excavation and recompaction  Utilize a deep foundation system, such as caissons or rammed aggregate piers  A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. Verify preparation of a design-level geotechnical report Prior to the issuance of building permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 13 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. Review grading plans to verify compliance with measure requirements; verify completion of work plan and soil samples testing Review the results of the soil sampling and determine if additional investigation or remedial activities are necessary If remediation is necessary, review and approve the remediation management plan Review remediation completion report to verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading permit Prior to issuance of construction permit Prior to construction Following completion of remediation, if required Once Once Once Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department and Fire Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 14 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments Noise N-1(a) Construction Vehicle Travel Route Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. Review proposed construction vehicle and hauling route(s) to verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to approval of grading/ building permit issuance Once City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department N-1(b) Construction Activity Timing Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi-family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. Review construction plans to verify compliance with measure requirements Field verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading/ building permit During construction Once during plan review Periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 15 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments N-1(c) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs) For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include:  Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment  Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25  All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory- recommended mufflers  For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities  Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools  The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and no movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day)  Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses Review construction plans to verify compliance with measure requirements Field verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of grading/ building permits During construction Once Periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 16 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments N-1(d) Neighborhood Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department. Verify compliance with measure requirements Prior to issuance of zoning clearance; during construction Once prior to zoning clearance; periodically during construction City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department N-4 Coordination of Construction Timing Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. Review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of project Prior to issuance of grading permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Transportation T-1 Construction Management Plan Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:  A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour Meet with contractor to determine traffic management strategies Prior to issuance of building permit Once City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Environmental Impact Report 17 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.  Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.  Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site).  Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant.  Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.  Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.  A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.  Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.  It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project 18 Mitigation Measure/ Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments T-3 Pedestrian Access Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City’s Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan (2017) and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider:  High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest corner of the parking structure.  High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street.  Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street.  Reduce the curb radii on the southwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. Review final building plans to verify improvements are identified Prior to issuance of grading permit Once City Public Works Director 125 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Monday, October 14, 2019 8:09 AM To:Leveille, Brian Subject:Reso Pertaining to the EIR for Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project Attachments:R-10923 Final EIR for proposed Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project.pdf Hi Brian- Attached is the Reso Pertaining to the EIR for Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org RESOLUTION NO. 10923 (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROPOSED PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE LEVELS OF PARKING FOR UP TO 445 PARKING SPACES, S,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, A NON-PROFIT THEATRE WITH APPROXIMATELY 24,000 SQUARE FEET AND UP TO 290 THEATRE SEATS, A ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT OFFICE (0) ZONE AND MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) ZONE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 609, 610, 614, 630, 633 PALM STREET AND 970, 972 NIPOMO STREET (EID-0349-2017) WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property located at 609, 610, 614, 630 and 633 Palm Street and 970 and 972 Nipomo Street (the Property); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing a 445-space parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 24,000 square feet of theatre space on the Property (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2018 to provide feedback and comments regarding the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2018 to provide an opportunity for public input and provide feedback and comment regarding the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Final EIR, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011), adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts the following CEQA Findings and Mitigation Measures related to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project: 1. The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project FEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 2 impacts associated with the proposed Project; and 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of the FEIR based on the attached Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093 and described more fully in the attached "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" document (Exhibit A) which are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR, and reduced to the extent feasible, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4. Final EIR Mitigation Measures will be incorporated into design and conditions of final approval. 5. The project shall not be approved until such time that a general plan amendment and Zoning designation changes are approved by the City Council. FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Mitigation AES-3(a). Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields c. Illumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls e. Any signage visible from offsite shall not be internally laminated AES-3(b). Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non-reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. Air Quality Mitigation AQ-1. Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PMlO emissions in accordance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) requirements. • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible • Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 3 whenever possible • All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) on any unpaved surface at the construction site • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. AQ-2(a). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road) • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance • All on-and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors • Electrify equipment when feasible • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page4 AQ-2(b). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: • Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible • Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available • Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters (these strategies are listed at: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm) AQ-2(c). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. Biolo~ical Resources Mitigation BI0-1. Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i .e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buff er zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources CR-1. Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the lead agency. CR-2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 5 archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. CR-2(b ). City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include ( 1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; ( 4) the completion of special studies, such as faunal analysis, if appropriate, and the curation ofrecovered artifacts; and (5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. CR-2(c). Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project- related ground-disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be onsite on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. CR-2( d). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of mitigation measures CR-2b or CR-2c, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under MM CR-2b. Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. CR-3(a). Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. CR-3(b ). Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. CR-3(c). Paleontological Monitoring. Ground-disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 6 paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. CR-3(d). Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils . The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. Geology and Soils Mitigation GE0-1. Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to onsite soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: • Use imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork • Provide a layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick • Use post-tensioned slabs-on-grade • Implement shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls • Use over-excavation and recompaction • Utilize a deep foundation system, such as caissons or rammed aggregate piers • A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 7 Hazardous Materials Mitigation HAZ-1. Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation ofremediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. Noise Mitigation N-l(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. N-l(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi-family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. N-l(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 8 • Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment • Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25 • All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers • For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities • Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools • The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and no movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day) • Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses N-l(d). Neighborhood Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. N-4. Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. Transportation Mitigation T-1. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 9 the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. • Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 10 T-3. Pedestrian Access . Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan (2017) and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest comer of the parking structure. • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. • Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. • Reduce the curb radii on the southwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. Upon motion of Council Member Gomez, seconded by Council Member Rivoire, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Gomez, and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Harmon None Council Member Pease The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of July 2018. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. C st ine Dietrick, City Attorney IN{wiT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ~ day of !.,J , 2 D I i . /' R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Page 11 EXHIBIT A The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental Impact Report ([EIR] State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011) for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project in determining if it will carry out the project. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating agencies, the public, and other agencies and organizations. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) require a lead agency to adopt findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR; • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or • Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The CCR Title 14, § 15091 (b) requires that the City's findings be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the lead agency's record consists of the following (on file at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo, California): • Documentary and oral evidence, testimony and staff comments and responses received and reviewed by the lead agency during public review and the public hearings on the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project • The City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2018) In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding considerations that balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social, economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR 15093, PRC §21081). This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the approval of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project and reflects the City's independent judgment. This document incorporates by reference the Final EIR. The EIR and other portions of the administrative record are available for review at the following location: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Contact: Scott Lee, Parking Manager 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7203 Page 12 EXHIBIT A Having received, reviewed, and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Public Resources Code §21081. SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Project The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project consists of a zone change and general plan amendment of five parcels from the Office (0-H) zone and one parcel from the Medium-High Residential (R-3) zone to the Public Facility (PF-H) zone. The project would include the removal of an existing 77-space surface parking lot and five existing residential structures, and construction of a five-level parking structure, commercial space, and non-profit theater. The parking structure would provide up to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be from Palm Street, with secondary access from Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street, but a direct pedestrian connection would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. The parking structure's maximum height would be 50 feet, excluding elevator towers. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street. The maximum height of the commercial space would be 41 feet above existing grade. In addition, the project would include a new structure for the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (now the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre or SLO REP) that would front Monterey Street. The theater would be a three-story structure with 290 seats and a gross floor area of roughly 23,841 square feet. Entry to the theater would be provided at the street level through a public plaza along Monterey Street. The street-level plaza would include a public seating area and incorporate public art. The maximum height of the theater would be approximately 43 feet above existing grade. Section 2.5 , Project Characteristics, of the Final EIR provides a detailed description of the project. 2.2 Project Objectives The City's objectives for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces 2. Accommodate cultural uses on Monterey Street in front of the parking structure 3. Include a pedestrian-level public use plaza area at the comer ofNipomo and Monterey Streets 4. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the parking structure to Monterey Street 5. Preserve the large oak tree on-site 6. Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (e.g., Lattimer-Hayes adobe) R 10923 Resolution No . 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.1 Background Page 13 EXHIBIT A The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR serves as an informational document for the public and City of San Luis Obispo decision makers. The Final EIR contains a project-level environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a project-level EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a project-level EIR: ... examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction , and operation. In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 78-day public review period that began December 14, 2017 and concluded on March 1, 2018; the City accepted comment letters through March 10, 2018. The City held a Cultural Heritage Committee hearing for the project on January 22, 2018 and a public Planning Commission hearing on February 28 , 2018 to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments on the Draft EIR. The response to comments section of the Final EIR (Section 8, Response to Comments on the Draft EIR) includes each written and verbal comment received by the City. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. 3.2 Impact AnaJysis Three categories of impacts are identified in the Final EIR: Class I Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that "specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR." Class II Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures identified in the EIR. When approving a project with Class II impacts, the decision makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Class III Class III impacts are adverse but not significant. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 14 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION This section identifies impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, as identified in the Final EIR. 4.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES-3: Implementation of the project would result in an increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES-3(b), Glare Reduction, that require preparation and approval of a comprehensive lighting plan consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance and use of non-reflective materials, the increase would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views. b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields. c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards. d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls. e. Any signage visible offsite shall not be internally laminated. AES-3(b) Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non- reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 15 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Cumulative Impact-Light and Glare. Cumulative development would be subject to similar existing City regulations pertaining to light and glare as discussed under Impact AES-3. New sources of light and glare in the boundaries of the city would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. While the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare in the project area, implementation of mitigation measures AES-3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES-3(b ), Glare Reduction, would ensure lighting and glare would be compatible with surrounding uses and comply with existing policies. Design review procedures would reduce impacts on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the project's impacts to light and glare would not be cumulatively considerable (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) and AES-3(b) are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.2 Air Quality 1. Construction Emissions: Construction of the project would generate temporary increases in localized air pollutant emissions (fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions). The estimated construction emissions associated with the project and would be below the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds and would not introduce new hazardous air pollutants to the area, but in accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment for PM10. Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, Fugitive Dust Control Measures, AQ-2(a), Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment, AQ-2(b), Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment, and AQ-2(c), Architectural Coating, are required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions from the project in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. With implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2(a) through AQ-2(c), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 127-129 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to address project construction emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM 10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible • Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16 EXHIBIT A watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible • All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non- invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road) • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17 EXHIBIT A • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors • Electrify equipment when feasible • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment. The following best available technology for diesel- fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: • Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible • Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available • Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm Mitigation Measure AQ-2(c) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.3 Biological Resources 1. Wildlife Movement: Construction of the project would involve general construction activity and tree removal that may affect protected nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, Nesting Bird Protection, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 129 and 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to protected nesting birds. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure BI0-1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. b. Fi nding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR-2: Construction of the project would include ground disturbance that could result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CR-2(a), Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator, CR-2(b), City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations, CR-2(c), Archaeological Monitoring, and CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level (refer to page 75 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include (1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; (4) the completion of special studies, such as fauna! analysis, if appropriate, and the curation of recovered artifacts; and ( 5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. Mitigation Measure CR-2(c) Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities within native soils, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. Mitigation Measure CR-2(d) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(b) or CR-2(c), all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under Mitigation Measure CR-2(b ). Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact CR-3: Construction of the project would result in ground disturbance that could indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of mitigation measures CR-3(a), Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist, CR-3(b), R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 EXHIBIT A Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program, and CR-2(d), Fossil Discoveries, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 77 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CR-3(b) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. Mitigation Measure CR-3(c) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground-disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. Mitigation Measure CR-3( d) Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils. The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21 EXHIBIT A Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils should be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 3. Impact CR-5: Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the project have the potential to disturb unidentified human remains. Discovery of human remains during project excavation would require compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and California PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98. PRC §5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes. Compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98 would ensure that unanticipated discovery of human remains during project excavation, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be addressed appropriately by the county coroner and the California Native American Heritage Commission (ifrequired). In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 79 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, would ensure that potential impacts to human remains and burial grounds would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4. Cumulative Impact -Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources: Planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo under the General Plan would cumulatively increase the potential for adverse effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. The project would incrementally contribute to this cumulative effect. Generally, impacts to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22 EXHIBIT A cultural and tribal cultural resources are site-specific. Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The project, along with other cumulative projects in the city, would be required to comply with existing state and local regulations that address the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. With implementation of mitigation measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), and CR-3(a) through CR-3(d), the project would reduce potential impacts to archaeological and/orpaleontological resources to less than significant levels. In addition, the project would result in a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to the cumulative loss of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources in the city. a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), and CR-3(a) through CR-3(d), would ensure the project's contribution to cumulative potential impacts would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.5 Geology and Soils 1. Expansive Soils: Implementation of the project would occur on soils that have moderate to high expansion potential. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-I, Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to on-site soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: • Use of imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork • A layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick • Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade • Shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls • Overexcavation and recompaction • Utilization of a deep foundation system, such as caissons, driven piles, or rammed aggregate piers A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 EXHIBIT A testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazardous Materials: Construction of the project would require excavation and removal of existing fill that has the potential to be contaminated. Therefore, construction activities could expose workers to contaminated soil on-site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 131-132 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with contaminated soils. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio- remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations, and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 24 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.7 Noise 1. Cumulative Impact -Construction Noise. Construction of the proposed project could overlap with the construction of other projects in the vicinity (Monterey Place and the Vesper Hotel at the Creamery) and result in cumulative construction noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4, Coordination of Construction Timing, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 99-100 of the FEIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to cumulative construction noise. Mitigation Measure N-4 Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.8 Transportation 1. Traffic Hazards: Construction of the project would result in short-term construction traffic, construction parking, and modifications to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation during the construction period. The preparation of a construction management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level (refer to pages 132-133 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce construction traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure T-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan should include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25 EXHIBIT A detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. • Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction on-site, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. b. Fi ndi ng: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact T-3: Implementation of the project would result in pedestrian access impacts due to the difficulty of crossing Nipomo Street at an uncontrolled location. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 120 of the Final EIR). a. Mi tigat ion : The following mitigation measure is required to serve the added pedestrian demand associated with the project along Nipomo Street. Mitigation Measure T-3 Pedestrian Access. Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest corner of the parking structure. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26 EXHIBIT A • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. • Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. • Reduce the curb radii on the southwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR. 3. Impact T-4: Under Cumulative plus Project conditions, one study intersection (the project driveway at Nipomo Street) would operate at an unacceptable level of service for pedestrians during the evening peak hour. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 125-126 of the Final BIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE EFFECTS FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CBQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that" ... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the BIR ... " This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 of the State CBQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an BIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR; • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Pact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27 EXHIBIT A • Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. This section identifies impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level, through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore, remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the Final EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear in the EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an impact or reducing it to a less-than-significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to the proposed project is considered in Section 7 of this document. 5.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES-2: The project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site because it would introduce new structures that are substantially different in terms of size, scale, and massing. The project includes various design features that would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible, but due to the size, scale, and massing of the project, impacts related to a change in visual character would remain significant and unavoidable (refer to page 54 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: No feasible mitigation is available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. The project design features would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible; however, additional mitigation is not available to reduce the size, scale, and massing of the project while satisfying most of the project objectives. Therefore, impacts related the alteration of visual character would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact -Visual Character: Combined with approved, pending, and proposed development in San Luis Obispo, the project would contribute to increasing urbanization of the downtown area and would increase the intensity of development (size, scale, and massing) in the area. This includes altering the fundamental character from predominantly older one- to two-story structures to a mix of such older buildings interspersed with new taller structures of four to six stories. The project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the change in visual character due to the increase in size, scale, and massing of the proposed structures. In combination with other development, the project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable (refer to page 57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures are available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28 EXHIBIT A the Final EIR infeasible . No feasible mitigation measures are available for the project's contribution of cumulative impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 5.2 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR-1: Construction of the project would result in the demolition of two structures on the project site that are historic resources and adversely affect the Downtown Historic District. This would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 is required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, but this impact is Class I, significant and unavoidable (refer to page 72 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation measure CR-1 is required to reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure CR-1 Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. b. Fi nding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measure CR-l(a) is feasible and has been adopted. Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages. However, this measure would not eliminate the permanent irreversible impacts to the historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Therefore, the potential impact to the historic residences would remain significant and unavoidable, despite implementation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 29 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the required mitigation. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact -Cultural Resources: In combination with buildout of the city under the General Plan, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources in the Downtown Historic District. Mitigation Measure CR-1, Historic Building Documentation Packages, would reduce the project's impact to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible; however, this measure would not eliminate the permanent cumulative or individual impacts to the identified historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Because of this, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city. This would be a Class I, Significant and Unavoidable, cumulative impact to historical resources (refer to page 80 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-I would reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative impact to historic resources to the maximum extent feasible. No other feasible mitigation are available that would meet the project objectives. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures CR-I is feasible and has been adopted. No additional feasible mitigation is available for the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section?. 5.3 Noise 1. Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations. Required mitigation measures N-l(a) through N-1 ( d) require implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction, and would reduce noise associated with on-and off-site construction activity to the maximum extent feasible. Although mitigation measures N-l(a), Construction Vehicle Travel Route, N- l(b), Construction Activity Timing, N-l(c), Construction Equipment Best Management Practices, and N-l(d), Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints, would reduce impacts from haul trucks and construction equipment to the extent feasible, construction noise would continue to exceed thresholds. Therefore, construction- related noise impacts would be minimized, but not eliminated. As a result, temporary noise impacts associated with on-and off-site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable (refer to page 92 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures would reduce noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N-l(a) Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall use roadways that avoid residential R I0923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Pact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30 EXHIBIT A neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. Mitigation Measure N-l(b) Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi-family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. Mitigation Measure N-l(c) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: • Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment. • Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25. • All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. • For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities. • Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools. • The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day). • Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 31 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure N-l(d) Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints~ The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Devel opment Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. b. Finding: The City finds that specific e conomic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final E IR infeasible. Mitigation Measures N-l(a) through N-l(d) are feasible and have been adopted. A vailab]e mitigation would not reduce the noise below the applicable City standards for construction activity. Therefore temporary noise impacts associated with on-site and off-site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. SECTION 6. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Introduction As identified in Section 5 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur: • Impact AES-2: Alteration of existing visual character • Cumulative aesthetic impact • Impact CR-1: Removal of historic resources • Cumulative historic resource impact • Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity noise Because the project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental effects. As such, the environmental superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. 6.2 Description of the Alternatives The Final EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no project, no development alternative; (2) an infused project and live/work units alternative· (3) an alternative R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32 EXHIBIT A that would develop the parking structure and commercial plus residential units; and (4) an alternative that would preserve the historic resources on-site. 1. Alternative 1: No Project, No Development. As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental consequences of not proceeding with the project. This alternative assumes the project is not approved, that none of the proposed entitlements are implemented, and that no further development would occur on the project site. 2. Alternative 2: Project Plus Live/Work Units. This alternative assumes the build out of the proposed project (parking structure, theater, and commercial space) except the 5,000 square feet of commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four residential units would be included on the second level. This alternative discusses the impact of the four residential apartments on the second story of the commercial area as opposed to the 2,500 square feet of commercial space. As with the proposed project, vehicle access would continue to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo streets via the parking structure. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that this alternative would follow the same site plan/floor plan as the proposed project. 3. Alternative 3: Parking Structure, Comme:rcial and Residential. This alternative would include the five-level parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, consistent with the proposed project, but this alternative would include 22 two-bedroom apartments in place of the theater and plaza along Monterey Street. This alternative would include removal of the existing surface parking lot and aJl existing residential structures. As with the proposed project, vehicle parking/site access would continue to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo Street via the parking structure. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the site plan would adhere to the basic layout and footprint of development as is contemplated in the proposed project for the parking structure and commercial space, with the direct replacement/addition of apartments in place of the theater. 4. Alternative 4: Historic Resource Preservation. This alternative would involve the construction of the five-level parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commerC'ial space, consistent with the proposed project, but this alternative would not include construction of the theater or plaza fronting Monterey Street. This alternative assumes the historic residences along Monterey Street ( 610 and 614) would remain intact and at their existing location; however, much of the backyards at these properties would be developed with the parking and commercial uses. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the site plan would adhere to the basic layout of development as is contemplated in the proposed project for the parking structure and commercial space and omit the theater. 6.3 Effectiveness of Alternatives in Avoiding Significant Project Impacts This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 33 EXHIBIT A 1. Significant and Unavoidable Aesthetic Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to the alteration of the visual character in the project vicinity. Under Alternative 1 (No Project No Development), no development would occur, therefore aesthetic impacts would not occur. Under Alternative 2 (Project Plus Live/Work Units), similar buildout would occur compared to the proposed project, which would result in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, Residential) would also result in similar aesthetic impacts due to a similar site layout and footprint; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservatjon) would result in less overall development on-site as the historic residences on-site would be retained. Although these residences would remain, the project would still construct the parking structure and other uses on-site with the potential to block views in the area and alter the visual character in the vicinity. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impact regarding visual character would not be avoided. 2. Significant and Unavoidable Cultural Resource Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts to historic resources as a result of the removal of the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Alternative 1 and 4 would not remove the residences, as they would be preserved and retained ; therefore, the project-level and cumulative impact to historic resources would not occur. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the demolition of the on-site residences; therefore, impacts to historic resources would be similar in comparison to the project. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the project-level and cumulative impact to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Significant and Unavoidable Noise Impact. The proposed project would cause noise impacts as a result of construction activity associated with project development. Under Alternative l , no development would occur; therefore, the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact would be avoided. Alternatives 2 3, and 4 would result in a similar level of overall construction activity on the project site, in conjunction with other development in the vicinity, and would therefore result in similar project-level impacts associated with construction noise. 6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative and Feasibility of Project Alternatives 1. Alternative 1 Finding: Alternative l (No Project, No Development) could be considered the environmentally superior overall, since no development would occur and the site would remain as is , and would not result in any significant environmental impact. However, Alternative 1 fails to meet the City's objectives for the project area as well as any of the project objectives. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 1 would be infeasible to implement. 2. Alternative 2 Finding: Alternative 2 (Project Plus Live/Work Units) would result in similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Nipomo Palm Parking Structure project. With a similar footprint as the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar impacts pertaining to aesthetics, cultural resources, and transportation. Although this alternative does meet some of the project objectives, Alternative 2 does not avoid any of the Class I impacts associated with the proposed project and would result in increased noise impacts. The addition of residences on the site would locate sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the parking structure. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 34 EXHIBIT A Therefore, this alternative would require additional mitigation to reduce interior noise levels below established thresholds. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 2 is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. 3. Alternative 3 Finding: Among the development scenarios, Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, and Residential) would result in similar but increased environmental effects compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in increased environmental impacts pertaining to noise, as well as to several issues that were dismissed as less than significant or have no impact in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. This is due to the residences and commercial units on-site that would introduce new residents to the city, who would require utility services and recreational and public services, as well as generate new vehicle trips from new residents. Alternative 3 would not avoid the Class I impacts related to historical resources, cultural resources, and noise. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 3 would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 4. Alternative 4 Finding: Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) is environmentally superior to the proposed project because there would be a reduced overall site footprint. The impacts from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project in the areas of aesthetics, noise, and traffic. Alternative 4 would not reduce the project's Class I impacts in those categories to a level below significance thresholds. However, Alternative 4 would eliminate direct and indirect significant impacts to historical resources because the two contributing structures to the Downtown Historic District and the linkage between properties in the district they provide would remain in place. Alternative 4 would meet most of the project objectives by providing a minimum of 400 parking spaces, offering a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street, preserving the large oak tree on-site ,. and considering the contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i.e., Hays-Lattimer adobe). However, it would not meet the objective of providing the cultural use (theater). As a result, the City finds that Alternative 4 would not satisfy the project objectives. SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Introduction The Final EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the project: 1. The project would alter the existing visual character of the project site, and surrounding vicinity. 2. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other development in the area , would increase the intensity of development and permanently alter the visual character of the surrounding area. 3. The project would result in the demolition of two structures on the project site that are historic resources, and adversely affect the Downtown Historic District. 4. The project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City by removing two historic structures that contribute to the Downtown Historic District. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35 EXHIBIT A 5. Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations , and mitigation may not be feasible to reduce the impact to less than the applicable threshold. For projects that would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projects against the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines § 15093( a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects, the public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects caused by the project. This statement is provided below. 7 .2 Required Findings The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measures will lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has determined that none of these alternatives is feasible or environmentally superior, nor would they satisfy the project objectives to the same extent or greater as the project. Alternative I would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project but would not achieve the City s objectives for the project and is not considered feasible. Alternative 2 would be environmentally similar to the project in most aspects but would result in greater impacts to noise and is therefore environmentally inferior to the proposed project. Alternative 3 is environmentally inferior to the proposed project, as it would result in increased impacts regarding noise and other impacts such as public services , recreation, utilities and service systems. Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the proposed project in that eliminates significant and unavoidable historic resources impacts related to demolition of the historic structures on-site. However, Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to achieve City objectives for the project, since the alternative would not include the theater building. In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks . For the reasons specified below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental risks: I. New Parking Spaces. The Land Use Element of the General Plan addresses downtown development, parking, and the development of cultural facilities in the city. Specifically, Policy 4.14 states "the City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core." Since the project would provide approximately 400 parking spaces in the downtown area, it would directly satisfy this goal and adhere to Policy 4.14. 2. Downtown Concept Plan. In 2017, the City updated the Downtown Concept Plan to provide a road map for future public projects and guidance for development in the downtown area. The R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36 EXHIBIT A proposed project is located in Block 10 of the Plan, which states "a new parking structure on the comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets is envisioned to include office mixed use along Nipomo Street, the theater relocated along Monterey Street, and public use on a portion of the rooftop." The proposed project would directly follow the guidance included in the Downtown Concept Plan, by relocating the theater, constructing commercial use on the western boundary of the site along Nipomo Street, and evaluating whether rooftop viewing areas are feasible as part of the Planning Commission and Architectural Commission Review. 3. Increased Economic Activity. Development of the parking structure would generate an economic benefit to the City via increased revenue from vehicle parking fees, which would then be used to fund needed services in the city. 4. Downtown Residential. The project will support Program 6.12 of the Housing Element that promotes downtown residential by allowing " ... flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or wbo provide proof ofreserved, off-site parking. The structure will be part of the City's Downtown Residential Overnight Program (Drop) that allows residents in the downtown area access to the structures to park vehicles and promote affordability by design of residential units . 5. Public Use Plaza and Pedestrian Connection. The project includes a public use plaza area at the comer ofNipomo and Monterey Streets. This plaza would be pedestrian-friendly and provide a social use area for residents and tourists in the downtown area. In addition, the project would provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street, allowing users to easily navigate from the parking structure and theater to other downtown uses, consistent with Circulation Element Policies 5.1.3 , 5.1.5 and 5.1.6. 6. San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre. The project would support the development of an arts and cultural center within the Downtown. Land Use Elements policies 5.2.1, 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 discuss that the City will work with community groups to secure facilities for cultural and arts program needs in the Downtown area. The project includes a portion of the site that would be utilized by the SLO Repertory Theatre (formerly the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre) to construct a new theatre space. Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits. Dated: ,Avi ,. / '2018 R 10923 126 From:Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:04 PM To:Hill, Robert; Johnson, Derek; Sims, Shannon Cc:Hermann, Greg; Suzy Newman; Patty Thayer; Michael Simkins; Bryce Engstrom; Stanwyck, Shelly; Burde, Richard Subject:RE: Lease Meeting Attachments:FINAL SIGNED ENA 2019.pdf; PROPOSED AGENDA 10.3.19 SLO REP MEETING.PDF Hello, everyone, Bob and I spoke this morning and here’s the proposed agenda (attached) for our meeting on Thursday, October 3 at 11:30 AM. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am also attaching the final (current) EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT for easy reference. Thanks- have a great day! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevin@slorep.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 6:15 AM To: 'Hill, Robert' <rhill@slocity.org>; 'Johnson, Derek' <djohnson@slocity.org>; 'Sims, Shannon' <ssims@slocity.org> 127 Cc: 'Hermann, Greg' <GHermann@slocity.org>; 'Suzy Newman' <suzy@slorep.org>; 'Patty Thayer' <patty@slorep.org>; 'Michael Simkins' <mbsimkins@ .com>; 'Bryce Engstrom' <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; 'Stanwyck, Shelly' <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; 'Sims, Shannon' <ssims@slocity.org>; 'Burde, Richard' <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hi Bob, Sorry I missed your call- was in rehearsal all day yesterday. I’m free until 12:15 PM today if you’d like to touch base. Just shoot me an email and let me know when is best for you and I’ll make sure I’m around. Thanks! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Hill, Robert [mailto:rhill@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 3:32 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hi Kevin, I will give you a call this afternoon so that we can touch base and coordinate an agenda together. 128 Thanks! Bob From: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 1:24 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyc@slocity.org>; Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hello Kevin, Thanks for the email and look forward to our meeting this week and will have some information to share about our ability to connect on parking in lieu fees. Can your team put together an agenda so that we have some insight on the areas that we are hoping to cover? Thank you! Derek From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 2:27 PM To: Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hello everyone, Looking forward to our meeting next Thursday at 11:30 am. Rachel Cohen is requesting that we try to finalize our in-lieu parking situation/fees and general impact fees before the Planning Commission meeting. I know that we have a full plate for next Thursday, however, can we touch upon this subject, as well? We had met with Pierre Rademaker and Pat Arnold about a year ago re: these fees and possible options for us to try to reduce this expense, however, we haven’t had any forward movement on our end after that initial meeting. The main points we talked about during that meeting were:  Exploring a way to determine our current general impact/parking impact and reducing our new fee obligation by that number.  Mitigating the fees due to the fact that the vast majority of our busy times are during off-peak hours. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Right now, with our square footage, we boilerplate in at a 67 space fee obligation. Given the current community partner fee structure, those fees would total over $670,000.00, which is almost 10% of our total design/construction budget. Thanks, everyone. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 129 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevin@slorep.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:32 PM To: 'Sims, Shannon' <ssims@slocity.org>; 'Johnson, Derek' <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: 'Suzy Newman' <suzy@slorep.org>; 'Patty Thayer' <patty@slorep.org>; 'Michael Simkins' <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Great---thank you! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast 130 by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Sims, Shannon [mailto:ssims@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:31 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Perfect! With the time change, I was able to book the Council Hearing Room as well. Please note the change in location. -Shannon From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:00 PM To: Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Fantastic! Thanks so much for making that work. We’ll see you at 11:30 AM on Thursday, October 3. I’ll be bringing Bryce Engstrom (architect) and Michael Simkins (Board President.) See you then. Have a great two weeks. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. 131 Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Sims, Shannon [mailto:ssims@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:57 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hi Kevin, No worries! 11:30am on Oct. 3rd please. Also, Greg Hermann and Bob Hill will be joining the meeting as well. -Shannon From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:36 PM To: Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hi Shannon, Really sorry to do this, but I just found out that our Board President can’t make the meeting at 10:00 AM on Thursday, October 3rd. It’s literally the only time that doesn’t work that day. Is there any availability before (say, 8:30 AM) or after (11:30 AM)? Thanks for your help with this. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: 132 SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevin@slorep.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:49 AM To: 'Sims, Shannon' <ssims@slocity.org>; 'Johnson, Derek' <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: 'Suzy Newman' <suzy@slorep.org>; 'Patty Thayer' <patty@slorep.org>; 'Michael Simkins' <mbsimkins@ .com> Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Sounds great. On my calendar for Thursday, October 3 at 10:00 AM. I’ll have to confirm with our team who can attend. I imagine that it will be me and two others at the very most. Thanks so much- have a great day. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Sims, Shannon [mailto:ssims@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:45 AM 133 To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins < Subject: RE: Lease Meeting Hi Kevin, How about Thursday, October 3rd at 10:00am? Can you please let me know how many people will be in attendance so I can book an appropriate conference room? Thank you! -Shannon From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:13 AM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>; Suzy Newman <suzy@slorep.org>; Patty Thayer <patty@slorep.org>; Michael Simkins < Subject: Lease Meeting Good morning Derek (and Shannon), Good to see you at the ARC meeting last night. I’ve already met with our design team this morning to begin addressing the feedback from the Commission. We’re happy to be over that hurdle. When I originally requested a meeting last month, we had been experiencing some communication breakdowns between our design team and the City teams during the submittal process; John Dunn suggested that I contact you to see if there was anything you could do to help smooth those out. Happily, those issues seemed to remedy themselves once the ARC sent the initial proposal back for more work; nothing like having a quick deadline and lots of work to complete to encourage people to discover just how efficient and thorough they can be. Now that we’re through the ARC and things are looking good to move forward, I agree that it’s time to tie up the loose ends in our lease agreement. I’m free before 11:00 AM on the following days: Tuesday, 10/1 Wednesday 10/2 Thursday, 10/3 Friday, 10/4 Mornings during the following week look pretty good, as well. Thanks, Derek. Have a great Tuesday. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org 134 Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___day of ______, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter municipal corporation ("the City'') and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, a California non-profit corporation (“SLO REP”). The City and SLO REP are jointly referred to as the “parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of the property located at 888 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City identified a portion of the Property as the site of a proposed public parking structure (“Palm Nipomo Parking Structure”) and anticipates that an estimated 18,000 square foot portion of the Property will not be needed for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (“Remainder Property”); and WHEREAS, SLO REP desires to construct a not-for-profit live performance theatre facility and related on- site and off-site (if any) improvements (“Theatre”) on the Remainder Property; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the exact location, size and availability of the Remainder Property for the Theatre cannot be determined at this time, and understand that the Remainder Property has development restrictions including maintenance of trees, street setbacks and provision of pedestrian connections/plazas from the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to Monterey Street that affect the net buildable land; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support community-based performing arts groups by encouraging development of a live performance theatre facility in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP recognize that identifying a location for the Theatre, as well as some of the terms of a future lease, may help SLO REP’s capital fundraising efforts; and WHEREAS, construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and related rezoning and general plan amendments will require environmental review, and SLO REP must provide certain information about the Theatre before City can conduct the environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Management Manual allows exclusive negotiations for long term lease of City property when the there is a clear link between the proposal and accomplishment of significant City goals, plans or policies; and WHEREAS, the City considers the development of a not-for-profit live performance theatre on the Remainder Property to be in the public interest and in accordance with the City's goals and the existing and proposed Downtown Concept Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises and agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 5/22/2019 AGREEMENT 1. RECITALS. The above Recitals are true. 2. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in effect for a period of five (5) years (the “Term”), unless sooner terminated as provided herein. The Parties may extend the Term of this Agreement in writing upon mutual consent. 3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to proceed with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and to allow SLO REP to explore the feasibility of SLO REP financing, designing, constructing and operating the Theatre, at its sole cost and expense, on the Remainder Property. 4. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall, during the Term of this Agreement: a. Exclusivity. Negotiate exclusively with SLO REP as the future tenant of the Remainder Property. b. Initiate Rezoning, General Plan amendments, and Lot Line Adjustment. Upon City Council authorization, initiate all rezoning, General Plan amendments, and a lot line adjustment necessary to allow the construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property and the Theatre on the Remainder Property. The intent of this Agreement is for the Remainder Property to be created as a “finished lot,” although the City legally cannot, and therefore does not, contractually agree as to how it will exercise its legislative authority to rezone or amend the General Plan and its land use authority to complete a lot line adjustment. c. Environmental Review. The City has completed environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) by Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series). If SLO REP makes any changes to the Theatre design or if any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 are triggered, then SLO REP may negotiate the portion of costs it will bear in the event substantial new environmental issues are discovered during construction, or if any project-specific environmental review related to the Theatre is deemed necessary. 5. SLO REP’s OBLIGATIONS. SLO REP shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Non-Profit Status. Be a California non-profit corporation in good standing and be exempt from state and federal income taxes under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. Proof of Financial Ability. Provide to City’s reasonable satisfaction that it has the financial ability to design, construct and operate the Theatre on the Remainder Property. At a minimum SLO REP shall: Fundraising Plan. Provide the City with a fundraising plan by December 31, 2019 that is acceptable to, and approved by, the City Manager, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The fundraising plan shall include a timeline with milestones that shall be met no later than 1 year from the estimated completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. These DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 milestones shall include, at a minimum, prior to commencement of lease negotiations, but no later than one (1) year after City’s award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo parking Structure, that SLO REP shall demonstrate, to the City Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction, that SLO REP has available at least 50% of all the funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre. i. Preliminary Cost Estimates. Provide the City with preliminary costs estimates by December 31, 2020 to design, construct and operate the Theatre for at least the first two (2) years after completion of construction. Update those estimates as design progresses, but at least every 6 months. SLO REP will include the payment of prevailing wages in its estimates. ii. Annual Financials. Annually, on or before December 31st of each year, provide the City with a current financial statement, copy of most recent filed state and federal tax returns, and copies of current bank statements, to demonstrate fundraising results for the Theatre. iii. Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Theatre to the City. iv. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded. c. Environmental Review Information. Provide the City promptly with all information necessary to conduct any subsequent environmental review of the Theatre that may be necessary. This information includes, but is not limited to, square footage of structure; square footage of various uses such as office, storage, classroom, and theatre; number of seats; maximum number of performances per week, and any other information deemed necessary by City. 6. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other party at any time by written notice to the other. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event SLO REP fails to secure building permits for the Theatre one year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo parking structure. 7. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LEASE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION. All of the following conditions must be met as conditions precedent prior to lease execution for the Remainder Property: a. Lease negotiation: i. Rezoning and Lot Line Adjustment. City has rezoned and/or amended the City’s general plan and has perfected a lot line adjustment that will create the Remainder Property as a “finished lot” allowing for construction and its use as the Theatre. ii. Obligations Met. Both City and SLO REP have met all of their respective obligations under the Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 b. Availability of Funds for Design, Construction, and Operation of the Theatre Prior to execution of the lease, SLO REP demonstrates to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that SLO REP has met all applicable fundraising milestones in the fundraising plan approved by the City Manager. c. Non-Profit Status. SLO REP has maintained its non-profit and tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law. d. Design and Construction Schedule. Prior to lease execution, provide to the City’s Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction, a design and construction schedule, demonstrating, at a minimum, the Theatre will be constructed and completed within 3 years of the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. e. Design Coordination. Coordinate design of the Theatre with the City to ensure it is compatible with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 8. GENERAL LEASE TERMS. If the parties enter into the exclusive negotiations, the parties desire that the lease include the following general provisions; provided, the actual language of each provision is subject to further negotiation, and most material terms and provisions of the lease have not yet been discussed. The City shall not lease the land for minimal rent unless the lease is completely acceptable to the City and approved by the City Attorney. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as an agreement or offer to lease upon the terms, provisions or language set forth below. a. SLO REP shall commence construction of the Theatre no later than one (1) year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and shall complete construction of the Theatre within three (3) years after that. SLO REP shall not commence construction of the Theatre unless SLO REP demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction prior to expiration of the year within which SLO REP is to commence construction, that SLO REP has all of the funds necessary to design and construct, as well as operate for at least one (1) years after completion of construction, the Theatre, plus a 15% contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”). If SLO REP does not timely demonstrate that SLO REP has the Required Funds, or if SLO REP fails to timely begin or timely complete construction, SLO REP shall be in substantial default, and the lease shall automatically terminate unless City agrees otherwise in writing. The Theatre shall be deemed complete only upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Minimum 40-year term with the right of first refusal for additional lease years provided that Theatre is in good standing at the time of the renewal window, which shall open after 35 years and conclude after 37 years unless the window is extended. c. Rent of $1.00 per year provided SLO REP: i. Is a California non-profit corporation in good standing; and ii. Is a federal and state income tax exempt 501 (c)(3) entity; and uses the Remainder Property solely as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 iii. SLO REP’s failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law or to use the Remainder Property for any purpose other than as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses during the term or any extended term of the lease, shall be a material breach of the lease. In the event any such breach occurs, City may, at its option, either terminate the lease or raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses. d. SLO REP shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Theatre and all street frontage and landscaping, utility extensions and connections, and other improvements, based on agreed upon and approved plans and specifications, at its sole cost and expense without any assistance from the City. e. SLO REP shall be responsible for meeting or mitigating all conditions, impacts, mitigations and requirements identified in the environmental review and entitlement processes for issues associated with the SLO REP’s operation of a theatre on the Property, at SLO REP’s sole cost and expense. f. The design of the Theatre must be compatible with the design of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, including the parking structure’s entrance and exiting needs, as determined by the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. g. SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. h. If the SLO REP is not in material compliance with the Lease or ceases to be financially solvent and to maintain the Property in a commercially reasonable manner, the lease shall contain provisions for the City to declare a default of the Lease, for SLO REP to effect a reasonable cure of the default(s), and for the City to terminate the Lease if the default(s) are not cured pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease, and for the Remainder Property to revert to the City. i. Prevailing wages shall be paid by SLO REP for construction of the Theatre and related improvements, mitigations etc. j. SLO REP shall pay all applicable parking in lieu fees for a Community Partner, as determined by the sole discretion of the City’s Public Works Director. k. Payment of possessory interest and other taxes by SLO REP. l. Other long-term landlord protection ground lease provisions, such as City standard insurance requirements, indemnity provisions, attorneys’ fees, prohibitions against nuisance, waste, requiring maintenance at SLO REP expense, etc. m. If the City Council does not move ahead with the construction of the Palm/Nipomo structure, a new agreement will need to be negotiated between the parties for a mutually acceptable alternate site or an alternate set of requirements for a portion of the Property. n. The City will not subordinate its interest in the Remainder Property to any financing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 10. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties. Any such extension, amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Council. 11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties. 12. NOTICE. All notices to the parties shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City: Derek Johnson City Manager 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO REP: Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 888 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and SLO REP warrant and represent that each individual executing the Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Teresa Purrington City Clerk Date Heidi Harmon Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: SLO REPERTORY THEATRE J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Date Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson Aaron Gomez, Erica A Stewart, Vice Mayor Andy Pease, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPOINTMENTS 1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONE 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: None End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: San Luis Obispo Page I DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4, 20] 8 Page 2 Make appointments to the Zone 9 Advisory Committee, effective December 31, 2018, and recommend the County Board of Supervisors confirm, as follows: 1. Appoint Christine Mulholland to serve as public member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 2. Appoint Dave Romero to serve as the alternate member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 3. Appoint Matt Horn, City Engineer, to serve as the staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee; and 4. Appoint Brian Nelson, Supervising Civil Engineer, to serve as the alternate staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022. 2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS' REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE, AND MASS_ TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: Tom Tyran Kincaid End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Confirm the appointment of Winston Newland to the Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission, to complete an unexpired term through June 30, 2019. 2. Confirm the appointment of Julie Moore, as the representative of the San Luis Obispo County History Center, to the Jack House Committee effective December 4, 2018; and 3. Confirm the appointment of Ryan Hund, as the ASI student representative, to the Mass Transportation Committee, to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. INTRODUCTION 3. INTRODUCTION OF ERIC HAGEN CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Community Development Director Michael Codron introduced Eric Hagen as the new Chief Building Official. PRESENTATIONS 4. PROCLAMATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - CARRIE MATTINGLY City Manager Derek Johnson presented a proclamation to retiring Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly, in recognition of her service. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4-2018 Pabe 3 PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment --- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 thru 12. Public Comment Lea Brooks — 8 Myron Amerine — 8 Kevin Harris — 10 Myron Amerine — 12 End of Public Comment --- 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2019 CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the proposed 2019 regular City Council meeting schedule with meetings normally held the first and third Tuesday of every month, with the following exceptions: 1. Reschedule the Regular City Council meeting of January 1 to January 8, 2019, and 2. Cancel the Regular City Council meetings of August 6 and December 17, 2019. 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3089 PHASE 1, AVILA RANCH, 175 VENTURE DRIVE (SBDV 2042-2015) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 3089 Phase 1 Avila Ranch (175 Venture Drive, SBDV-2042-2015)," and authorizing the Mayor to execute the easements, agreements, and associated fee offers, including the recommended changes in the staff agenda correspondence. 8. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUCHON TRAFFIC CALMING CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Buchon Traffic Calming Measures; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $160,000; and 3. Authorize the use and transfer of $142,000 from the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming budget and $18,000 from the City's Traffic Safety & Operations Budget to the project account. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Deceniber 4. 2018 Page 4 9. ADJUSTMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTAL SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICY AS A RESULT OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing and adopting a supplemental employee salary schedule and superseding previous resolutions in conflict," as necessary to comply with California Fair Wage Act of 2016 requiring a minimum wage of $12.00 per hour effective January 1, 2019; and 2. Adopt the revised Supplemental Employee Policy. 10. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, SLO REP, for long-term use of a portion of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site to construct and operate a new theatre, based on parameters previously set forth by the City Council. 11. REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 10894 TO REFLECT UPDATED ZONING REGULATION SECTION FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS CARRIED 5-0, to Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing and replacing Resolution No. 10894 (2018) to reflect updated zoning regulation sections." 12. ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE RAMONA DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CLASS 1 PATH CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to execute easement and deed agreements in a total amount not to exceed $423,700 including title and escrow charges in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 13. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT - AUTHORIZATION TO BID Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly and Deputy Director Dave Hix provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Autumn Brown Rosemary Wrenn Scott Zimmerman Daniel Mora Richard Van Humbeck DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council_ Minutes of December 4, 2018 Pie 5, Jesse Brooks Quinn Brady Tony Skinner Sean Perry Dave Baldwin David Gilliland Nick Andre End of Public Comment --- ACTION: MOTION BY MAYOR HARMON SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project, Specification No. 91620; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids pending City Engineer's approval of the bid set; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the project construction budget of $111,600,000; and 4. Approve amended WRRF Project -specific Construction Contract Change Order policy and authorize the Utilities Director to be responsible for construction contract change orders (CCOs) for the WRRF Project in any amount with the limitation that the sum total of all CCOs not exceed the contingency budget amount of $13,390,000; and 5. Incorporate the Community Workforce Agreement into WRRF Project Spec. No 91620 as approved by signatory Craft Councils and Unions affiliates and the Tri -Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO as included in the Council agenda packet for the November 13, 2018 Meeting. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 14. BOB JONES TRAIL (CALLE JOAQUIN TO OCEANAIRE) PREI+ERREI) ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Transportation Manager Jake Hudson and Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Myron Amerine Lea Brooks Ken Kienow End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, Council directed staff to evaluate other route alternatives which are not consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan as part of the planning of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of December 4 2018 Parc 6 RECESS Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m., with all Council Members present. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 15. 2019-21 FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS: ECONOMIC OUTLOOK BUDGET POLICIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW Finance Director Brigitte Elke and Budget Manager Alex Ferreira provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, the Council reviewed and approved the 2019-21 Financial Plan Goal Setting Process. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Vice Mayor Pease invited the public to the Police Department Community Meeting and Station tour on Thursday, December 6, 2018 and also indicated that the City Council would be participating in the annual holiday parade on Friday, December 7, 2018. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. The next Rescheduled Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. l Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 01/08/2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 PALM/NIPOMO-SLOREP PROJECT 10/3/2019 11:30 AM Proposed Agenda Items All items below are included in the ENA, so, a review of the agreement should cover all of them: o Construction timeline/staging areas o Individual and shared expenses o Reporting/Financial milestones o Formal Development Application o Environmental Review Information (already submitted to Rachel?) o Frontage expense/maintenance determination o In-lieu parking fees o General Impact fees Items below are not in the ENA: o Transition timeline/expectations (between spaces) o Expected post-transition condition of current venue (888 Morro Street.) o Transient challenges 135 From:Burde, Richard Sent:Wednesday, September 25, 2019 2:32 PM To:Kevin Harris; Cohen, Rachel; Rudd, Debbie L.; Bryce Engstrom Cc:Stanwyck, Shelly; Nelson, Brian; Horn, Matt; Codron, Michael Subject:RE: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Attachments:Relocating the Heyd Adobe.pdf Kevin, I think your team should cover the impacts to the Theater’s design (i.e. fire access routes, site grading, and other building code issues) for the in situ option as well for on-site relocation. I have attached James’ report which shows various options for moving the adobe elsewhere on-site, for reference. I will provide input on the feasibility of relocating the adobe either to the Mission Plaza, the History Center’s parking lot, or the future park planned for the lot across from the SLOMA at Monterey and Broad. I will confirm with Michael Codron, but I think that we should be ready to speak on this topic during upcoming PC and CC meetings as well. This could just be a quick scope and scale type of analysis but I’m thinking it would be helpful to at least paint a picture of the impacts to our projects this change in direction would trigger. Incorporating the adobe into the theater’s design, whether it remains in place or moved elsewhere on the site, completely changes the project and PC and CC should be made aware of this. Please feel free to call or stop by to discuss if you think that would help you in any way. From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 10:25 AM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Thanks for this update, Richard. Just to confirm: at this point, there’s nothing that anyone on our team needs to do re: help ing to prepare the feasibility studies about the abode. That is: the City is taking the lead on reporting the feasibility of the 2 options (en situ/offsite), and our team is just giving input about the design challenges the first option would create? Just let us know what/if we need to get anything to you, otherwise, we’ll just start gathering public support for the 10/23 meeting. We had a great meeting with Bryce this morning- he came up with some great design options that should address both the ARC and CHC concerns. Thanks you- let me know! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org 136 Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Burde, Richard [mailto:rburde@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 9:08 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Good Morning Kevin, I spoke with Derrek and he is advising that the projects will continue to move forward in tandem and under the current schedule, 10/23 PC and 11/5 CC, and that a condition will accompany any PC and CC review to return to the CHC to advise the Director on our report on the feasibility of 1)En situ preservation of the adobe 2) offsite preservation of the adobe and 3) any design changes that the SLO Rep makes in response to the CHC input on the architecture and compatibility related to the historic context. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:10 AM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Thanks so much, Richard. I will pass this on ASAP. I appreciate it. Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 137 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Burde, Richard [mailto:rburde@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:08 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Good Moring Kevin, It is our intent to keep the two projects moving forward in tandem, and City staff will be discussing options to accomplish this asap. We should have some better insight as to how to move forward by the end of the week, and I will definitely keep you posted. Please feel free to call with any questions or concerns you may have. Thanks From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 7:00 AM To: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: CHECKING IN RE: CHC Good morning, all! It’s 6:50 AM and my voicemail and inbox is already full of messages from Board Members/donors wanting to know where we stand after the CHC meeting last evening. Clearly the CHC took actions outside of their purview—namely, bifurcating the parking structure from the theatre project; and continuing any action on the theatre’ s cultural compatibility to a future CHC meeting. 138 When can we expect guidance about how to move forward from your team? Are we obligated to return to the CHC to honor a continuance that was such a transparent overreach? Is there any way that both projects can make the 11/5 meeting, or, is the garage moving forward to Planning next month without the theatre? I don’t need all the answers right now---I just need to be able to let my people know when the answers might be coming. Thanks, everyone! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: SLO REP strengthens theatre’s cultural influence and enriches the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults. Our Belief: Live theatre’s powerful storytelling connects people in ways that open the mind, nourish the soul and illuminate our shared humanity. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Burde, Richard [mailto:rburde@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:13 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Jewell, Debbie J. <DJJewell@rrmdesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com>; Andre Beaudoin <ABeaudoin@watrydesign.com>; Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom (brycethearchitect@gmail.com) <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Lindsay Corica <lindsay@firmaconsultants.com>; Pierre Rademaker (pr@rademakerdesign.com) <pr@rademakerdesign.com>; Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Cc: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and SLO Rep Theatre Good Morning All, Please review the tasks listed by Rachel below and provide turnaround times. As you all know we are on a tight schedule as we move through the committee process and I would like to hold our Council presentation on 11/5 if at all possible. Council agendas are already filled up through the end of the year, and missing the 11/5 hearing could cause significant delays. Thank you 139 From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:19 PM To: Jewell, Debbie J. <DJJewell@rrmdesign.com>; Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com >; Andre Beaudoin <ABeaudoin@watrydesign.com>; Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bryce Engstrom (brycethearchitect@gmail.com) <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Lindsay Corica <lindsay@firmaconsultants.com>; Pierre Rademaker (pr@rademakerdesign.com) <pr@rademakerdesign.com>; Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and SLO Rep Theatre Good afternoon- On August 19, 2019, the ARC met to review the architecture of the proposed Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the SLO Rep Theatre. The ARC has provided a list of directional items that are to be included in the re-submittal. I have noted in the list which directional items apply to which project and which are likely to be a collaboration between the two teams. 1. Provide a finished Nipomo (west) elevation for the Parking Structure. 2. Reconsider the finishes on the SLO Rep façade where it adjoins and transitions to the Parking Structure. 3. Provide a landscape exhibit and 3-D renderings of the Plaza along Monterey in front of the main entrance to the SLO Rep Theatre. 4. Provide color elevations (SLO Rep). 5. Provide a section illustration showing the two buildings (SLO Rep and Parking Structure). 6. Provide renderings and 3-D illustrations of the whole project site (SLO Rep and Parking Structure). 7. Provide a color elevation of both buildings along Nipomo Street (SLO Rep and Parking Structure). The main takeaway I got from the ARC’s direction is that they need more illustrations / renderings to better understand how the projects will interface with each other, landscaping, the surrounding neighborhood and streets. Staff is available to work with your teams as you pull together your re-submittals. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 149 From:Allan Cooper <saveourdowntownslo@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 21, 2019 12:43 PM To:Leveille, Brian; Cohen, Rachel; Advisory Bodies Subject:CHC Review of the Parking Garage and Repertory Theate @ 609 Palm Street Attachments:809_21_19...lettertochc.pdf Dear Brian and Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the CHC before their Monday, September 23, 2019 meeting? Thanks! - Allan Allan Cooper, Secretary - Save Our Downtown, San Luis Obispo, CA Website: www.SaveOurDowntownSLO.com Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee, Brian Leveille, Senior Planner and Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Re: 609 Palm - Continued design review of two new structures  From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: September 21, 2019 Honorable Chair and Committee Members - Staff described some of the Architectural Review Commission’s concerns at their August 19, 2019 meeting which led to a continuance. Surprisingly, staff left out the conditions for approval at their September 16, 2019 meeting. So that neither the CHC, ARC and PC remain in their respective “silos”, never beneﬁting from what used to be free and open communications with one another, it is incumbent on us to share with you some of the Commission’s September 16th concerns. Perhaps you can “build” on some of these concerns. It is our understanding that last Monday, the ARC asked to continue the repertory theater. Staff is suggesting that the ARC approved this project with conditions. In any event, the ARC requested that the simple boxes should come back with a more pleasing, receding appearance, that the theater blend more with the garage behind it and that the high contrast horizontal banding be toned down. You now have a color elevation of both buildings along Nipomo Street. As you can see, the two buildings remain in stark, uncompromising contrast with one another. Permit us to explain our concerns with both buildings and humbly suggest ways these two buildings could better relate to one another. Staff has stated that “the proposed project is in an area of the downtown that consists of existing and proposed structures with a variety of architectural styles that do not reﬂect many of the typical downtown historic architectural characteristics”. We disagree. There are some architectural features (not styles) recurring within this area that should be taken into consideration when addressing neighborhood compatibility. Therefore, we would like to suggest ways these buildings might more compatibly ﬁt into this important, historic neighborhood. Critique of the SLO Repertory Theater The SLO Repertory Theater is historically out of context with its surroundings. Why? Because the theater has ﬂat roofs and an unrelentingly busy, decorative terra cotta motif. It’s understandable why a parking garage would have a predominantly ﬂat roof. But with the exception of the false-fronted Soda Works building, all of the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Old Mission have either gable or shed roofs. The Leitcher House at 667 Monterey and the houses at 679, 664 and 658 Monterey Street have gabled roofs and the SLO County Historical Museum has gabled roofs. The Children’s Museum has both gable and shed roofs. Even the more contemporary 667 Monterey Street (Monterey Place) project will have a few gabled roofs. Wouldn’t it, from a deferred maintenance point view, be important to ﬁgure out a way to get rainwater off the theater roofs by introducing a shed roof here and there? We invite you to look below at a few contemporaneous examples of buildings with shed or gable roofs. Wouldn’t it be better if the Nipomo Street elevation had not only a bulkhead faced with stucco plaster and/or stone veneer but that the entire wall fronting onto Nipomo Street would be faced in plaster or stone veneer to provide a better transition to the parking garage? Wouldn’t it be better if the strange terra cotta, sesame-colored banding on the theater were eliminated altogether? Critique of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage The parking garage elevation along Nipomo Street is less plain than it was back on August 19th, but we question why this facade has not taken on the qualities of the North facade along Palm Street or the East facade facing the adjoining properties. It’s also puzzling why the tower facing Nipomo Street couldn’t be a replica of the Palm Street tower with its more traditional rustication, proportions and scale. The Nipomo Street facade should continue the decorative insert reliefs that can be found running along the top fascia of the North Facade. The Nipomo Street facade should, like the Palm Street facade, have a continuous ﬁrst ﬂoor belly band. This would succeed in emphasizing the horizontal and bringing down the scale of the building. And ﬁnally, the Nipomo Street facade, in order to tie in with the more rectilinear qualities of the theater, should dispense with its arches altogether. We are also aware of your concern about the preservation of the historical, circa 1939 bituminous adobe brick house located at 614 Monterey Street. We know you are considering moving this structure. But from a contextual point of view, wouldn’t it be better if the architect could, using all of the skills available to him, incorporate this structure in situ into the rest of the repertory theater? Given the importance of these two projects relative to their location downtown we urge you to continue this project with direction. Thank you! ACCENT TREES SEE L-2 FOR PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST VEHICULAR ACCESS (THEATRE ONLY) DROUGHT TOLERANT UNMOWED GRASS, REINFORCED LANDSCAPE SURFACE DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE SEE L-2 FOR MATERIALS PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE OAK UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS ADAPTED TO MEDITERANNEAN CLIMATE. REFER TO WATER CONSERVATION NOTES. LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL GRASSES CITY WAYFINDING KIOSK DECORATIVE BOLLARD PARKING STRUCTURE EXISTING ENTRY/EXIT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BUILDING FRONTAGE 0' SETBACK OAK UNDERSTORY SCULPTURE GARDEN AND NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE NIPOMO STREET PUBLIC USE AREA AT CORNER OF NIPOMO AND MONTEREY VEHICULAR LANDSCAPE AREA (THEATRE ONLY) PRIMARY THEATRE ENTRY LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION TO THEATER AND PARKING STRUCTURE PARKING STRUCTURE STREETSCAPE 12' WALK BY OTHERS NOTE: A PART OF NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN BENCHES SCULPTURE GARDEN ABSTRACT ELEMENTS ON DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE STREETSCAPE A PART OF NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN LINE OF ROOF DECK THEATRE MARQUEE SIGNAGE SCREEN SHRUBS EXISTING OAK CRZEXISTING TREE CANOPY PODOCARPUS SPP. M O N T E R E Y S T R E E TN I P O M O S T R E E T BENCHES SEE L-2 FOR AMENITIES STREET TREES PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MASTER TREE LIST PLAZA SEAT WALL EXISTING OAK CRZ SALVAGE EXISTING GRANITE BLOCKS AND RE-USE AT PLAZA SEAT WALL PLAZA 25' TYPICAL SCALE: 1” – 10’-0” @ 30” x 42” SHEET SIZE 05'10'10' 20' 30' NORTH: l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803 Conceptual Landscape Plan SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE L-1 July 5, 2019 File Path: firma_SLO Repertory Theatre_21803 Last Date Modified: 07052019 ATTACHMENT 1 153 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 8:17 AM To:CityClerk Subject:FW: 609 Palm - Continued design review of two new structures Attachments:309_14_19...lettertoarc.pdf From: A. Cooper < Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 12:11 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: 609 Palm - Continued design review of two new structures  Dear Shawna and Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the ARC before their Monday, September 16th meeting? Thanks! - Allan From: Allan Cooper a Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission, Shawna Scott, Senior Planner and Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Re: 609 Palm - Continued design review of two new structures  From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: September 14, 2019 Honorable Chair and Commissioners - You now have a color elevation of both buildings along Nipomo Street. As you can see, the two buildings remain in stark, uncompromising contrast with one another. Permit us to explain our concerns with both buildings and humbly suggest ways these two buildings could better relate to one another. We would also like to suggest ways these buildings might compatibly ﬁt into this important, historic neighborhood. Critique of the SLO Repertory Theater The SLO Repertory Theater is out of context with its surroundings. Why? Because the theater has ﬂat roofs and an unrelentingly busy, decorative terra cotta motif. It’s understandable why a parking garage would have a predominantly ﬂat roof. But with the exception of the false-fronted Soda Works building, all of the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Old Mission have either gable or shed roofs. The Leitcher House at 667 Monterey and the houses at 679, 664 and 658 Monterey Street have gabled roofs and the SLO County Historical Museum has gabled roofs. The Children’s Museum has both gable and shed roofs. Even the more contemporary 667 Monterey Street (Monterey Place) project will have a few gabled roofs. Wouldn’t it, from a deferred maintenance point view, be important to ﬁgure out a way to get rain water off the theater roofs by introducing a shed roof here and there? We invite you to look below at a few contemporaneous examples of buildings with shed or gable roofs. Wouldn’t it be better if the Nipomo Street elevation had not only a bulkhead faced with stucco plaster and/or stone veneer but that the entire wall fronting onto Nipomo Street would be faced in plaster or stone veneer to provide a better transition to the parking garage? Wouldn’t it be better if the strange terra cotta, sesame-colored banding on the theater were eliminated altogether? Critique of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage The parking garage elevation along Nipomo Street is less plain than it was back on August 19th, but we question why this facade has not taken on the qualities of the North facade along Palm Street or the East facade facing the adjoining properties. It’s also puzzling why the tower facing Nipomo Street couldn’t be a replica of the Palm Street tower with its more traditional rustication, proportions and scale. The Nipomo Street facade should continue the decorative insert reliefs that can be found running along the top fascia of the North Facade. The Nipomo Street facade should, like the Palm Street facade, have a continuous ﬁrst ﬂoor belly band. This would succeed in emphasizing the horizontal and bringing down the scale of the building. And ﬁnally, the Nipomo Street facade, in order to tie in with the more rectilinear qualities of the theater, should dispense with its arches altogether. The continuance you gave this project on August 19th would have given you the opportunity to hear from the Cultural Heritage Committee at their next scheduled August 26th meeting. Unfortunately, this CHC meeting was canceled and rescheduled for September 23, 2019. But you should know that there are CHC members concerned about the preservation of the historical, circa 1939 bituminous adobe brick house located at 614 Monterey Street. Given the importance of these two projects relative to their location downtown and given the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with the Cultural Heritage Committee, we again urge you to continue this project with direction. Thank you! 154 From:Oetzell, Walter Sent:Monday, September 9, 2019 8:06 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Oaks in urban settings Were there any particular resources on that page that you thought were applicable to SLO development review? -- Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner (805) 781-7593 From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 8:51 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; McSurdy, Cassidy <cmcsurdy@slocity.org>; Aguilar, Sophie <saguilar@slocity.org>; Driscoll, Madison <mdriscol@slocity.org>; Clark, Hannah <hclark@slocity.org>; Vereschagin, Cara <CVeresch@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Good morning, Passing along some information about oak trees in urban settings – thought you may find it useful during project review. Thank you, Shawna From: Paula Carr <PCarr@swca.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:07 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Judi Young <JudiYoung@swca.com> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Hello, Shawna, I attended the ARC meeting last night and heard the discussion about the large oak at the SLO Rep/Parking Structure site. Today I learned about this UC Berkeley Agriculture and Natural Resources website (designed by Judi Young here in our San Luis Obispo SWCA office), and thought you’d be interested. Good information. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/urban-oak-care/ Paula Paula Juelke Carr Senior Architectural Historian SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite B-C 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2945 155 P 805.543.7095 X 6810 | F 805.543.2367 The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments. 156 From:Leveille, Brian Sent:Friday, September 6, 2019 11:07 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Oaks in urban settings Thanks. Will be useful for me. Brian Leveille Senior Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bleveille@slocity.org T 805.781.7166 slocity.org From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 8:51 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Nguyen, Hannah <hannahn@slocity.org>; McSurdy, Cassidy <cmcsurdy@slocity.org>; Aguilar, Sophie <saguilar@slocity.org>; Driscoll, Madison <mdriscol@slocity.org>; Clark, Hannah <hclark@slocity.org>; Vereschagin, Cara <CVeresch@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Good morning, Passing along some information about oak trees in urban settings – thought you may find it useful during project review. Thank you, Shawna From: Paula Carr <PCarr@swca.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:07 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Judi Young <JudiYoung@swca.com> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Hello, Shawna, I attended the ARC meeting last night and heard the discussion about the large oak at the SLO Rep/Parking Structure site. Today I learned about this UC Berkeley Agriculture and Natural Resources website (designed by Judi Young here in our San Luis Obispo SWCA office), and thought you’d be interested. Good information. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/urban-oak-care/ 157 Paula Paula Juelke Carr Senior Architectural Historian SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite B-C 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2945 P 805.543.7095 X 6810 | F 805.543.2367 The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments. 158 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Friday, September 6, 2019 8:51 AM To:Cohen, Rachel; Bell, Kyle; Oetzell, Walter; Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Nguyen, Hannah; McSurdy, Cassidy; Aguilar, Sophie; Driscoll, Madison; Clark, Hannah; Vereschagin, Cara Cc:Corey, Tyler; Leveille, Brian Subject:FW: Oaks in urban settings Good morning, Passing along some information about oak trees in urban settings – thought you may find it useful during project review. Thank you, Shawna From: Paula Carr <PCarr@swca.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:07 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Judi Young <JudiYoung@swca.com> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Hello, Shawna, I attended the ARC meeting last night and heard the discussion about the large oak at the SLO Rep/Parking Structure site. Today I learned about this UC Berkeley Agriculture and Natural Resources website (designed by Judi Young here in our San Luis Obispo SWCA office), and thought you’d be interested. Good information. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/urban-oak-care/ Paula Paula Juelke Carr Senior Architectural Historian SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite B-C 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2945 P 805.543.7095 X 6810 | F 805.543.2367 The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments. 167 Wooten, Eric From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:27 PM To:Judi Young; Paula Carr Subject:RE: Oaks in urban settings Thank you, Judi – I appreciate the additional information. From: Judi Young <JudiYoung@swca.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:17 PM To: Paula Carr <PCarr@swca.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Oaks in urban settings Hi, Shawna, This side project (labor of love, really) was to update and make current the old Oak Woodland Management website at Berkeley - https://ucanr.edu/sites/oak_range/. Just today I received notice that the webmaster were bringing my site live and I’ve not had a chance to clean up broken links yet. I see there’s one on the page Paula sent you on Urban Oak Care. There’s also a page for Planners at https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/planning-in-oak-woodlands/. Judi Young Office Administrator SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite B-C 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2945 P 805.543.7095 X 6801 | F 805.543.2367 The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments. From: Paula Carr <PCarr@swca.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:07 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Judi Young <JudiYoung@swca.com> Subject: FW: Oaks in urban settings Hello, Shawna, I attended the ARC meeting last night and heard the discussion about the large oak at the SLO Rep/Parking Structure site. Today I learned about this UC Berkeley Agriculture and Natural Resources website (designed by Judi Young here in our San Luis Obispo SWCA office), and thought you’d be interested. Good information. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/urban-oak-care/ Paula 168 Paula Juelke Carr Senior Architectural Historian SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite B-C 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2945 P 805.543.7095 X 6810 | F 805.543.2367 The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments. 169 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 12:53 PM To:Leveille, Brian; Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Correspondence on 609 Palm Street for ARC Attachments:Heyd Adobe for ARC.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI From: James Papp < Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 12:49 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Correspondence on 609 Palm Street for ARC Dear Shawna, I realize the attached PDF is 48 minutes late for distribution but hope it can be sent out nonetheless. If not, let me know, and I can bring hard copies to the meeting. James 1 Historicities, LLC Sauer-Adams Adobe 964 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 19 August 2019 Architectural Review Commission City of San Luis Obispo Dear Members of the Commission: I apologize for forwarding an 18-page architectural history report to you at the last minute before your deliberations on the proposed performing arts facility at 609 Palm Street. It is not clear whether the fate of the 1939 Heyd Adobe, which in the proposal is assumed to have vanished, is in the ARC’s purview, or in the CHC’s, or the Planning Commission’s; it is also unclear what fate the lead agency is currently contemplating for it. The EIR proposed the alternatives of demolishing it and doing a HABS or retaining it and not building the performing arts facility. It subsequently acknowledged my proposal (given during a CHC hearing) of relocating it, whose feasibility was not assessed but which is perfectly feasible under CEQA definition. Unfortunately, the EIR made no attempt to assess the Heyd Adobe’s significance, merely lumping it in with 610 Monterey Street as two Contributing List buildings. In fact, the house at 610 demonstrates no eligibility for the Contributing List, whereas the Heyd Adobe at 614 Monterey Street is an extremely significant exemplar of the Adobe Revival and particularly the use of the then new material Bitudobe and as such is eligible for not only the Master List but the National Register of Historic Place. There has been a persistent and false whispering campaign against the Heyd Adobe as “only a twentieth-century adobe” and “not a real adobe” and “too difficult to move,” while touting the plan of saving a tree. There are thirty-thousand street and park trees under the City of San Luis Obispo’s ownership and tens if not hundreds of thousands more on private property in the city. There is one twentieth-century adobe. Factually, there appears to be room for adobe, tree, and theater. It thus seems unnecessary to pit the creation of new culture against the preservation of our existing culture. Yours sincerely, James Papp Historian and Architectural Historian Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications 2 THE HEYD ADOBE 614 MONTEREY STREET The 1939 Louis and Lucy Heyd Adobe is the sole twentieth-century example from San Luis Obispo’s twelve surviving adobes, ten of which can be documented to the nineteenth century and one (the mission) to the eighteenth. The Heyd Adobe was built at the midpoint of the Adobe Revival, during its period of greatest technological advance and social influence. As an early, innovative, and well publicized structure of Bitudobe—a material introduced by the American Bitumuls Company in 1936 and employed by the Works Progress Administration and other public and private entities—the Heyd Adobe is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, embodying the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction, and for San Luis Obispo’s Master List as one of “the most unique and historic properties in terms of […] architectural or historical significance [and] rarity.” Its architect, William Scott, is noted for significant Bitudobe buildings on the Central Coast. The Heyd Adobe retains its integrity in all seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Its post and beam structure and concrete perimeter makes it feasible to relocate as defined under CEQA case law. Relocation within the proposed project would impact some, but not all, of its integrity of setting and feeling. Relocation nearby would remove the adobe’s integrity of location but could reintroduce a setting of low-built structures and an appropriate view of Cerro San Luis. In contrast, it is unclear why 610 Monterey is on the Contributing List, as it neither maintains architectural character nor contributes to the historic character of the district. The EIR does not appear to have assessed either resource. James Papp, PhD Historian and Architectural Historian Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications 3 CONTENTS Timeline 3 The Mission, Pueblo, and Adobe Revival Movements 4 Bitudobe 12 The Heyd Adobe 15 TIMELINE 1772 Father Serra founds the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, for two years comprising ramadas and for a two decades paling, mud, and thatch jacales 1793 The church and convento of the Mission San Luis Obispo are completed of adobe brick and roof tile in the form familiar to us today 1801–10 Eighty small houses in adobe brick, with tile roofs and windows, are constructed for (and by) converted Indians northeast of the mission around Chorro Street. The two ground floor rooms of the Sauer-Adams Adobe and all or part of the Sauer Adobe—based on location, size, and design—are the probable remainder of these. 1860 Pierre Dallidet builds the Dallidet Adobe 1864 Edward Vischer’s drawing San Luis Obispo, the Lower (Older) Portion of the Town appears to show the Murray Adobe 1865 L. Trousset’s panoramic painting of San Luis Obispo shows the Hays-Latimer Adobe surrounded by the current Italianate veranda 1870 Juan Cappe builds a saloon on the south side of Monterey Street between Chorro and Morro, the last documented adobe constructed in San Luis Obispo in the nineteenth century 1874 The San Luis Obispo Sanborn Map, covering the downtown area only, shows 29 adobe buildings, including adobes covered with wood; 50 purely wood buildings, and 4 brick buildings. The ruins of the Indian houses on the west side of Chorro Street are also noted. Of the adobe buildings, only the Mission, the Sauer-Adams Adobe, and the Sauer Adobe remain today. 1884 Helen Hunt Jackson publishes Ramona, which starts a wave of Mission Era nostalgia. Four years later, San Luis Obispo’s Ramona Hotel, advertised as being “as beautiful as the heroine after whom it is named,” is built—in Tudor Revival style outside and Aesthetic style inside. 1886 The Sanborn map documents the Murray Adobe and Mancilla-Freitas Adobe 1891 The Sanborn map documents the Rosa Butron Adobe Ramona, 1916 edition, Little, Brown, Boston 4 1893 The Chicago World’s Fair’s California Building, designed by A. Page Brown and A. C. Schweinfurth, is the first Mission Revival structure, an amalgam of Santa Barbara and San Carlos Borromeo 1894 The Hacienda del Oso, designed by A. C. Schweinfurth for William Randolph Hearst in Suñol (now Pleasanton) is probably the first Pueblo Revival structure 1895 An article on the Adobe Revival in Colorado Springs is published in newspapers across America The Landmarks Club, now the California Landmark Foundation, is founded in Los Angeles 1924 Invention of bitumen emulsion 1936 Invention of Bitudobe 1939 Louis Heyd, Jr. commissions the Heyd Adobe from architect and builder William Scott. The bricks are manufactured on site from the site’s dirt. 1939–40 A 6,000-square foot Bitudobe hilltop courtyard ranch house designed by William Scott is built in Santa Barbara for Dr. Horace F. Pierce, a pioneer of avocado cultivation and marketing 1941 Invention of the lay down machine multiplies by a factor of ten the adobe bricks that a team can manufacture in a day. Lay down machines and Bitudobe yards in San Diego create an industry there of Bitudobe design and construction that persists for half a century and comprises housing developments, commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and houses 1946 A booklet published by the American Bitumuls Company features the William Scott’s Pierce Adobe. The contemporary press discusses Bitudobe as a solution for the postwar shortage of materials and skilled construction workers. THE MISSION, PUEBLO, AND ADOBE REVIVAL MOVEMENTS The Adobe Revival coincided with the Mission Revival and Pueblo Revival. While the latter two are stylistic movements that have most often used stucco, concrete, brick, stone, and wood to achieve their effect, the Adobe Revival is based on a building material and its historic, environmental, and aesthetic context, including the • craft of manufacturing and assembling it • ability of nonprofessionals to build their own structure • economy and environmental friendliness of building from an autochthonous material and benefiting from ambient solar heating • appearance of authenticity • sensual effect, such as visual irregularity, aural soundproofing, and tactile warmth 5 As such, the Adobe Revival is an offshoot of the late-nineteenth-century Arts and Crafts movement, integrating traditional building methods into modern life and attempting to alter modern life as a result. Birth of the Mission Revival In the early 1880s, most of California’s missions were in ruinous condition. Many of its residential adobes had either fallen into decay or—like the Hays-Latimer Adobe on Monterey Street, the Sauer-Adams Adobe on Chorro, and the convento of the Mission San Luis Obispo—been covered with wood siding to protect their structure and easternize their appearance. Then in 1884 Helen Hunt Jackson published Ramona, a novel intended to draw national attention to the plight of California’s Indians, as Uncle Tom’s Cabin had drawn attention to the plight of the South’s slaves. Instead, Ramona inspired a wave of nostalgia tourism for the Mission Era, and California would come to be regarded as “the scene of the last stand in the century-long western retreat of romance” (Irving F. Morrow, “The Restoration of the California Missions,” The Architect and Engineer, Jan. 1920). San Luis Obispo’s vast and luxurious Hotel Ramona, built in 1888, was an explicit part of this reaction. The hotel was designed, however, in English styles being popularized by Oscar Wilde and Norman Shaw. Visitors disappointed with the ruinous missions, or San Luis Obispo’s tidy wood-covered one, would have to wait for restoration and revival. California Building, Chicago World’s Fair, A. Page Brown and A. C. Schweinfurth, 1893 This began in 1893 with the California Building at the Chicago World’s Fair. The fair encouraged the states to show off their regional architecture, and the contest to design California’s pavilion specified it had to look like a mission. The commission was won by San Francisco architects A. Page Brown and Albert Cicero Schweinfurth. Hence the first Mission Revival building was a temporary structure in the Midwest Birth of the Pueblo Revival The following year, A. C. Schweinfurth designed a hunting lodge, the Hacienda del Oso, for the young William Randolph Hearst at Suñol in Alameda County (The American Architect and Building News, 2 May 1896). This appears to have been the first building designed in the Pueblo Revival style, taking its inspiration from the more angular architecture of New Mexico. 6 Soon after its completion, Phoebe Apperson Hearst returned from Washington, DC; evicted her son; renamed the house the Hacienda del Pozo de Verona; and hired Julia Morgan— once she had finished her architectural training at the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris—to retain the overall design but soften and articulate the details, while transforming the façade into something more akin to a French chateau, with flanking towers connected by arcades. Hacienda del Oso, A. C. Schweinfurth, 1894. From the American Architect and Building News Reimagined as the Hacienda del Pozo de Verona by Julia Morgan, early twentieth century. Courtesy of Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives. Influence of the Hearsts Under Phoebe Hearst’s patronage, the Hacienda became the major private cultural and diplomatic hub in the Western United States, hosting concerts, conferences, and delegates of the many nations participating in the San Francisco’s Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915, whose California Building—twenty-two years after the Chicago World’s Fair—once again stood out among many international styles by flaunting monumental Mission Revival. As soon as Phoebe Hearst died (1919 in the Spanish Flu epidemic), W. R. Hearst engaged Julia Morgan to work on what would become Hearst Castle, for which they considered Mission Revival but rejected it as too plain. Spanish and Italian Renaissance styles were adopted instead. Morgan did, however, design a number of other buildings for W. R. Hearst in the Mission Revival style, including the Los Angeles Examiner Building (1915), a warehouse (1927) and other ranch buildings at San Simeon, and the Milpitas Ranch House at Jolon (1930, now a military hotel at Fort Hunter Liggett). Phoebe Hearst had donated to the missions (including a historic textile to the Mission San Luis Obispo), and W. R. Hearst, whose aesthetic interests were deeply influenced by his mother, was to become a major driver in the California missions’ restoration, a tradition the Hearst family continues today. 7 Growth of the Mission and Pueblo Revivals Mission Revival and Pueblo Revival buildings spread throughout the United States, though the styles were especially influential and persistent in the Southwest. From 1905 the University of New Mexico’s president battled with the university’s regents to adopt Pueblo rather than Mission Revival for university buildings, constructing four in the Pueblo style but being dismissed in 1909 (“Richard Amero, History of the Balboa Park Club/New Mexico Building in Balboa Park,” San Diego History Center, sandiegohistory.org). In 1908 Isaac Hamilton Rapp, at his client’s urging, designed the Colorado Supply Company Building in Morley, Colorado after the churches of San Estevan at Acoma and San Buenaventura at Cochiti. Rapp and Rapp was recruited to design, in Pueblo Revival, the building for the new State of New Mexico at the 1915–16 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego. The firm again used San Estevan and San Buenventura as models. The New Mexico Building created a stir, being praised by former president Theodore Roosevelt, and Rapp and Rapp was asked to recreate the design for the Art Gallery of the Museum of New Mexico (now the New Mexico Museum of Art) in Santa Fe (1917). Irving Gill, La Jolla Woman’s Club, 1913. HABS photograph 1971. San Diego’s Panama-California Exposition, unlike its larger rival in San Francisco, planned to have a unified architectural style and settled on Mission Revival “as typical of Southern California and emblematic of the entire Southwest,” but it also anticipated other state and national exhibitors contributing “cliff dwellings of Arizona,” “a pueblo village from New Mexico,” and “an Aztec village, the gift of Mexico” ([Director-General] D. C. Collier, “Some Suggestions for the Exposition Building Committee,” San Diego Union, 8 Aug. 1910, p. 6). Irving Gill, whose elegant and austere concrete slab buildings were the first move of the Mission Revival into Modernism, was expected to be appointed supervisory architect, but the Boston-based Bertram Goodhue connived to snatch the prize. With Carleton Winslow, Sr from Goodhue’s New York office then replacing Gill as on-site assistant architect, they introduced the Spanish Colonial Revival to the United States, designing the exposition’s cathedral-towered California Building in the Churrigueresque style of the Spanish and Mexican Baroque. This was wholly ahistorical for California, but its drama undoubtedly led 8 to a pair of cathedral towers in the Spanish Plateresque style being adopted for the Casa Grande of Hearst Castle in 1922. The casual observer may have had trouble distinguishing the stucco and tile productions of the Mission, Pueblo, Spanish, Spanish Colonial, Moorish, Mediterranean, Italian Renaissance, and Lombard styles—and their amalgams, bastardizations, and debasements—all booming in popularity during the 1920s as architecture became advertisement. When the Fremont Theater, a Streamline Moderne cinema employing exclusively Ancient Greek decorative motifs, began construction in San Luis Obispo, the Telegram-Tribune stated, under the architect’s drawing of the building, that it “will be of semi-mission style architecture” (5 Aug. 1941, p. 3). Gill died in relative obscurity and poverty in 1936, but the spirit of his stripped down Mission and Pueblo grew, giving subtle historic reference to bungalows and apartments that might otherwise have been denatured Bauhaus blocks. At the opposite pole, Mission Revival was adopted by companies as diverse as the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroads (for their stations), the short-lived Milestone Interstate Corporation (which built the world’s first motel in San Luis Obispo, the Motel Inn), and the fast food chain Taco Bell to market nostalgia through commercial structures. Despite trivialization, both Mission and Pueblo have produced significant architectural monuments and continue popular today. Persistence of Adobe in the Late-Nineteenth-Century West New adobe construction continued in rural areas, small towns, and some cities in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and California into the 1890s, eliciting little or no sense of oddity or novelty. But in San Luis Obispo, close to a port and later supplied by rail, the writing was on the wall. The 1874 Sanborn map of downtown San Luis Obispo shows 29 adobe buildings, 50 wood buildings, and only 4 brick ones. By the 1886 map, the same downtown area shows two thirds of these adobes gone, with wood and a dozen new brick replacements. Softwood construction lumber was being imported from Northern California, which outmoded autochthonous adobe roofed with pine beams from Cambria. Schwartz, Harford, and Co. advertised its lumber yard at the People’s Wharf, San Luis Obispo Landing (i.e., Avila Beach) in the first issue of the Tribune in 1869. James Cass began advertising a Cayucos lumber yard in February 1871 and C. S. Williams & Co. a Morro Bay yard in December 1871, both supplied by exclusive ships from the north. In June 1872, Schwartz, Harford began to advertise a softwood lumberyard in San Luis Obispo. Once the Pacific 9 Coast Railway—from the landing to San Luis Obispo—was finished in 1876, the town’s lumber-built residential districts boomed. The last documented adobes built in San Luis Obispo in the nineteenth century were a saloon and store, one and two stories, on stone and mortar foundations, on the south side of Monterey Street between Chorro and Morro. These were constructed for the saloonkeeper “Don” Juan Cappe by carpenter Michael Henderson (“Town Improvements,” Tribune, 3 Sep. 1870, p. 2; “Enterprising,” 24 Sep. 1870, p. 2). The Tribune described the saloon as “an edifice which beats the Snow Palace of the Russian Emperor and the Marble Halls of New York all hollow” and reported its cost at $8,000 (“Enterprising”). The Tribune attributed the choice of material to Cappe’s “patria” (he was born in Mexico, according to the 1870 U.S. Census) and to his being “bent on showing the newcomers that the age of adobe building is not over” (ibid.). But in San Luis Obispo—for the time being—it was. Birth of the Adobe Revival An unsigned column with one illustration—alternately headlined “Adobe House Coming In: Colorado Springs Setting the Fashion for the Remainder of America” and “Again in Use: Adobe Houses Are Once More Being Built in the West”— ran in January and February 1895 in at least fourteen newspapers nationwide. They included, from west to east, South Dakota’s Madison Daily Leader; Nebraska’s Lincoln Journal Star; Kansas’s, Hutchinson News, Atchison Daily Globe, and Topeka State Journal; Michigan’s Muskegon Daily Chronicle; Alabama’s Vernon Courier; Georgia’s Columbus Daily Enquirer-Sun; Pennsylvania’s Middleburgh Post, Harrisburg Telegraph, York Daily, and Freeland Tribune; New Jersey’s Elizabeth Daily Journal; and Connecticut’s Waterbury Evening Democrat. The column appeared where—with the exception of basic farm buildings in some sections of South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas—there was no tradition of adobe. The column did not appear in any of the 28 papers in the California Digital Newspaper Collection that were being published at that time. The article argued that the first American houses were of adobe and that “adobe houses now promise to become quite a fad in the West,” tracing that fad to Colorado Springs, where General William Jackson Palmer “set the adobe house fashion … several years ago,” with a score of adobes having been built in the town since then. “We seem to be at last on the trail of a genuine national school of architecture.” However, “half breed Mexicans have been imported to make the adobes,” and they “closely guard the secret.” Palmer, a railroad baron who laid out Colorado Springs as a designed community, built his wood and adobe mansion, Glen Eyrie, in 1871, the same year as the town’s founding (Larry Ralston, “William Jackson Palmer”). He added to the lumber construction in 1881–82, including a tower, and in the early 1900s he rebuilt Glen Eyrie as a stone castle. It was (and is) an extravagant and much photographed structure, but in none of the early photographs 10 is adobe apparent. The article, however, captured the zeitgeist of the new West, a search for the Old West’s authenticity, which was to intersect with Mission Era references in the California Bungalow by Greene and Greene (Arturo Bandini House, Pasadena, 1903), Theodore Eisen (Charles Lummis House [El Alisal], Los Angeles, 1895–1910), and Irving Gill. The year 1895 also saw the founding (by Lummis) of the Landmarks Club in Los Angeles, now the California Landmark Foundation, which devoted itself to California preservation, beginning with the missions. Growth of the Adobe Revival in the Early Twentieth Century University of New Mexico president William Tight, not satisfied with promoting the Pueblo Revival style on campus, in 1907–08 guided the adobe construction of the Estufa, a fraternity building in the form of a kiva at the University of New Mexico. In 1911 the East Coast socialites Jack and Gertrude Nairn commissioned the Casa del Gavilan, an adobe courtyard ranch house in the Pueblo Revival style outside Cimarron, New Mexico, for $100,000. According to the Cimarron News and Cimarron Citizen, it was to “afford all modern conveniences to be desired,” would be “one of the most picturesque residences in America,” and was to be the first of a colony of such houses (22 July 1911, p. 1), though these were never built. In 1913, Santa Barbara’s Morning Press wrote that brothers-in-law Frank Cruz and Carlos Castillo, “descendants of early Santa Barbara families,” were building adjoining adobes on Cañon Perdido Street, “the first … to go up in Santa Barbara in more than a quarter of a century” (“Adobe Bricks Come into Use Again, Houses to Be Built of That Material: First Effort in City in Many Years to Return to Early Spanish Style,” 9 Oct.). A 1922 article in the Morning Press touted the “Romantic Carillo Studios Building,” a new Monterey style adobe, and added that the general contractor had won “an enviable reputation for his buildings of genuine adobe construction, following the methods and practices of the Spanish Fathers,” with two houses currently under construction and many previous examples around Santa Barbara (“Carillo Studios Building to House Variety of Arts, First of Which Will Open Doors Monday,” 25 June). Back in New Mexico, John Gaw Meem, the noted Pueblo and Territorial style architect, was restoring and adding to adobes by the mid 1920s and building new adobes in the late 1920s and into the 1930s, including Cyrus McCormick, Jr.’s trefoil ranch house Pojoaque (1931), the National Guard Armory at Taos (1932), and the Church of Cristo Rey at Santa Fe (1939). Democratization of the Adobe Revival in the Mid Twentieth Century The availability of the material, its environmental practicality, and its accessibility to non- experts came to the fore as the Adobe Revival moved into the mid century. A New York Times article in 1920 led with, “Out in California, where adobe is coming back, women and girls have turned builders and are rearing some attractive looking bungalows,” closing with the observation that the “saving in brick and tiles, the principle items in home construction, 11 is an important factor in the cost of providing the small home” (“New Adobe Dwellings,” 9 May). In 1933 the Times noted adobe buildings being built in Kansas by farmers and the Civilian Conservation Corps (“Back to Pioneer Customs,” 18 March; “CCC to Get Adobe Barracks, 21 Oct.”). The United Press distributed an item from El Segundo, California in 1939 on a program for relief clients to build adobe houses for themselves on county land (“Adobe Houses Come Back,” New Orleans Item, 9 Jan.). Do-it-yourself guides included W. E. Groban’s 1941 Adobe Architecture: Its Design and Construction (Washington, DC: US Forest Service), Paul and Doris Aller’s 1946 Build Your Own Adobe (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press), Mark R. Harrington’s 1948 How to Build a California Adobe (Los Angeles: W. Ritchie), Hugh Comstock’s 1948 Post-Adobe (Monterey), G. F. Middleton’s 1953 Build Your House of Earth (London: Angus and Robertson), and William Lumpkins’ 1961 La Casa Adobe (Santa Fe: Ancient City Press). Cover of Post-Adobe, 1948 Plan and drawing from William Lumpkins’ 1961 La Casa Adobe Adobe Research, Preservation, and Reconstruction Contemporary with these were attention to the recording and (ideally) preservation of decaying adobes. A group of preservationists, including archaeologists, architects, and artists, triumphed over progressives in persuading the New Mexico Territorial Legislature in 1909 not to demolish the Palace of the Governors. The Committee for the Preservation and Restoration of New Mexico Churches began, in 1922, to adopt a new restoration project each summer. From 1931, four women, two of them members of the Monday Club’s History and Landmarks Department, drove around San Luis Obispo County taking photographs of historic (and in many cases now vanished) adobes. One of them, Rosa Dallidet, stilled lived in the Dallidet 12 Adobe. Another, Constance Van Harreveld, recorded that her grandfather, William Evans, had added the wooden skin to the Mission San Luis Obispo’s convent in the mid 1870s. In 1934 the Historic American Buildings Survey, a make-work program under the National Park Service, began the systematic documentation of the most prominent adobes in California, including the Rios-Caledonia and Dana Adobes and the Missions San Luis Obispo and San Miguel Arcángel in San Luis Obispo County. The removal of the wooden skin and restoration of the Mission San Luis Obispo to its original appearance also took place in the 1930s, supported by W. R. Hearst and La Fiesta. In 1936 the New York Times wrote about a weatherproofing compound (vinyl resin in acetone and toluene) invented by National Park Service scientists to preserve prehistoric adobe ruins (“Saving Our Old Adobe Ruins,” 21 June). It also noted a UC Berkeley scientist’s experiment of immersing a Mission San Luis Obispo inner wall adobe brick in a 383-degree Fahrenheit paraffin bath to reveal “tens of millions of bacteria per gram” (“Bacteria Awakened from 100-Year Sleep: ‘Tens of Millions Found in an Adobe Brick,” 23 May). By 1952 the Times mocked, “Show a Californian an adobe brick, and the chances are he will be overcome by a nostalgic impulse to recreate the building from which it came and hang a plaque thereon for the edification of tourists” (Gregory Hawkins, “Adobe Restorations in California,” 30 March). BITUDOBE A Bitudobe brick with, on the right, a treated and untreated brick exposed to water. Technological Advances in the Adobe Revival The inventions in 1936 of Bitudobe and in 1941 of Hans Sumpft’s lay down machine—the latter allowing adobe bricks to be manufactured at the rate of thousands rather than hundreds of bricks per day (Buxton et 13 al)—meant that adobe structures could be presented as a solution to the Depression crisis of lack of funding for materials and the World War II and postwar crisis of lack of availability of materials. Bitudobe, also marketed as Caladobe, is adobe mixed with emulsified asphalt (itself invented in 1924), which strengthens the bond of the adobe and makes it waterproof. The manufacturer touted “a quart of oil to each slab” (B. Z. Body, “Along the Creek,” Telegram- Tribune, 9 May 1939, p. 10). Bitudobe was patented in 1936 by the American Bitumuls Company of San Francisco and marketed throughout the United States, both as manufactured bricks and as an emulsion to add to bricks made of autochthonous earth on site. Sample self-made bricks could be sent to the Bitumuls lab to test for structural soundness. Since Bitudobe was the only adobe approved by the Federal Housing Administration for home loans, it made the Adobe Revival accessible to the middle class, whether they built their own adobe house or purchased one from a builder or developer. The American Bitumuls Company had ten district offices and plants in the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest, Southwest, and Puerto Rico, but it sold other emulsified asphalt products as well, and contemporary news coverage and marketing materials suggest Bitudobe construction was concentrated in regions of the West where adobe already had a tradition. Some examples: • Bitudobe was used to build a replica of Niles, California’s Vallejo Adobe for the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition on Treasure Island (“Bitudobe …,” postcard, Donal L. Larson Collection on international Expositions and Fairs, Henry Madden Library, California State University Fresno). • The same year, a Bitudobe brick yard opened at Taylor, Nebraska (“Bitudobe,” Omaha World-Herald, 15 Oct. 1939). 14 • The next year, the National Youth Administration was building a Bitudobe terminal for the Big Spring, Texas airport (“Airport Work Is Under Way,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 15 Dec. 1940). • Bitudobe was used in the late 1930s and early to mid 1940s to coat historic (and prehistoric) adobe (in one case impregnated with DDT to control insects) (A. Berle Clemensen, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Arizona: A Centennial History of the First Prehistoric Reserve 1892–1992, United States Department of the Interior; Laura Soulliere Harrison and Beverley Spears, Historic Structure Report, Thunderbird Lodge, Canyon de Chelly, 1989, p. 68). • The Civilian Conservation Corps used it for new construction at historic adobe sites (National Parks Service, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Arizona, Chemical Preservatives, nps.gov). • M&M Company provided the material for construction in Orange County, California in 1955, though the partnership dissolved two years later (Tustin News, 22 Sep. 1955). • a motel was constructed of Bitudobe in Norman, Oklahoma (“Building with Earth Is Old, Good Method—But Costly,” San Antonio Express, 19 Mar. 1960) The San Diego Bitudobe Industry During World War II, the outdoor advertising company Foster and Kleiser began manufacturing Bitudobe bricks “at military request” (Foster and Kleiser—The History of Outdoor Advertising,” Aug. 2007, notablekleisers.blogspot.com). In 1945 its Caladobe Department began production and sale for residential and commercial use. In 1947 this division was sold to J. E. Dietrich in Fresno. A critical mass of Bitudobe/Caladobe yards and construction companies opened in San Diego County. In 1946 Forrest Holly, who was partially blinded by a high school football injury and briefly attended Cal Poly before completely losing his sight, opened Forrest Holly Adobe Co. in Ramona, a Bitudobe yard and construction business. He eventually became the subject of a 1996 CBS biopic, What Love Sees, starring Richard Thomas (Edmund Rucker, “Blind Man Builds Adobe Business,” San Diego Union, 21 Mar. 1951; Darrell Beck, “On Memory’s Back Trail: The Holly Family of Ramona,” Ramona Home Journal, 13 Aug. 2015; imdb.com). One of his employees, Ed Nelson, started his own adobe construction company in Warner Springs. The Adobe Brick Manufacturing Company, also known as L. R. Green, operated in Escondido from 1949 till Lawrence Green’s death in 1971, producing—during the brick drying season of April through October—as many as 4,500 bricks a day, enough for one and a half houses. (Michael Buxton et al., Archaeological Manifestations of a Mechanical Adobe Manufacturing Site Near Escondido, California, 1947–1975). 15 In 1949 Green teamed with Charles Paxton’s Adobe Construction Company of La Jolla to build an adobe development near Lake Hodges, for which they appear to have bought the Foster and Kleiser plant that fueled Green’s later production, supplying such other adobe construction specialists as Escondido’s Weir Brothers (“Construction Begins on 100 Adobe Homes in Rural Tract,” San Diego Union, 1 May 1949). William Lumpkins in “Adobe: Notes on the Production and Placement of Adobe Brick (Sun-Dried) in Walls for the Building of Housing” (1977) argued that acquisition of a lay down machine only became cost efficient in excess of three million bricks or 750 houses. Weir Brothers, in business for over six decades from 1947, built hundreds of custom adobe houses of up to 21,000 square feet, as well as adobe developments such as Pala Mesa Village and Adobe Villas of Escondido. It employed as many as eighty people and in 1964 spun off Larry Weir Adobe, which operated independently for four decades (“Weir Brothers, Weir Bros., and Larry Weir Adobe,” Modern San Diego, modernsandiego.com). One of Weir Brothers’ carpenters, Michael Goodbody, took over the old L. R. Green plant in the 1970s (“Adobe Block Yard—Escondido Chronology and Owners,” 11/2017, adobehometour.com). By the late 1990s, adobe began to be seen as a problematic material for San Diego’s high earthquake risk. Though San Diego’s historic Bitudobe buildings are in high demand, new construction concentrates on restoration. For example, the UCSD chancellor’s residence, a 1952 12,000-square-foot Bitudobe house by William Lumpkins, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2008, retrofitted and restored in 2012–13, and received the Governor’s Historic Preservation Award in 2015. THE HEYD ADOBE Louis Heyd, Sr. and the Heyd Adobe’s Predecessor Building Louis Heyd, Sr., born in Alsace circa 1848, served in the 19th Infantry in the Indian Wars from 1866 to 1869, afterwards lived in Los Angeles for five years, and ultimately settled in San Luis Obispo, where the Tribune printed an item in 1878: “Mr. L. Heyd offers $1,000 to anyone who will make a better new suit of clothes out of an old one than he does. Another chance for a fortune” (4 May). The 1880 census listed his profession as tailor, his residence the Knapp boarding house on South Higuera. An 1880 advertisement in the Tribune for cleaning and repairing clothes asks for orders to be left at the same address. As early as the 1886 Sanborn map, the lot at 614 Monterey was occupied by a 1- or 1 ½- story wood-frame building. By 1904 Louis Reiser Heyd, Sr. was advertising it as his place of business for cleaning and dying suits (26 July 1904), but the shed had been converted to a cleaning and dying plant by 1891 (Sanborn map). He died there in 1917 (Daily Telegram 10 March 1917). His wife Eliza Falque or Falco died in 1933. 16 The 600 block of Monterey Street in 1886, showing Louis Heyd, Sr.’s one-story wood dwelling second from right, the Pollard and Hays Latimer-Adobes in brown, and the Pacheco-Wilson House at far right where the Carnegie Library is now. Sanborn map. At left: 1891, the shed now a dyeing and cleaning shop At right: the 1926–56 Sanborn map, with the Heyd Adobe (coded grey) and later wooden extension (in yellow) at back Louis Reiser Heyd, Jr. and Lucy Kiger Heyd Louis Heyd, Jr., usually referred to as L. R. Heyd, seems to have been a hands-on, experientially-taught practitioner with technology. He turns up in local newpaper reports as a press-operator for the Tribune who has been injured getting his hand caught in the press (Daily Telegram 9 Nov. 1911). In World War I he is rejected from the Marine Corps for being an eighth of an inch under the height requirement, then accepted after spending a week “taking exercise and practicing stretching” (18 Oct. 1917). In 1920 he is an engineer at a Union Oil Company pump station (22 July 1920), in 1923 owns a furniture store in San Luis Obispo (22 Jan. 1923), and in 1925 applies “to run a steam boiler for cleaning automobiles at Milton Righetti’s service station” in San Luis Obispo (8 Dec. 1925). In 1930 he is back working for Union Oil (23 Oct. 1930). This is the last report of his professional activities in the newspaper until 1946, when he advertises Heyd’s Miscellaneous Repair Shop at the 614 Monterey address. “If it’s broken, I’ll fix it. […] Pre-war prices. No overhead” (Telegram-Tribune 2 Nov. 1946). 17 Lucy Kiger Heyd advertised herself as a practical nurse and was an officer in the Pythian Sisters, a leader in their sewing club, and also an officer in the Park Past Chiefs. May 21, 1946, finds her appropriately hosting an enchilada luncheon at her adobe revival house (Telegram) Building the Heyd Adobe According to a telephone interview (20 July 2018) with Bonnie Heyd Greenaway, the daughter of L. R. Heyd, Jr. and Lucy Heyd, her father saw another adobe house being built and “fell in love” with the concept. He demolished the wood house he had inherited from his father and mother. The bricks were formed on-site out of the earth, as was the case with previous adobes in the immediate area, from the Mission to the Rosa Butrón, Hays-Latimer, and Murray, as well as others since demolished, including the Samuel Pollard Adobe next door and one on the site of the Harmony Creamery (now Reis Family Mortuary). Bonnie Heyd Greenaway, eleven at the time, also remembers that there was a quart of oil in every brick—the added asphalt emulsion. This would add up to close to a thousand gallons of oil. Her father also hoped that the house would largely heat itself because of the adobe’s absorption of heat during the day. But because the post and beam construction allowed thinner walls than a traditional load-bearing adobe, after the first winter he installed central heating. Above: first announcement of the Heyd Adobe in the column Along the Creek by “B. Z. Body,” Telegram-Tribune 9 May 1939 Right: advertisement for the Heyd Adobe’s open house, Telegram-Tribune, 31 July 1939 18 William Scott It is unclear how L. R. Heyd, Jr. met William Scott and how they resolved on the new house becoming the architect’s most publicized test case. Possibly he was the architect of the adobe that had originally caught Heyd’s imagination. Scott combined traditional craft and look with modern technology. The bricks could have been ordered from a yard, and without a lay down machine, it would have taken a team of four men at least two weeks to make enough Bitudobe bricks on site for L. R. Heyd’s house. But make them on site they did. Hand-hewn rafters and wood ceilings combine with modern touches like the porthole window and bar-top kitchen and transitional ideas like the in–dining room barbeque pit, reminiscent of old- California braziers. The general structural aesthetic combines Mission Era with Mid- Century Modern. Details like the adobe brick crown coping of the exterior walls and beveled window openings are elegantly articulated. Newspaper article on the newly built Heyd Adobe, Telegram-Tribune, 31 July 1939 19 Within the year, Scott was working on a much bigger project: Aa 4,400-square foot hacienda for Dr. Horace Pierce, a pioneer in avocado growing and marketing on the Central Coast. The Pierce Adobe, built on a stunning site overlooking Santa Barbara, was also made from Bitudobe. It was completed over 1939 and 1940 and provided the initial illustrations (below) in the Bitumuls Company’s 1946 booklet Bitudobe: Water-Resistant Soil Bricks for Modern Building, addressing the postwar shortage of materials. Although the materials for adobe were readily available, without a lay down machine, the process of making bricks on site was extremely time-consuming. The overwhelming postwar trend in America was for ever larger, inexpensively built tracts, the infamous “little houses made of ticky-tacky.” Yet Scott’s carefully crafted designs for the Heyd and Pierce Adobes, as well as such other adobes as those at El Caserio on Garden Street in Santa Barbara—including a house and studio for the photographer J. Walter Collinge (1948)—show that a postwar desire for traditional craftsmanship in modern materials spanned the classes of business and professional men like Pierce, artists like Collinge, and workingmen like Heyd. It was beautiful, ecological, and comfortable and formed a significant trend of resistance against the mass-produced. 171 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, July 3, 2019 11:44 AM To:Cohen, Rachel; Hannula, Hal Cc:Burde, Richard Subject:RE: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Attachments:SLO REP ENA FINAL SIGNED.pdf Hi Rachel, Attached is the signed ENA. The ENA does not deal specifically with TIF. It does address parking in-lieu fees as being at the Community Partner rate (para 8(j)). Thanks, Bob From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:35 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Hi Bob- Do we have a signed copy of the Agreement with SLO Rep? Also I was speaking to Luke in Transportation and he mentioned that the project would trigger traffic impact fees. I wasn’t sure if this was something that was discussed as part of the agreement. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 12:21 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Hi Hal, 172 I can make the meeting today at 3 and will plan to be there. The final SLO REP exclusive negotiating agreement was approved by Council already, but it has not yet been signed and can still include minor edits as it is to be “…in a form approved by the City Attorney..” In fact, I have been waiting to send this through DocuSign while needing to get coordinated with your team, so this is good timing. Thanks, Bob From: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 11:33 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Hi Bob, Meeting with Richard Burde (CIP) and Rachel Cohen on the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and thought that it would be good to check-in on the status of the agreement with SLORep. We met with the SLORep team under a pre-app and had several comments/questions that were related to the agreement that had not been finalized and that they could not answer at the time. It sounded like the agreement development was in the City’s court. Just checking to see if there has been any progress and if you have a final or draft of the agreement that can be used for the current conversation. We are having an internal meeting in Conference #1 from 3 – 4 today if you think that it might help for you to sit in. Thanks, Hal 173 From:Burde, Richard Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 4:02 PM To:Bell Jr., Charles Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Grigsby, Daryl; Bochum, Tim Subject:Palm - Nipomo SLO REP Negotiating Agreement Attachments:SLO REP ENA FINAL SIGNED.pdf Hello Charles, Attached is the signed agreement between the City and the SLO REP. I would like to set up a time with you, and possibly Christine if needed, to discuss some of the “City’s Obligations” per the agreement. My underlying concern is being able to meet our obligations should our design or finance delivery be delayed for some unforeseen reason. Please let me know your thoughts and I will set a time for us. Thank you Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org 174 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:45 PM To:Burde, Richard Subject:RE: Palm - Nipomo SLO REP agreement Attachments:SLO REP ENA FINAL SIGNED.pdf Hi Richard, Attached is the final. Bob From: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:43 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Palm - Nipomo SLO REP agreement Hello Bob, Do you have a copy of a signed negotiated agreement. I have the one attached which still says “draft”. Thank you Richard Burde Engineer III Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rburde@slocity.org T 805.781.7193 slocity.org EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___day of ______, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter municipal corporation ("the City'') and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, a California non-profit corporation (“SLO REP”). The City and SLO REP are jointly referred to as the “parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of the property located at 888 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City identified a portion of the Property as the site of a proposed public parking structure (“Palm Nipomo Parking Structure”) and anticipates that an estimated 18,000 square foot portion of the Property will not be needed for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (“Remainder Property”); and WHEREAS, SLO REP desires to construct a not-for-profit live performance theatre facility and related on- site and off-site (if any) improvements (“Theatre”) on the Remainder Property; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the exact location, size and availability of the Remainder Property for the Theatre cannot be determined at this time, and understand that the Remainder Property has development restrictions including maintenance of trees, street setbacks and provision of pedestrian connections/plazas from the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to Monterey Street that affect the net buildable land; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support community-based performing arts groups by encouraging development of a live performance theatre facility in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP recognize that identifying a location for the Theatre, as well as some of the terms of a future lease, may help SLO REP’s capital fundraising efforts; and WHEREAS, construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and related rezoning and general plan amendments will require environmental review, and SLO REP must provide certain information about the Theatre before City can conduct the environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Management Manual allows exclusive negotiations for long term lease of City property when the there is a clear link between the proposal and accomplishment of significant City goals, plans or policies; and WHEREAS, the City considers the development of a not-for-profit live performance theatre on the Remainder Property to be in the public interest and in accordance with the City's goals and the existing and proposed Downtown Concept Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises and agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 5/22/2019 AGREEMENT 1. RECITALS. The above Recitals are true. 2. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in effect for a period of five (5) years (the “Term”), unless sooner terminated as provided herein. The Parties may extend the Term of this Agreement in writing upon mutual consent. 3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to proceed with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and to allow SLO REP to explore the feasibility of SLO REP financing, designing, constructing and operating the Theatre, at its sole cost and expense, on the Remainder Property. 4. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall, during the Term of this Agreement: a. Exclusivity. Negotiate exclusively with SLO REP as the future tenant of the Remainder Property. b. Initiate Rezoning, General Plan amendments, and Lot Line Adjustment. Upon City Council authorization, initiate all rezoning, General Plan amendments, and a lot line adjustment necessary to allow the construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property and the Theatre on the Remainder Property. The intent of this Agreement is for the Remainder Property to be created as a “finished lot,” although the City legally cannot, and therefore does not, contractually agree as to how it will exercise its legislative authority to rezone or amend the General Plan and its land use authority to complete a lot line adjustment. c. Environmental Review. The City has completed environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) by Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series). If SLO REP makes any changes to the Theatre design or if any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 are triggered, then SLO REP may negotiate the portion of costs it will bear in the event substantial new environmental issues are discovered during construction, or if any project-specific environmental review related to the Theatre is deemed necessary. 5. SLO REP’s OBLIGATIONS. SLO REP shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Non-Profit Status. Be a California non-profit corporation in good standing and be exempt from state and federal income taxes under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. Proof of Financial Ability. Provide to City’s reasonable satisfaction that it has the financial ability to design, construct and operate the Theatre on the Remainder Property. At a minimum SLO REP shall: Fundraising Plan. Provide the City with a fundraising plan by December 31, 2019 that is acceptable to, and approved by, the City Manager, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The fundraising plan shall include a timeline with milestones that shall be met no later than 1 year from the estimated completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. These DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 milestones shall include, at a minimum, prior to commencement of lease negotiations, but no later than one (1) year after City’s award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo parking Structure, that SLO REP shall demonstrate, to the City Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction, that SLO REP has available at least 50% of all the funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre. i. Preliminary Cost Estimates. Provide the City with preliminary costs estimates by December 31, 2020 to design, construct and operate the Theatre for at least the first two (2) years after completion of construction. Update those estimates as design progresses, but at least every 6 months. SLO REP will include the payment of prevailing wages in its estimates. ii. Annual Financials. Annually, on or before December 31st of each year, provide the City with a current financial statement, copy of most recent filed state and federal tax returns, and copies of current bank statements, to demonstrate fundraising results for the Theatre. iii. Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Theatre to the City. iv. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded. c. Environmental Review Information. Provide the City promptly with all information necessary to conduct any subsequent environmental review of the Theatre that may be necessary. This information includes, but is not limited to, square footage of structure; square footage of various uses such as office, storage, classroom, and theatre; number of seats; maximum number of performances per week, and any other information deemed necessary by City. 6. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other party at any time by written notice to the other. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event SLO REP fails to secure building permits for the Theatre one year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo parking structure. 7. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LEASE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION. All of the following conditions must be met as conditions precedent prior to lease execution for the Remainder Property: a. Lease negotiation: i. Rezoning and Lot Line Adjustment. City has rezoned and/or amended the City’s general plan and has perfected a lot line adjustment that will create the Remainder Property as a “finished lot” allowing for construction and its use as the Theatre. ii. Obligations Met. Both City and SLO REP have met all of their respective obligations under the Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 b. Availability of Funds for Design, Construction, and Operation of the Theatre Prior to execution of the lease, SLO REP demonstrates to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that SLO REP has met all applicable fundraising milestones in the fundraising plan approved by the City Manager. c. Non-Profit Status. SLO REP has maintained its non-profit and tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law. d. Design and Construction Schedule. Prior to lease execution, provide to the City’s Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction, a design and construction schedule, demonstrating, at a minimum, the Theatre will be constructed and completed within 3 years of the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. e. Design Coordination. Coordinate design of the Theatre with the City to ensure it is compatible with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 8. GENERAL LEASE TERMS. If the parties enter into the exclusive negotiations, the parties desire that the lease include the following general provisions; provided, the actual language of each provision is subject to further negotiation, and most material terms and provisions of the lease have not yet been discussed. The City shall not lease the land for minimal rent unless the lease is completely acceptable to the City and approved by the City Attorney. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as an agreement or offer to lease upon the terms, provisions or language set forth below. a. SLO REP shall commence construction of the Theatre no later than one (1) year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and shall complete construction of the Theatre within three (3) years after that. SLO REP shall not commence construction of the Theatre unless SLO REP demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction prior to expiration of the year within which SLO REP is to commence construction, that SLO REP has all of the funds necessary to design and construct, as well as operate for at least one (1) years after completion of construction, the Theatre, plus a 15% contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”). If SLO REP does not timely demonstrate that SLO REP has the Required Funds, or if SLO REP fails to timely begin or timely complete construction, SLO REP shall be in substantial default, and the lease shall automatically terminate unless City agrees otherwise in writing. The Theatre shall be deemed complete only upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Minimum 40-year term with the right of first refusal for additional lease years provided that Theatre is in good standing at the time of the renewal window, which shall open after 35 years and conclude after 37 years unless the window is extended. c. Rent of $1.00 per year provided SLO REP: i. Is a California non-profit corporation in good standing; and ii. Is a federal and state income tax exempt 501 (c)(3) entity; and uses the Remainder Property solely as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 iii. SLO REP’s failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law or to use the Remainder Property for any purpose other than as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses during the term or any extended term of the lease, shall be a material breach of the lease. In the event any such breach occurs, City may, at its option, either terminate the lease or raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses. d. SLO REP shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Theatre and all street frontage and landscaping, utility extensions and connections, and other improvements, based on agreed upon and approved plans and specifications, at its sole cost and expense without any assistance from the City. e. SLO REP shall be responsible for meeting or mitigating all conditions, impacts, mitigations and requirements identified in the environmental review and entitlement processes for issues associated with the SLO REP’s operation of a theatre on the Property, at SLO REP’s sole cost and expense. f. The design of the Theatre must be compatible with the design of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, including the parking structure’s entrance and exiting needs, as determined by the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. g. SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. h. If the SLO REP is not in material compliance with the Lease or ceases to be financially solvent and to maintain the Property in a commercially reasonable manner, the lease shall contain provisions for the City to declare a default of the Lease, for SLO REP to effect a reasonable cure of the default(s), and for the City to terminate the Lease if the default(s) are not cured pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease, and for the Remainder Property to revert to the City. i. Prevailing wages shall be paid by SLO REP for construction of the Theatre and related improvements, mitigations etc. j. SLO REP shall pay all applicable parking in lieu fees for a Community Partner, as determined by the sole discretion of the City’s Public Works Director. k. Payment of possessory interest and other taxes by SLO REP. l. Other long-term landlord protection ground lease provisions, such as City standard insurance requirements, indemnity provisions, attorneys’ fees, prohibitions against nuisance, waste, requiring maintenance at SLO REP expense, etc. m. If the City Council does not move ahead with the construction of the Palm/Nipomo structure, a new agreement will need to be negotiated between the parties for a mutually acceptable alternate site or an alternate set of requirements for a portion of the Property. n. The City will not subordinate its interest in the Remainder Property to any financing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 10. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties. Any such extension, amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Council. 11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties. 12. NOTICE. All notices to the parties shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City: Derek Johnson City Manager 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO REP: Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 888 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and SLO REP warrant and represent that each individual executing the Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Teresa Purrington City Clerk Date Heidi Harmon Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: SLO REPERTORY THEATRE J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Date Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson Aaron Gomez, Erica A Stewart, Vice Mayor Andy Pease, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPOINTMENTS 1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONE 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: None End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: San Luis Obispo Page I DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4, 20] 8 Page 2 Make appointments to the Zone 9 Advisory Committee, effective December 31, 2018, and recommend the County Board of Supervisors confirm, as follows: 1. Appoint Christine Mulholland to serve as public member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 2. Appoint Dave Romero to serve as the alternate member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 3. Appoint Matt Horn, City Engineer, to serve as the staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee; and 4. Appoint Brian Nelson, Supervising Civil Engineer, to serve as the alternate staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022. 2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS' REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE, AND MASS_ TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: Tom Tyran Kincaid End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Confirm the appointment of Winston Newland to the Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission, to complete an unexpired term through June 30, 2019. 2. Confirm the appointment of Julie Moore, as the representative of the San Luis Obispo County History Center, to the Jack House Committee effective December 4, 2018; and 3. Confirm the appointment of Ryan Hund, as the ASI student representative, to the Mass Transportation Committee, to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. INTRODUCTION 3. INTRODUCTION OF ERIC HAGEN CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Community Development Director Michael Codron introduced Eric Hagen as the new Chief Building Official. PRESENTATIONS 4. PROCLAMATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - CARRIE MATTINGLY City Manager Derek Johnson presented a proclamation to retiring Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly, in recognition of her service. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4-2018 Pabe 3 PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment --- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 thru 12. Public Comment Lea Brooks — 8 Myron Amerine — 8 Kevin Harris — 10 Myron Amerine — 12 End of Public Comment --- 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2019 CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the proposed 2019 regular City Council meeting schedule with meetings normally held the first and third Tuesday of every month, with the following exceptions: 1. Reschedule the Regular City Council meeting of January 1 to January 8, 2019, and 2. Cancel the Regular City Council meetings of August 6 and December 17, 2019. 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3089 PHASE 1, AVILA RANCH, 175 VENTURE DRIVE (SBDV 2042-2015) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 3089 Phase 1 Avila Ranch (175 Venture Drive, SBDV-2042-2015)," and authorizing the Mayor to execute the easements, agreements, and associated fee offers, including the recommended changes in the staff agenda correspondence. 8. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUCHON TRAFFIC CALMING CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Buchon Traffic Calming Measures; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $160,000; and 3. Authorize the use and transfer of $142,000 from the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming budget and $18,000 from the City's Traffic Safety & Operations Budget to the project account. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Deceniber 4. 2018 Page 4 9. ADJUSTMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTAL SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICY AS A RESULT OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing and adopting a supplemental employee salary schedule and superseding previous resolutions in conflict," as necessary to comply with California Fair Wage Act of 2016 requiring a minimum wage of $12.00 per hour effective January 1, 2019; and 2. Adopt the revised Supplemental Employee Policy. 10. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, SLO REP, for long-term use of a portion of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site to construct and operate a new theatre, based on parameters previously set forth by the City Council. 11. REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 10894 TO REFLECT UPDATED ZONING REGULATION SECTION FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS CARRIED 5-0, to Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing and replacing Resolution No. 10894 (2018) to reflect updated zoning regulation sections." 12. ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE RAMONA DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CLASS 1 PATH CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to execute easement and deed agreements in a total amount not to exceed $423,700 including title and escrow charges in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 13. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT - AUTHORIZATION TO BID Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly and Deputy Director Dave Hix provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Autumn Brown Rosemary Wrenn Scott Zimmerman Daniel Mora Richard Van Humbeck DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obispo City Council_ Minutes of December 4, 2018 Pie 5, Jesse Brooks Quinn Brady Tony Skinner Sean Perry Dave Baldwin David Gilliland Nick Andre End of Public Comment --- ACTION: MOTION BY MAYOR HARMON SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project, Specification No. 91620; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids pending City Engineer's approval of the bid set; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the project construction budget of $111,600,000; and 4. Approve amended WRRF Project -specific Construction Contract Change Order policy and authorize the Utilities Director to be responsible for construction contract change orders (CCOs) for the WRRF Project in any amount with the limitation that the sum total of all CCOs not exceed the contingency budget amount of $13,390,000; and 5. Incorporate the Community Workforce Agreement into WRRF Project Spec. No 91620 as approved by signatory Craft Councils and Unions affiliates and the Tri -Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO as included in the Council agenda packet for the November 13, 2018 Meeting. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 14. BOB JONES TRAIL (CALLE JOAQUIN TO OCEANAIRE) PREI+ERREI) ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Transportation Manager Jake Hudson and Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Myron Amerine Lea Brooks Ken Kienow End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, Council directed staff to evaluate other route alternatives which are not consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan as part of the planning of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of December 4 2018 Parc 6 RECESS Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m., with all Council Members present. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 15. 2019-21 FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS: ECONOMIC OUTLOOK BUDGET POLICIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW Finance Director Brigitte Elke and Budget Manager Alex Ferreira provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, the Council reviewed and approved the 2019-21 Financial Plan Goal Setting Process. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Vice Mayor Pease invited the public to the Police Department Community Meeting and Station tour on Thursday, December 6, 2018 and also indicated that the City Council would be participating in the annual holiday parade on Friday, December 7, 2018. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. The next Rescheduled Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. l Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 01/08/2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0D5F9552-0A12-4481-A99B-695D14987222 175 From:Gordon Knowles <GKnowles@watrydesign.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:22 PM To:Burde, Richard Subject:Palm & Nipomo Parking Garage Attachments:SLO Rep Draft ARC Drawings 5-24-19r.pdf Hi Richard. I called earlier and left a voicemail. I wanted to discuss the options around Parksmart following your email. I have also attached the SLO rep Draft ARC drawings. As this is a separate project I was unsure whether these and been sent to you. I will call again tomorrow to follow up. Thanks Gordon Gordon T. Knowles | Senior Project Manager | Associate WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 watrydesign.com 176 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 4:23 PM To:Clancy, Daniel Subject:SLO REP Exclusive Negotiating Agreement - Ready for DocuSign Attachments:SLO REP Exclusive Negotiating Agreement FINAL.pdf; City Council 12-04-2018 Minutes.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Dan, I am not sure of the process for DocuSign, but I’ve got a contract ready to route. Let me know if there is another process I should use. Please find the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and Minutes of the 12/4/18 City Council meeting when they authorized it (item 10) attached. Thanks! Bob Robert Hill Interim Deputy Director City Administration Office of Sustainability 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org Council Minutes City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson Aaron Gomez, Erica A Stewart, Vice Mayor Andy Pease, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPOINTMENTS 1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONE 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: None End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: San Luis Obispo Page I San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4, 20] 8 Page 2 Make appointments to the Zone 9 Advisory Committee, effective December 31, 2018, and recommend the County Board of Supervisors confirm, as follows: 1. Appoint Christine Mulholland to serve as public member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 2. Appoint Dave Romero to serve as the alternate member to represent the City of San Luis Obispo on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022; and 3. Appoint Matt Horn, City Engineer, to serve as the staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee; and 4. Appoint Brian Nelson, Supervising Civil Engineer, to serve as the alternate staff representative on the Zone 9 Advisory Committee for a term to expire on December 31, 2022. 2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS' REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE, AND MASS_ TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE City Clerk Purrington presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: Tom Tyran Kincaid End of Public Comments --- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Confirm the appointment of Winston Newland to the Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission, to complete an unexpired term through June 30, 2019. 2. Confirm the appointment of Julie Moore, as the representative of the San Luis Obispo County History Center, to the Jack House Committee effective December 4, 2018; and 3. Confirm the appointment of Ryan Hund, as the ASI student representative, to the Mass Transportation Committee, to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. INTRODUCTION 3. INTRODUCTION OF ERIC HAGEN CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Community Development Director Michael Codron introduced Eric Hagen as the new Chief Building Official. PRESENTATIONS 4. PROCLAMATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - CARRIE MATTINGLY City Manager Derek Johnson presented a proclamation to retiring Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly, in recognition of her service. San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of December 4-2018 Pabe 3 PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment --- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 thru 12. Public Comment Lea Brooks — 8 Myron Amerine — 8 Kevin Harris — 10 Myron Amerine — 12 End of Public Comment --- 5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 6. SCHEDULE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2019 CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the proposed 2019 regular City Council meeting schedule with meetings normally held the first and third Tuesday of every month, with the following exceptions: 1. Reschedule the Regular City Council meeting of January 1 to January 8, 2019, and 2. Cancel the Regular City Council meetings of August 6 and December 17, 2019. 7. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3089 PHASE 1, AVILA RANCH, 175 VENTURE DRIVE (SBDV 2042-2015) CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 3089 Phase 1 Avila Ranch (175 Venture Drive, SBDV-2042-2015)," and authorizing the Mayor to execute the easements, agreements, and associated fee offers, including the recommended changes in the staff agenda correspondence. 8. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUCHON TRAFFIC CALMING CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Buchon Traffic Calming Measures; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $160,000; and 3. Authorize the use and transfer of $142,000 from the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming budget and $18,000 from the City's Traffic Safety & Operations Budget to the project account. San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Deceniber 4. 2018 Page 4 9. ADJUSTMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTAL SALARY SCHEDULE AND POLICY AS A RESULT OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES CARRIED 5-0, to 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing and adopting a supplemental employee salary schedule and superseding previous resolutions in conflict," as necessary to comply with California Fair Wage Act of 2016 requiring a minimum wage of $12.00 per hour effective January 1, 2019; and 2. Adopt the revised Supplemental Employee Policy. 10. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, SLO REP, for long-term use of a portion of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site to construct and operate a new theatre, based on parameters previously set forth by the City Council. 11. REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 10894 TO REFLECT UPDATED ZONING REGULATION SECTION FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS CARRIED 5-0, to Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing and replacing Resolution No. 10894 (2018) to reflect updated zoning regulation sections." 12. ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE RAMONA DRIVE TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CLASS 1 PATH CARRIED 5-0, to Authorize the Mayor to execute easement and deed agreements in a total amount not to exceed $423,700 including title and escrow charges in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 13. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT - AUTHORIZATION TO BID Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly and Deputy Director Dave Hix provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Autumn Brown Rosemary Wrenn Scott Zimmerman Daniel Mora Richard Van Humbeck San Luis Obispo City Council_ Minutes of December 4, 2018 Pie 5, Jesse Brooks Quinn Brady Tony Skinner Sean Perry Dave Baldwin David Gilliland Nick Andre End of Public Comment --- ACTION: MOTION BY MAYOR HARMON SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project, Specification No. 91620; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids pending City Engineer's approval of the bid set; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the project construction budget of $111,600,000; and 4. Approve amended WRRF Project -specific Construction Contract Change Order policy and authorize the Utilities Director to be responsible for construction contract change orders (CCOs) for the WRRF Project in any amount with the limitation that the sum total of all CCOs not exceed the contingency budget amount of $13,390,000; and 5. Incorporate the Community Workforce Agreement into WRRF Project Spec. No 91620 as approved by signatory Craft Councils and Unions affiliates and the Tri -Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO as included in the Council agenda packet for the November 13, 2018 Meeting. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 14. BOB JONES TRAIL (CALLE JOAQUIN TO OCEANAIRE) PREI+ERREI) ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Public Works Director Daryl Grigsby, Transportation Manager Jake Hudson and Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Myron Amerine Lea Brooks Ken Kienow End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, Council directed staff to evaluate other route alternatives which are not consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan as part of the planning of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan. San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of December 4 2018 Parc 6 RECESS Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m., with all Council Members present. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 15. 2019-21 FINANCIAL PLAN PROCESS: ECONOMIC OUTLOOK BUDGET POLICIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW Finance Director Brigitte Elke and Budget Manager Alex Ferreira provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment --- ACTION: By consensus, the Council reviewed and approved the 2019-21 Financial Plan Goal Setting Process. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Vice Mayor Pease invited the public to the Police Department Community Meeting and Station tour on Thursday, December 6, 2018 and also indicated that the City Council would be participating in the annual holiday parade on Friday, December 7, 2018. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. The next Rescheduled Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. l Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 01/08/2019 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___day of ______, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter municipal corporation ("the City'') and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, a California non-profit corporation (“SLO REP”). The City and SLO REP are jointly referred to as the “parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of the property located at 888 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City identified a portion of the Property as the site of a proposed public parking structure (“Palm Nipomo Parking Structure”) and anticipates that an estimated 18,000 square foot portion of the Property will not be needed for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (“Remainder Property”); and WHEREAS, SLO REP desires to construct a not-for-profit live performance theatre facility and related on- site and off-site (if any) improvements (“Theatre”) on the Remainder Property; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the exact location, size and availability of the Remainder Property for the Theatre cannot be determined at this time, and understand that the Remainder Property has development restrictions including maintenance of trees, street setbacks and provision of pedestrian connections/plazas from the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to Monterey Street that affect the net buildable land; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support community-based performing arts groups by encouraging development of a live performance theatre facility in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP recognize that identifying a location for the Theatre, as well as some of the terms of a future lease, may help SLO REP’s capital fundraising efforts; and WHEREAS, construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and related rezoning and general plan amendments will require environmental review, and SLO REP must provide certain information about the Theatre before City can conduct the environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Management Manual allows exclusive negotiations for long term lease of City property when the there is a clear link between the proposal and accomplishment of significant City goals, plans or policies; and WHEREAS, the City considers the development of a not-for-profit live performance theatre on the Remainder Property to be in the public interest and in accordance with the City's goals and the existing and proposed Downtown Concept Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises and agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. RECITALS. The above Recitals are true. 2. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in effect for a period of five (5) years (the “Term”), unless sooner terminated as provided herein. The Parties may extend the Term of this Agreement in writing upon mutual consent. 3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to proceed with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and to allow SLO REP to explore the feasibility of SLO REP financing, designing, constructing and operating the Theatre, at its sole cost and expense, on the Remainder Property. 4. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall, during the Term of this Agreement: a. Exclusivity. Negotiate exclusively with SLO REP as the future tenant of the Remainder Property. b. Initiate Rezoning, General Plan amendments, and Lot Line Adjustment. Upon City Council authorization, initiate all rezoning, General Plan amendments, and a lot line adjustment necessary to allow the construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property and the Theatre on the Remainder Property. The intent of this Agreement is for the Remainder Property to be created as a “finished lot,” although the City legally cannot, and therefore does not, contractually agree as to how it will exercise its legislative authority to rezone or amend the General Plan and its land use authority to complete a lot line adjustment. c. Environmental Review. The City has completed environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theatre and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) by Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series). If SLO REP makes any changes to the Theatre design or if any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 are triggered, then SLO REP may negotiate the portion of costs it will bear in the event substantial new environmental issues are discovered during construction, or if any project-specific environmental review related to the Theatre is deemed necessary. 5. SLO REP’s OBLIGATIONS. SLO REP shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Non-Profit Status. Be a California non-profit corporation in good standing and be exempt from state and federal income taxes under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. Proof of Financial Ability. Provide to City’s reasonable satisfaction that it has the financial ability to design, construct and operate the Theatre on the Remainder Property. At a minimum SLO REP shall: Fundraising Plan. Provide the City with a fundraising plan by December 31, 2019 that is acceptable to, and approved by, the City Manager, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The fundraising plan shall include a timeline with milestones that shall be met no later than 1 year from the estimated completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. These milestones shall include, at a minimum, prior to commencement of lease negotiations, but no later than one (1) year after City’s award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo parking Structure, that SLO REP shall demonstrate, to the City Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction, that SLO REP has available at least 50% of all the funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre. i. Preliminary Cost Estimates. Provide the City with preliminary costs estimates by December 31, 2020 to design, construct and operate the Theatre for at least the first two (2) years after completion of construction. Update those estimates as design progresses, but at least every 6 months. SLO REP will include the payment of prevailing wages in its estimates. ii. Annual Financials. Annually, on or before December 31st of each year, provide the City with a current financial statement, copy of most recent filed state and federal tax returns, and copies of current bank statements, to demonstrate fundraising results for the Theatre. iii. Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Theatre to the City. iv. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded. c. Environmental Review Information. Provide the City promptly with all information necessary to conduct any subsequent environmental review of the Theatre that may be necessary. This information includes, but is not limited to, square footage of structure; square footage of various uses such as office, storage, classroom, and theatre; number of seats; maximum number of performances per week, and any other information deemed necessary by City. 6. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other party at any time by written notice to the other. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event SLO REP fails to secure building permits for the Theatre one year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo parking structure. 7. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LEASE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION. All of the following conditions must be met as conditions precedent prior to lease execution for the Remainder Property: a. Lease negotiation: i. Rezoning and Lot Line Adjustment. City has rezoned and/or amended the City’s general plan and has perfected a lot line adjustment that will create the Remainder Property as a “finished lot” allowing for construction and its use as the Theatre. ii. Obligations Met. Both City and SLO REP have met all of their respective obligations under the Agreement. b. Availability of Funds for Design, Construction, and Operation of the Theatre Prior to execution of the lease, SLO REP demonstrates to the City Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that SLO REP has met all applicable fundraising milestones in the fundraising plan approved by the City Manager. c. Non-Profit Status. SLO REP has maintained its non-profit and tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law. d. Design and Construction Schedule. Prior to lease execution, provide to the City’s Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction, a design and construction schedule, demonstrating, at a minimum, the Theatre will be constructed and completed within 3 years of the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. e. Design Coordination. Coordinate design of the Theatre with the City to ensure it is compatible with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 8. GENERAL LEASE TERMS. If the parties enter into the exclusive negotiations, the parties desire that the lease include the following general provisions; provided, the actual language of each provision is subject to further negotiation, and most material terms and provisions of the lease have not yet been discussed. The City shall not lease the land for minimal rent unless the lease is completely acceptable to the City and approved by the City Attorney. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as an agreement or offer to lease upon the terms, provisions or language set forth below. a. SLO REP shall commence construction of the Theatre no later than one (1) year after the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and shall complete construction of the Theatre within three (3) years after that. SLO REP shall not commence construction of the Theatre unless SLO REP demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction prior to expiration of the year within which SLO REP is to commence construction, that SLO REP has all of the funds necessary to design and construct, as well as operate for at least one (1) years after completion of construction, the Theatre, plus a 15% contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”). If SLO REP does not timely demonstrate that SLO REP has the Required Funds, or if SLO REP fails to timely begin or timely complete construction, SLO REP shall be in substantial default, and the lease shall automatically terminate unless City agrees otherwise in writing. The Theatre shall be deemed complete only upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Minimum 40-year term with the right of first refusal for additional lease years provided that Theatre is in good standing at the time of the renewal window, which shall open after 35 years and conclude after 37 years unless the window is extended. c. Rent of $1.00 per year provided SLO REP: i. Is a California non-profit corporation in good standing; and ii. Is a federal and state income tax exempt 501 (c)(3) entity; and uses the Remainder Property solely as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses. iii. SLO REP’s failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law or to use the Remainder Property for any purpose other than as a live performance theatre and related City approved community uses during the term or any extended term of the lease, shall be a material breach of the lease. In the event any such breach occurs, City may, at its option, either terminate the lease or raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses. d. SLO REP shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Theatre and all street frontage and landscaping, utility extensions and connections, and other improvements, based on agreed upon and approved plans and specifications, at its sole cost and expense without any assistance from the City. e. SLO REP shall be responsible for meeting or mitigating all conditions, impacts, mitigations and requirements identified in the environmental review and entitlement processes for issues associated with the SLO REP’s operation of a theatre on the Property, at SLO REP’s sole cost and expense. f. The design of the Theatre must be compatible with the design of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, including the parking structure’s entrance and exiting needs, as determined by the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. g. SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. h. If the SLO REP is not in material compliance with the Lease or ceases to be financially solvent and to maintain the Property in a commercially reasonable manner, the lease shall contain provisions for the City to declare a default of the Lease, for SLO REP to effect a reasonable cure of the default(s), and for the City to terminate the Lease if the default(s) are not cured pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease, and for the Remainder Property to revert to the City. i. Prevailing wages shall be paid by SLO REP for construction of the Theatre and related improvements, mitigations etc. j. SLO REP shall pay all applicable parking in lieu fees for a Community Partner, as determined by the sole discretion of the City’s Public Works Director. k. Payment of possessory interest and other taxes by SLO REP. l. Other long-term landlord protection ground lease provisions, such as City standard insurance requirements, indemnity provisions, attorneys’ fees, prohibitions against nuisance, waste, requiring maintenance at SLO REP expense, etc. m. If the City Council does not move ahead with the construction of the Palm/Nipomo structure, a new agreement will need to be negotiated between the parties for a mutually acceptable alternate site or an alternate set of requirements for a portion of the Property. n. The City will not subordinate its interest in the Remainder Property to any financing. 10. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties. Any such extension, amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Council. 11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties. 12. NOTICE. All notices to the parties shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City: Derek Johnson City Manager 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO REP: Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 888 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and SLO REP warrant and represent that each individual executing the Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. ATTEST CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Teresa Purrington City Clerk Date Heidi Harmon Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: SLO REPERTORY THEATRE J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Date Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director Date 177 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 12:21 PM To:Hannula, Hal Cc:Burde, Richard; Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Attachments:a - Final Draft Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.docx Hi Hal, I can make the meeting today at 3 and will plan to be there. The final SLO REP exclusive negotiating agreement was approved by Council already, but it has not yet been signed and can still include minor edits as it is to be “…in a form approved by the City Attorney..” In fact, I have been waiting to send this through DocuSign while needing to get coordinated with your team, so this is good timing. Thanks, Bob From: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 11:33 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Burde, Richard <rburde@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and status of Agreement with SLORep Hi Bob, Meeting with Richard Burde (CIP) and Rachel Cohen on the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and thought that it would be good to check-in on the status of the agreement with SLORep. We met with the SLORep team under a pre-app and had several comments/questions that were related to the agreement that had not been finalized and that they could not answer at the time. It sounded like the agreement development was in the City’s court. Just checking to see if there has been any progress and if you have a final or draft of the agreement that can be used for the current conversation. We are having an internal meeting in Conference #1 from 3 – 4 today if you think that it might help for you to sit in. Thanks, Hal 180 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 4:50 PM To:Grigsby, Daryl; Bochum, Tim Subject:SLO REP docs Attachments:draft staff report 12-4-18.doc; a - Final Draft Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.docx Hi Daryl and Tim, As promised, please find attached the draft CAR and ENA. Very similar content to the closed session docs. I said you guys concur and hoping that is still true! Thanks, Bob Robert Hill Interim Deputy Director City Administration Office of Sustainability 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org 181 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Friday, August 10, 2018 4:04 PM To:Kevin Harris Cc:Bochum, Tim; Ansolabehere, Jon; MICHAEL SIMKINS; BRYCE Subject:RE: SLO REP ENA TIMING Attachments:8.10.18 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT.docx Hi Kevin, Yes, please find a revised draft attached. A few key highlights: 1. We made numerous of your prior edit requests 2. We tried to simplify the two-step of Term and then Exclusive Negotiating Period into one single Term (that is exclusive). 3. As the Palm/Nipomo FEIR is approved, we modified or eliminated references to this event that has now occurred. 4. A few key deal points remain open for discussion with Council and SLO REP regarding fees and what happens if SLO REP wants to construct first. Our goal for the closed session conference with Council is to receive direction on the few remaining key deal points. After we complete the document with SLO REP I anticipate that this will be followed by bringing it back for final approval at a regularly schedule hearing (likely consent agenda). We are still on track with the near-term schedule I outlined below, so we need to receive back your review comments by the middle of next week so we can prepare to get our completed memorandum out to Council by close of business next Friday 8/17. Please feel free to call or let me know if you want to stop in early next week to chat on any of this. I appreciate working with you! Bob Robert Hill Interim Deputy Director City Administration Office of Sustainability 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 12:47 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org>; MICHAEL SIMKINS < ; BRYCE <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: Re: SLO REP ENA TIMING 182 Hi Bob! We're looking to schedule a special meeting to review the ENA next week in order to get it back to you within the timeframe you mentioned. Can we expect to receive the latest draft by end of day today? Thank you! On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kevin, Yes, we are happy to do this and your Board’s advance review will probably make the process more efficient overall. The scheduled closed session conference with City Council is at 4pm on Tuesday 8/21. We’ll need to get our completed memorandum and the draft ENA to them by close of business on Friday 8/17. With that timeframe on our end, if we get you the next draft by close of business on Friday 8/10 will you be able to get it back to us my mid-week following? Thanks and glad to be moving this forward with you guys. Best regards, Bob Robert Hill Interim Deputy Director City Administration Office of Sustainability 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org 183 From: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:25 PM To: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Cc: MICHAEL SIMKINS < ; BRYCE <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: SLO REP ENA TIMING Good afternoon, We had a Board meeting last night and it was determined that the full Board would like to have the opportunity to review the updated ENA and approve it before it’s presented to Council (even for their initial review.) Our next Board meeting is schedu led for August 22, however, we could call a special meeting earlier and have a quorum as long as we give all Board members 48 hours’ notice. Do you think it would be possible for us to see an updated ENA- based on everything we discussed at the last meeting- in this timeline? Not trying to pester- just making sure that we have enough notice to get all of our Board together to review before it’s officially submitted to anyone. Thank you! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: To present professional theatrical productions for the entertainment and enrichment of the public, and to provide theatre education opportunities for children and adults. Our Belief: We believe live theatre provides unique and powerful storytelling, blending multiple art forms and connecting 184 communities through the shared emotional journey at each performance. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevin@slorep.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 1:14 PM To: 'Bochum, Tim'; 'Hill, Robert'; 'jansolab@slocity.org' Subject: Thank You! Hi fellas, Thanks so much for the meeting this morning. I’m meeting with our Lead Gifts Committee this afternoon and will relay everything we discussed to them. I will definitely let you know if we have any questions. Have a wonderful week! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: To present professional theatrical productions for the entertainment and enrichment of the public, and to provide theatre education opportunities for children and adults. Our Belief: We believe live theatre provides unique and powerful storytelling, blending multiple art forms and connecting communities through the shared emotional journey at each performance. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter 185 -- Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786-2440 Office (805) 781-3889 x10 www.slorep.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Mission: To present professional theatrical productions for the entertainment and enrichment of the public, and to provide the best possible theatre education opportunities for children and adults. Our Belief: We believe live theatre provides unique and powerful storytelling, blending multiple art forms and connecting communities through the shared emotional journey at each performance. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter 186 From:Ansolabehere, Jon Sent:Wednesday, August 8, 2018 2:09 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: SLO REP ENA edts Attachments:7.31.18 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT.docx See my changes From: Hill, Robert Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 5:52 PM To: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP ENA edts Hi Jon, I went through the SLO REP ENA some more after we met earlier this week. On further consideration, I think the separate Term and Exclusive Negotiating Period makes sense and is protective of the City if we have delays on our end (which we already know we will on the final design and construction docs for the garage). I did provide some edits to address: 1.) the fact that our environmental review is now complete, but that subsequent environmental review may necessary, 2.) that a lot line adjustment is necessary to create the Remainder Property (I think we agree that of course we can lease the Remainder Property without changing the lot configuration, but for taxing, real estate secured financing, and insurance purposes it will be a LOT cleaner). I will follow up with Cassia on a fee estimate for a 18,000 sq.ft. building valued at $4.5M (per their estimate). Thanks! Bob 187 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Friday, August 3, 2018 5:52 PM To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:SLO REP ENA edts Attachments:7.31.18 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT.docx Hi Jon, I went through the SLO REP ENA some more after we met earlier this week. On further consideration, I think the separate Term and Exclusive Negotiating Period makes sense and is protective of the City if we have delays on our end (which we already know we will on the final design and construction docs for the garage). I did provide some edits to address: 1.) the fact that our environmental review is now complete, but that subsequent environmental review may necessary, 2.) that a lot line adjustment is necessary to create the Remainder Property (I think we agree that of course we can lease the Remainder Property without changing the lot configuration, but for taxing, real estate secured financing, and insurance purposes it will be a LOT cleaner). I will follow up with Cassia on a fee estimate for a 18,000 sq.ft. building valued at $4.5M (per their estimate). Thanks! Bob 188 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 7:55 AM To:Shauna Callery Cc:Bochum, Tim; Lee, Scott; Michelle Wendler Subject:FW: Nipomo Parking Garage DEIR Attachments:207_14_18...nipomodeir.pdf Hi Shauna- I just wanted to pass on this correspondence that we received regarding the FEIR for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. I would be prepared to address Mr. Cooper’s comments in case Council wants to discuss his main points. This are questions we addressed at the Planning Commission, but they may need to be addressed again. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Allan Cooper < Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 4:33 PM To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Nipomo Parking Garage DEIR Dear Daryl and Rachel - Would you kindly forward the attached letter to the City Council before their Tuesday, 4:30 P.M., July 17, 2018 meeting? Thanks! - Allan To: SLO City Council, Daryl Grigsby and Rachel Cohen Re: Nipomo Parking Garage DEIR From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: July 14, 2018 Honorable Chair Harmon and Council Members - Consistent with City Council direction, a Draft EIR was prepared for the project, and distributed for public review from December 17, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The City held a Cultural Heritage Committee hearing for the Draft EIR on January 22, 2018 as well as a Planning Commission hearing on February 28, 2018 to receive public testimony. I am entering into the record my point-by-point response to the DEIR rebuttal provided me in response to my February 16, 2018 letter. I am asking you to continue consideration of the Final EIR until such time as you can address these unanswered concerns. In brief, these concerns include: 1)questioning the feasibility of locating street level commercial development in an office zone and immediately across from a mortuary parking lot; 2)the advisability of leaving out the closure of the Broad Street “dog leg” as part of the cumulative scenario in the DEIR traffic analysis; 3)leaving out of consideration traffic generated by the expected increase in Highway 101 off- ramp and on-ramp usage and failing to recognize how this increased traffic will cumulatively impact traffic already generated by the existing Mission Grammar School and Mission Prep High School; 4)not including the segment of Broad Street from Palm Street to the U.S. 101 on- and off- ramps in the noise analysis; 5)failing to mention one important project objective emphasized in the Walker Parking Study and that was the extent to which there is demand for additional parking in this part of town; and 6)failing to make reference to the Walker report’s concern about the feasibility of this project due to the high ﬁnancing costs associated with “exclusive use”. Thank you! COMMENTER: Allan Cooper, Private Citizen DATE: February 16, 2018 Cooper I believe that the DEIR should have identiﬁed the “environmentally superior alternative” to be Alternative 1: No Project because this garage will not meet the “project objectives” which are “to ameliorate the current high demand for parking” (see below). However, if the Council decides to move ahead with the construction of a garage at this location then I would urge them to select the DEIR’s other environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 4: Historic Resource Preservation, which would include the parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, but retain the two houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Response 2.1 The commenter states that the EIR should identify Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) as the “environmentally superior alternative.” The commenter expresses support for Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) if the City Council moves ahead with the project. Section 7.6, Environmentally Superior Alternative, of the Draft EIR discusses that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. As stated in Section 7.6 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) could be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project because the site would remain as is and would not result in any signiﬁcant environmental impacts. This alternative, however, would not meet the project objectives. Pursuant to the Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR also identiﬁes Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) as the environmentally superior alternative, as it would reduce the magnitude of impacts associated with the project to the greatest extent among the alternatives that were analyzed for the project, while meeting the project objectives. The commenter’s support of Alternative 4 if the project is approved will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. Rebuttal to Response 2.1 The commenter has no rebuttal to Response 2.1 but would like to forward my support of Alternative 4 if the project is approved to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. Cooper The theater would not be included as part of this alternative. After all, why is the City favoring the SLO Repertory Theatre when there are numerous other non-proﬁts that could beneﬁt from such a facility? A decision was made by Council on April 4, 2017 to build the parking structure ﬁrst while other components, such as the Repertory Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The City’s January 19, 2006 MOA with the Repertory Theatre is no longer binding. We are encouraging Council to hold off on pursuing a new MOA with the Repertory Theatre. However, I would prefer that Alternative 4 be modiﬁed by replacing the 5,000 square feet of commercial space with ofﬁces at the ﬁrst level and residential on the second story along this stretch of Nipomo Street because the commercial development proposed to be located along Nipomo Street is inappropriate. It will be isolated from the main shopping areas in the downtown core. Response 2.2 The commenter requests that the EIR evaluate an additional alternative similar to Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) that does not include the theater component and replaces the 5,000 square feet of commercial space with offices at the ﬁrst level and residential on the second level. The commenter recommends the City postpone renewal of the previous memoranda of agreement with the Repertory Theatre. Please refer to response to Planning Commission Hearing Public Comment 7 as it relates to the alternatives determined to constitute a “reasonable range” of project alternatives for the project, consistent with CEQA requirements. The alternative suggested by the commenter would not reduce the severity of an impact identiﬁed for the proposed project beyond what was already identiﬁed under Alternative 4. The commenter’s suggestion regarding the Repertory Theatre does not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR, but will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. Rebuttal to Response 2.2 Staff states: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the signiﬁcant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” My critique of this alternative is indeed based on feasibility. It should be clear to anyone who knows this part of the Downtown that street level commercial development has little chance of surviving located in an office zone and facing a mortuary parking lot. Cooper What is missing in this DEIR is a trafﬁc analysis taking into account that the Broad Street “dogleg” may be partially or totally closed (now formally part of the Downtown Concept Plan), that Broad Street may become a bicycle boulevard and that the Highway 101 off- and on-ramps accessing Broad Street may someday be closed. The DEIR states: “The City of San Luis Obispo is in the process of updating the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, which may result in changes to the Broad Street ‘dog leg’. The cumulative forecasts were developed assuming no changes to vehicle access near Mission Plaza. The modiﬁcations under consideration as part of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan would not substantially change the ﬁndings of this transportation analysis (CCTC 2017). No other roadway network changes affecting the study locations were assumed to be in place under cumulative conditions.” How can one assume that no cumulative changes would result from the closure of the “dog leg” or that other “roadway network changes” (i.e., closure of the Broad Street on/off ramps and a proposed bicycle boulevard)? Response 2.3 The commenter states that the EIR should include a traffic analysis that considers potential changes to vehicular access around Mission Plaza, including the Broad Street “dog leg.” Refer to response to Planning Commission Hearing Public Comment 2 as it relates to the scope of the cumulative traffic impact analysis and evaluation of the “dog leg.” Rebuttal to Response 2.3 Staff states: “Closure of the Broad Street on- and off-ramps is a planned/programmed infrastructure improvement that was accounted for in the cumulative scenario. Closure of the Broad Street “dog leg” is not part of the cumulative scenario because it is still conceptual at this time.” It is my understanding that the Broad Street “dog leg” was approved by Council as a part of the update to the Downtown Concept Plan and that it should therefore be factored into this cumulative scenario. Cooper The DEIR further states: “Consistent with the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, a neighborhood trafﬁc analysis that evaluates ADT on roadways classiﬁed as Local Residential is not included in this section because the study area roadways are classiﬁed as Local Commercial roadways.” This project is surrounded with residential development and two schools. I believe that, before this project goes any further, there should be a neighborhood trafﬁc analysis. Moreover, such an analysis could help determine the best location for a 4th parking garage. Response 2.4 The commenter states that a neighborhood traffic analysis, accounting for residential development and schools in the neighborhood, should be conducted for the project. Refer to responses to Planning Commission Hearing Commissioner Comments 1 and 3d and Planning Commission Hearing Public Comment 2 as they relate to the consideration of school traffic and the determination of the appropriate transportation facilities (i.e., roadway segments and intersections) included in the Transportation Impact Analysis for the project respectively. Rebuttal to Response 2.4 Staff states: “As discussed in Section 4.4, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the scope of the Transportation Impact Study (Appendix D of the Draft EIR), on which the section is based, was developed in consultation with City staff and conforms to the standards and policies for such analysis set forth in the City’s adopted Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (2015) and General Plan Circulation Element (2014).” This argument is specious and circular as it simply states that because City staff was consulted on the scope of this trafﬁc study, the scope of this study must therefore be adequate. It is clear that the scope of this trafﬁc impact study is not adequate if it leaves out of consideration trafﬁc generated by the expected increase in Highway 101 off-ramp and on-ramp usage and how this increased trafﬁc will cumulatively impact trafﬁc already generated by the existing elementary school and high school. Cooper The noise analysis is surprising in that there is no prediction of increased decibel levels along Broad between Highway 101 and the proposed garage. See below: “The addition of project generated trafﬁc would increase noise levels along the project’s studied roadway segments. As shown in Table 17, residences along Palm Street would experience a roadway noise level increase of approximately 1.0 dBA, which would result in an ambient noise level of approximately 60.4 Ldn. Residences along Nipomo Street would experience an increase in roadway noise levels of 0.7 dBA, resulting in an ambient noise level of 63.5 Ldn. Both Broad Street and Monterey Street would not exhibit changes in ambient noise levels, based on the number of trips generated by the project, therefore, noise impacts along these roadways would be less than signiﬁcant.” Wouldn’t one surmise that there would be increased usage of the Broad Street/Highway 101 on- and off-ramps once the garage is installed? Response 2.5 The commenter questions the results of the noise analysis discussed under Impact N-3 of the EIR, which states that Broad Street would not exhibit a change in ambient noise levels, based on the number of trips generated by the project. The commenter believes there would be increased usage of the Broad Street/U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps as a result of the project which would increase noise levels. The project’s noise impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.3, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As described therein, noise modeling was conducted for study area roadways (Section 4.4, Transportation) using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Day/Night Noise Level Calculator (HUD DNL) and trip data from the Transportation Impact Study prepared for this project (Appendix D to the Draft EIR) to assess potential long-term (operation-related) noise impacts due to project- generated increases in traffic (p. 86 of the Draft EIR). As shown on Figure 10 in Section 4.4, Transportation, and Table 17 of the Draft EIR, the study area roadway segment for Broad Street was from Palm Street to Monterey Street, which does not include the segment of Broad Street from Palm Street to the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps. To clarify that Broad Street was evaluated from Palm Street to Nipomo Street under Impact N-3, the Final EIR has been revised as follows on page 99: Both Broad Street (between Palm Street and Monterey Street) and Monterey Street (between Nipomo Street and Broad Street) would not exhibit changes in ambient noise levels, based on the number of trips generated by the project; therefore, noise impacts along these roadways would be less than signiﬁcant. The cumulative noise impact analysis in the Final EIR has also been revised to provide clariﬁcation as follows: Under the Cumulative Plus Project condition, there would be no increase in ambient noise levels from project generated traffic on Broad Street (between Palm Street and Monterey Street). Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulative impact on Broad Street (between Palm Street and Monterey Street). As shown in Appendix F of the Transportation Impact Study, Existing and Existing Plus Project scenario Average Daily Trips (ADT) along Broad Street (between Palm Street and Monterey Street) are 2,676 and Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenario ADT are 3,159. Therefore, based on the Transportation Impact Study, the project is not anticipated to add vehicle trips to Broad Street between Palm Street and Monterey Street. As such, there was no change in the noise levels between the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios (Table 17 of the Draft EIR) or the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios (Table 18 of the Draft EIR). The Transportation Impact Study in Appendix D of the Draft EIR did not analyze average daily trips on other segments of Broad Street; however, the 2012 Draft Traffic Impact Study for the project, discussed on page 4 of the Transportation Impact Study in Appendix D of the Draft EIR, shows that only four percent of project-generated trips (approximately 60 ADT) would be distributed onto Broad Street north of Palm Street. In general, a doubling of the intensity of a noise generating source (such as a doubling of traffic along a roadway) results in a 3 dBA noise level increase, which is typically considered a perceptible increase. This 60 ADT increase along Broad Street is substantially less than a doubling of traffic; therefore, the addition of project- based trips would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise. Therefore, this comment does not change the conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the signiﬁcance of the impact. Rebuttal to Response 2.5 Staff states: “As shown on Figure 10 in Section 4.4, Transportation, and Table 17 of the Draft EIR, the study area roadway segment for Broad Street was from Palm Street to Monterey Street, which does not include the segment of Broad Street from Palm Street to the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps.” Why not? In my opinion, this is an embarrassing omission. Cooper In conclusion, the DEIR states that Alternative 1: No Project/No Development could also be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project because the site would remain as is and it would not result in any signiﬁcant environmental impacts; however, it would not meet the project objectives. However, there is no demonstrable need at this time for this project in that there is little demand for parking at this end of town. In 2015, Walker Parking Consultants stated “The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown.” The demand exists, instead, in the major growth areas east of Santa Rosa. The 2014 Walker Parking Consultant demand study projected that occupancy would be at 60%. Over 1/3 of the parking spaces will remain unoccupied. Private and public development projected to take place here in this part of town will take years to develop. We should also recognize that back when the ﬁrst demand study was written in 2009 the size and scale of both the Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown projects were signiﬁcantly greater than now. If the Palm/Nipomo parking structure will not ameliorate the current high demand for parking, then does this garage at this location meet “the project objectives”? Response 2.6 The commenter states that the proposed project would not meet the project objectives because it will not ameliorate the current high demand for parking. As stated in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project objectives include the following: •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces; •Accommodate cultural uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure; •Include a pedestrian-level public use plaza area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets; •Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street; •Preserve the large oak tree on site; and •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (e.g., Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •The project’s provision of up to 445 parking spaces would meet the project objective to provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces. The commenter does not raise any speciﬁc concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Rebuttal to Response 2.6 Staff states in response to Russell Brown’s statement at the February 28, 2018 Planning Commission meeting: “The commenter's concerns and suggestion to consider the conclusions of the previous Walker Parking Study pertain to the merits of the project and do not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR; this comment will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration.” The Walker Parking Study clearly states one project objective conspicuously missing in this Draft EIR which was meeting the unmet demand for parking in this part of town. The Walker Parking Study clearly indicated that there is presently no demand for additional parking in this part of town. Why is this project objective left out? Cooper Moreover, the construction cost projection ($23,600,000) may be too low (at $53,034 per space for a 445 space facility) and it is ﬁscally irresponsible to prepare an EIR that will cost $1.65 million without any proof that this project is needed. The Walker report warns that any exclusive use of the parking structure will likely mean that “any ﬁnancing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase ﬁnancing costs”. This exclusive use refers to the demand for parking for Monterey Place (65 spaces) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces). This additional ﬁnancing cost will only further burden a City that has let it's unfunded liabilities build up over the years This money (were it to be available) would be better spent on alternative transportation systems. The City should look at decentralized solutions to the parking problem taking into account emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking dynamics. Response 2.7 The commenter states that the project construction cost projection may be too low and ﬁnancing the project will burden the City. This comment pertains to the economics of the project. Section 15131 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as signiﬁcant effects on the environment.” The commenter does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter’s concerns with project costs and ﬁnancing will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. Rebuttal to Response 2.7 I again repeat that “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the signiﬁcant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Yes, I understand that socio-economic impacts as they pertain to the citizenry at large are no longer considered by CEQA. What I’m addressing here is the “feasibility” of the project which is an entirely separate issue. 189 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:56 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Richard Daulton Subject:RE: Voicemail Attachments:Palm Nipomo CEQA Findings and SOC_Draft_2018-06-28.docx; Palm Nipomo CEQA Findings and SOC_Draft_2018-06-28.pdf Hi Rachel, Excellent Ɵming. AƩached please find a draŌ of the Palm Nipomo CEQA findings and statement of overriding consideraƟons for your review. Please take a careful look at the SecƟon 7.2, Required Findings, as our scope assumed this would be provided by City staff. Let me know if you have any quesƟons. The hard copies of the Final EIR will be delivered to ScoƩ on Monday. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental ScienƟsts Planners Engineers -----Original Message----- From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:37 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler; Lee, ScoƩ Subject: RE: Voicemail Great! Thanks for leƫng me know. Any idea of when the CEQA findings will be complete? Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org -----Original Message----- From: Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:56 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Voicemail Hi Rachel, 190 I just wanted to let you know I received your voicemail. Thanks for checking on that! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Program Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. Direct: 805-250-8513 Mobile: 805-704-5860 191 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:41 AM To:Cohen, Rachel; Lee, Scott Cc:Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Attachments:Palm Nipomo_Final EIR_Volume 1_Executive Summary through 8.0.pdf Rachel and Scott, Attached is Volume I (Executive Summary through Chapter 8) of the Final EIR. Volume II (Appendices) is available through the following link (it was too large to email): https://rinconconsultants.exavault.com/share/view/o11b-5img78u7 . Please take a look at these files and let me know if they are okay to print. Please note that the only changes made from the version you sent on Monday were to the date (July 2018) and the text on page 36 that we went over on Monday. We will begin printing the hard copies once I hear back from you. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 11:29 AM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Hi Shauna- Per our discussion today Rincon will produce the following:  CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations  10 hard copies of the Final EIR I have attached the final drafts for your use for the hard copies. Thank you!! Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 192 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 8:58 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Richard Daulton <RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Hi Rachel, Yes, I am available at 11 am to discuss. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 4:23 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler; Richard Daulton Subject: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Hi Shauna- I was looking for the CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations and realized that this is included in the scope of work as an optional task. Would you be available on Monday at 11 am to discuss the option to complete this task? As a heads up this document would need to be completed ASAP. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 193 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 11:29 AM To:Shauna Callery Cc:Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Attachments:Palm-Nipomo Draft EIR.pdf; Palm Nipomo FEIR_DRAFT_with final edits.pdf; Palm Nipomo FEIR_DRAFT_ with final edits.docx Hi Shauna- Per our discussion today Rincon will produce the following:  CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations  10 hard copies of the Final EIR I have attached the final drafts for your use for the hard copies. Thank you!! Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 8:58 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Richard Daulton <RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Hi Rachel, Yes, I am available at 11 am to discuss. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 194 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 4:23 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Michelle Wendler; Richard Daulton Subject: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure EIR CEQA Findings Hi Shauna- I was looking for the CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations and realized that this is included in the scope of work as an optional task. Would you be available on Monday at 11 am to discuss the option to complete this task? As a heads up this document would need to be completed ASAP. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 195 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5:16 PM To:Pease, Andy Cc:Johnson, Derek; Grigsby, Daryl; Lee, Scott Subject:Palm Nipomo Structure Agenda Reports Attachments:CAR 1-19-16 PalmNipomo.pdf; 01-03-2012 b2 palm nipomo pkg structure.pdf; Council Agenda Report - Monterey Parking Structure RFP 12.01.2009.pdf Andy at our meeting I said I would forward to you some of the prior reports on the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure so you could acquaint yourself with some of the background. Here are some of the more recent ones. As you can see the recession had a delaying effect on proceeding with the project and we picked it up again in 2016. There is one file that is too big to put in this email as an attachment. It is the Study Session on design we had back in 2007. I can make a hard copy of that one if you’d like or you can get it off the City’s agenda webpage. Let me know…. Let me know if you would like to chat after you review. tim Tim Bochum Deputy Director Public Works Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tbochum@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.431.5177 slocity.org c((o cunciL» C f C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the Palm Nipomo parking structure project and authorize the City Manager to award if the contract is within the project budget. REPORT -IN -BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking Lot 14 located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey Street. On December 1, 2009, the City Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review. Since that time the consultant team has been hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary design developed. The preliminary design includes the removal of the City owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future development of a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown. Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the design's potential impact on the environment. Through these studies it has been determined that the removal of the existing residential structures would be considered a significant adverse impact to historical resources and therefore an EIR needs to be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts. DISCUSSION The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project was established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003 -05 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and Nipomo Street. A summary of past Council actions is available for review on the City's website and in the Council Reading File. At its April 24, 2007, meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Option D3 (self -park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The selected design was chosen over a mechanical or automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure. It did include an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street. At its meeting of March 17, 2009, the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fund prepared by a consultant, and received recommendations by a Council - appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee (Attachment 1). The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings and recommendations. On a 4:0 vote (Mayor Romero absent), Council directed staff to RX31 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 2 take the next steps of environmental review for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans and specifications (Attachment 2). During FY 2009 -11, a consultant team was hired to develop the design and conduct the necessary environmental analysis. To date, two public workshops have been held to gain community input on the proposed garage and urban design plan for the site and its surroundings. Details regarding these workshops can be viewed on the City's website at www slocity or publicworks /palmnipomo asp . These efforts have culminated in a preliminary design (Attachment 3). The design currently assumes the removal of the City owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future development of a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown. The redevelopment of these two properties will also allow the single story structures to be replaced with taller structures that will aid in screening the four to five story parking structure and reducing the appearance of its mass. Additionally, public plazas will replace the existing private front yards. Feedback from workshop participants on these design concepts has been positive. The following graphic depicts how the parking structure will be partially screened from Monterey Street by a separate structure (shaded) in front of it. i 1/T fFri ?- li / ' i" ->... .g7 -------- This strategy is also proposed for the Nipomo Street frontage where a two story office /commercial structure (shaded) is proposed to front the parking structure. This screening/massing strategy "has been effectively utilized on the City's Marsh Street parking structure where office and retail space front the street and the majority of the structure is located behind these uses. B2 -2 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 3 Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the preliminary design's potential impact to the environment. Through these studies, it was determined by the environmental sub - consultant that the level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review will need to be greater if the project removes the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey as envisioned by the preliminary design shown in Attachment 3. Specifically, the sub - consultant concluded that demolition of the two City - owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey Street would cause a substantial diminishment of the integrity of the Downtown Historic District and would be considered a significant adverse impact. Development under this scenario would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report EIR) and Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Relocation was considered, but dismissed as infeasible for the 614 Monterey Depression -era Adobe. Staff recommends that the City proceed with the preparation of an EIR to address the cultural resources issue. While an EIR would focus on the specific issue of concern, other potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, and traffic volume would be addressed. The EIR would also include an alternatives analysis and formal response to comments. Because the EIR would be focused and utilize studies and analysis developed to date, the Palm Nipomo environmental consultant estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at potentially less than 75,000. Condition/Status of Monterey Street Residences 610 Monterey Street, photographed on the following page, is owned by the City's Parking Fund, is in fair condition, and currently rented to residential tenants through a contract with the Housing Authority. B2 -3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 4 610 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1938. The adjacent residence at 614 Monterey, photographed on the following page, was purchased by the Parking Fund in 2006. The renters that lived in the residence when the City purchased it remained until 2011 when they notified the City they were moving out. After vacating, the property management company inspected the property and identified a significant list of repairs needed before renting the structure to a new tenant including a new roof, windows, furnace, stove, oven, paint, removal of bathroom mold, and retaining wall reconstruction. Upon further inspection by City staff and a structural engineer, it was determined that the dwelling's structural integrity should also be examined before being reoccupied. Staff estimates a structure evaluation would cost approximately $5,000. Such an examination would include a physical inspection of the structure including attic, sub -floor, roof, structural assembly, as well as the electrical, gas and plumbing services), material testing of the structure for structural integrity, and the preparation of a report. Once this examination is complete, the City will have a better understanding of the work that needs to be undertaken if the structure is retained. Without a structural evaluation, repair costs are difficult to estimate given the age and historic status of the structure. For example, re- roofing the structure could cost four times more than a typical dwelling because the existing roof most likely does not comply with current codes. Additionally, a new roof for this structure is required to comply with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines. For now the Council should assume that the repairs could exceed $100,000 and once repaired the dwelling could rent for approximately $1700 per month. If the structural evaluation confirms these estimates, staff recommends against the alternative of retaining/repairing the structure due to the significant cost and impact to the overall Palm Nipomo project. The residence would remain vacant until demolition lite Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction 614 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1930's 5 Update on the Palm Nipomo Project Need In 2009, the City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee for the Palm Nipomo parking structure project to answer two questions: A. Can we afford it? B. If we built it, will they come? The Committee met four times and developed the following findings which remain valid today: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure. The consultant's analysis of the Parking Fund in 2009 included the assumption that parking demand will increase 1% annually and that modest rate increases will occur every three years beginning in 2012 -13. While demand has not increased as expected because of the economy, the project has also not moved forward as quickly for the same reason, therefore the impact of the demand not increasing is not significant at this time. With Council approval of Sunday parking, new "Super Core" rates, and planned future rate increases, the Parking Fund remains in good financial condition today. 2. The structure is consistent with current City plans. The City's Downtown Concept Plan and General Plan promote public parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access and recommend this area of downtown for cultural facilities. No changes have been made to these documents to invalidate this finding. i RI Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 6 3. The structure will be needed at this location in the near future. Although the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been delayed, they continue to move forward and will remove approximately 225 existing public parking spaces. The Chinatown project will eliminate the public parking lots along Palm Street no later than 2019. The Garden Street Terraces agreement calls for construction to begin on Lot 2 no later than September 2015. Other planned or approved redevelopment projects that will create parking demand in walking distance to the project include: A. San Luis Obispo Museum of Art B. Vaquero mixed use project at the corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets C. Parsons House D. Foster Freeze mixed use project E. Leitcher House mixed use project. Construction of the parking structure will be timed with downtown development projects to have the structure available when the need is there as envisioned by the Ad Hoc Committee. Factors such as changes in the economy, parking demand, and the construction of redevelopment projects downtown area are all variable and impact when the parking structure will be needed. Staff can update Council regarding downtown parking demand as part of the annual Parking Fund review. Should Council seek additional input, staff can request funding for an update of the consultant's report when the construction plans are being developed or when significant changes in parking demand appear on the horizon. 4. There are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. In 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee identified a list of ten "carrot and stick" parking pricing strategies to encourage parking at this location for future consideration if and when needed. To date, only the addition of the "Super Core" rate increase has been enacted leaving the majority of the strategies available for implementation in the future. Many of these ideas are parking management strategies that are not tied to the Palm Nipomo parking structure. Accordingly, Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund review. Because these findings remain valid today, staff recommends that the project continue to proceed through the design and environmental review process. Moving forward now will give the City the ability to time the construction of the project to coincide with the parking need, rather than trying to catch up once the parking need is evident. FISCAL IMPACT To date, approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis. Existing studies will be utilized in the EIR so the expenditures to date have been appropriate. Staff estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at less than $75,000. Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget for design services and environmental review. Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likely increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions. i Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Revise preliminary design to retain 610 and 614 Monterey residences The preliminary design could be revised to retain the two residences as part of the project. Such a redesign could also require the preparation of an EIR if visual impacts (resulting from reduced screening potential from the existing single story structures) cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Should Council wish to proceed with this alternative, staff recommends that Council approve up to $5000 in consultant services to fund the structural evaluation and cost estimates on structure repairs that will be presented to Council before a final decision is made. 2. Revise preliminary design to mitigate any project impacts to a less than significant level: If visual impacts of the parking structure cannot be mitigated with the retention of the two residences, this alternative may necessitate a redesign to a shorter and smaller scale structure that would be less efficient (and more expensive per space to construct/maintain) and would not meet the City's 400 parking space goal. 3. Defer project. The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in the area increases. Deferring the project will increase costs because the environmental documents prepared to date will need to be updated. Additionally if the economy improves during the time the project is on hold, design and construction fees are likely to increase. Since it is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could be available for use, staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase. Rather, staff recommends using this time to complete the design under the current consultant contract and complete the construction plans so the City can time the construction to meet the demand. ATTACHMENTS 1. March 17, 2009 Council Agenda Report: Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations 2. March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting Update 3. Preliminary Design Plan COUNCIL READING FILE Summary of Past Council Actions T: \Council Agenda Reports\2012- 01- 03 \SS3 -Palm Nipomo Parking (Walter- Mandeville) \CAR Palm Nipomo Direction.doc B2 -7 ATTACHMENT _I Council AQCnbA WPORt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Ad Hoe Parking Fund Review Committee, move forward with advance development of the Monterey Street parking structure (previously referred to as the Palm Nipomo parking structure) by taking the next steps of environmental review, completion of design, and preparation of plans and specifications. REPORT -IN-BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking lot 14 which is located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey. Streets. During the consideration of this project the Council has had concerns about whether the Parking Fund could afford this parking structure and whether it would be used at this location. At the 2008 Parking Fund Review, the Council approved the hiring of a consultant and the appointment of an Ad Hoc committee to address these concerns. Consequently, consultants were hired and committee members were appointed including Council Member Carter as` the. Council's representative. The consultants worked with staff on the financial analysis of the Parking Fund, methodologies on projecting revenues and expenses, parking supply and demand, pending development projects, and later with six detailed financial forecast scenarios presented to the Committee (Attachment 1). The Committee, the consultants, and staff met four times over four months to develop the findings and recommendations for this report. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee are: the Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure; the next structure should be renamed to the Monterey Street structure to better identify and market its location; the Council should move forward with full design and EIR review; the structure is consistent with current City plans; the structure will be needed at this location in the near future; and there are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. B2 -8 ATTACHMENT. Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The former Palm/Nipomo (Monterey Street) parking structure project was established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003 -05 Financial Plan. A Capital improvement Project (CIP) for the initial design ($1,350,000), environmental review 300,000), and construction ($12,000,000) was approved the same year. The Council has reviewed conceptual structure designs, approved property acquisitions, and approved revenue increases at nine separate Council meetings to date. On April 24, 2007, the Council identified Design Option D3, a 445 space "self- park" parking structure design as the preferred site design over a mechanical or automated parking structure without any mixed. use added as part of the structure. The self - parking design is how our current structures operate. Drivers park their vehicle and pay at the exit. (This report is provided in Attachment 2.) During the review of design options for the structure, two questions kept surfacing: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? The affordability issue was partially addressed in 2006 when the Council accepted recommended revenue enhancements that were phased in over a couple of years. However, a concern remained that we were replacing "low cost — higher revenue producing" parking assets like metered spaces in lots and on streets with "higher cost -lower revenue producing" parking in the form of parking structures. Downtown projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will eliminate existing surface parking and at the same time increase parking demand. This led to additional legitimate concerns about whether we could afford the parking structure with the current revenues we have in place. The location of the structure was yet another issue. The City owns Parking Lot 14 at the corner of Palm and Nipomo streets as well as residential properties at 610 Monterey, 614 Monterey and 633 Palm. Together these properties provide an ideal location to build a parking structure, but Would the public use it? The site is not in a highly developed area of the downtown and it was perceived by some as being too remote from the downtown core. The current parking lot at this location is not well utilized. So, other locations were considered (including Wells Fargo), but these locations proved to be unattainable. In short, the Palm - Nipomo site has the distinct advantage of being owned by the City and is therefore readily available. On the other hand, the Council and others have expressed concern about its location in supporting its use and cost for a parking structure. With these two issues in mind, on May 20, 2008 during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant -and put together an Ad Hoc Parking Review rim ATTACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 3 Committee (Committee) to answer these questions. The end result of this direction was to prepare a report for Council consideration that included: a. The financial analysis of the Parking Fund to verify its present fiscal condition and project its future conditions with and without the Palm - Nipomo parking structure. b. Options and strategies for: 1) correcting any identified imbalances under a "no added structure scenario," if any such imbalances are projected; 2) promoting use of a new parking structure at Palm - Nipomo (should one be built); and 3). generating sufficient revenues to meet projected construction and operating costs of a new structure at Palm - Nipomo. Committee and Consultants The six - member Committee consisted of. Councilmember Andrew Carter (Council appointee); Cydney Holcomb (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods); Mike Multari (Planning Commissioner); Pierre Rademaker (Chamber of Commerce Appointee); Susan Rains (Mass Transportation); and Tom Swem (Downtown Association Appointee). Fieldman Rolapp was hired as our primary consultant because of their past work with many City projects and familiarity with the City's financial operations. To handle parking demand analysis, Fieldman Rolapp hired Walker Parking Consultants. The consultants reviewed all financial documents and the methodologies of projecting revenues and expenses for the Parking Fund. They were instrumental in providing detailed analysis and projections for six different scenarios that used different base assumptions as the Committee requested. They also validated the majority of staff s prior assumptions and methods for projecting revenues and expenditures. Walker provided analysis based on our current and future parking supply when compared to our current and future. parking demand. Walker was provided with information on current parking supply on streets, in parking lots and in structures. Staff provided occupancy counts for our streets, lots and structures as well. Staff then.provided information on all pending projects. in the downtown with information on the uses, how much public parking they will eliminate, and how much parking is privately supplied. Actual parking demand was calculated using the Urban Land Institutes calculations. The Committee and consultants were joined by staff members Jay Walter, Tim Bochum, Debbie Malicoat, Bill Statler, Madelyn Paasch, Jessica Rhoadarmer and Robert Horch providing information and analysis. Committee Meetings 1. Meeting One (11/6/08) — The first meeting covered basic introductions, background, fiscal policies, financial information, the structure site plan, and the scope of the project. Staff went over a proposed schedule of the meetings and dates and promised to email the group two financial scenarios of the Parking Fund before the next meeting: "Without Palm- Nipomo" and "With Palm Nipomo." These two scenarios were sent out the week before the next meeting after considerable work by the consultants. B2 -10 AI TACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 4 2. Meeting Two (12/9/08) — The consultants and staff presented the two parking forecasts, base revenue and expenditure assumptions, with modest projected increases in parking demand. After much discussion, direction was given to staff to adjust three assumptions and add four more scenarios. Staff and the consultants agreed to make revisions and provide final information to Committee prior to next meeting. The six updated scenarios were emailed to the Committee just before the next meeting. 3. Meeting Three (1/9/09) — Staff and the consultants provided the adjustments that were requested concerning parking in -lieu revenues, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) expenses, and the cost of living (CPI) adjustments for operating expenses. Each of these line items were adjusted in all scenarios provided to the group. Six different financial forecasts were presented. Two forecast scenarios assumed no new parking structure, keeping things as "status quo." One scenario included the normal 1% parking demand increase and one forecast did not. The other four forecasts assumed the new parking structure being built with various additions and subtractions for demand increases from the Chinatown and the Garden Street Terraces GST) projects, as these would have significant impacts on the Parking Fund. After much discussion, Committee members were satisfied with the financial and parking demand information provided by staff and the consultants. Some "carrot" and "stick" methods of ensuring the structure would be used were presented but the group did not think they needed to get into this much detail at this time because parking demand can change significantly by the time the structure is built. The Committee thought it was best to explore these when the new structure was closer to being built. The Committee requested a draft of this report for their review at the next meeting. 4. Meeting Four (2112109) — Staff presented the draft staff report with the group's recommendations for review and comment, which the Committee unanimously approved with modifications that are reflected in this report. B2 -11 AITACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 5 Parking Scenarios with Different Assumptions The following is the summary of all of the six forecast scenarios. More detail is provided in Attachment 1. In millions First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20) In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures. Committee Findings and Recommendations Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff, mmtheCoittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:" a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243. 2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets. B2 -12 Working Capital By 2016 17 ** Lowest Forecast Year Debt Working Revenues Scenario Amount * Op Up Capital * Over Ex No Pa)m-Nipomo Project 1. Status Quo Revenue 7.5 321 % N/A 733,600 2. No Demand Increase 7.4 317% I N/A 1 10.4 321,600 With . Project 3. With GST and Chinatown 1.1 377- - 10.0 2.7 634,300 4. With GST/Without Chinatown 2.0 70% 13.0 3.3 446,10.0 5. Without GSTMith Chinatown 3.0 106% 10.0 4.7 630,500 6. Without GST or Chinatown 1.1 39% 10.0 2.8 624,300 In millions First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20) In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures. Committee Findings and Recommendations Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff, mmtheCoittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:" a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243. 2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets. B2 -12 ATTACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 6 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. Due to the favorable forecast of the scenarios presented to the Committee, there is sufficient funding to move forward with the architectural design and environmental review process. The revenue enhancements approved by the Council in 2006 combined with retirement of the bonds for the original Palm and Marsh Street parking structures provide a sufficient basis for the affordability of the new structure. Working capital can be used to lower the amount financed with the bond issuance. This will lower on -going debt service payments in the future. Waiting' to move forward is not recommended because of the number of development projects in process in the downtown. They will increase parking demand and eliminate parking on the street and in several City parking lots. Parking will be needed in the next 5- 10 years. Even if we begin the design and environmental review process now, it will be Eve to seven years before construction of a parking structure on this site is completed. Deferring this project beyond that is not recommended. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. The location of this structure is consistent with the City's Downtown Concept Plan_ and General Plan's Land Use Policy. These documents promote public parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access. This area of downtown is identified as the cultural center. Building a parking structure may increase cultural development and/or other commercial development in the area. Land.Use Element policy 4.10 says: "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the foFm of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The location of the parking structure is consistent with this policy as the Concept Plan placed the area for off -site parking just outside the edge of the core.. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. _ Although we have sufficient public parking today, by the time the structure is built we probably will not. There are 12 projects in various stages of development review in the downtown that will impact parking. Two of these projects, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, are substantial because they eliminate public parking and increase parking demand. The other ten projects propose to meet their parking requirements on site or pay parking in -lieu fees. Even without these projects the parking consultant conservatively projected added. parking demand downtown to justify building this structure in the near future. Generally, parking structures are not Elled to capacity when they first open.. When new parking supply is added at a structure, parking habits adjust and over time more cars will park in a structure. The Committee concluded that the structure itself would stimulate growth in the area, creating more parking demand. Downtown developments will contribute to the demand and. the two larger projects eliminate parking supply with the loss of City- owned parking lots. This combination justiEes that the structure will be used at this location. B2 -13 ATTA°,ICTIMENT _ Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 7 There are a number of strategies for encouraging parking at this location once the structure is built. - The Council can assess the best ones at that time. Staff provided several ideas that would encourage the public to use the Monterey Street structure using different "carrot" and stick" approaches. The Committee believed that there would be enough eventual parking demand to justify the building of the structure by itself. They also recognized that the Council and staff had a good understanding on how to adjust rates during annual Parking Fund reviews to encourage more use if it is required when the structure opens. If not, this analysis should be done looking at the parking needs in the future, not now. This will allow staff to better analyze the changes in public parking after Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces are under construction. or built. These concepts include: a. Modify all parking pricing strategies so the Monterey structure is the most affordable structure downtown. b. Offer more "free" time in the Monterey structure. c. Reduce or eliminate free parking. time at the other three structures d. Offer a "low" flat rate at the Monterey structure and use progressive rates in the all other structures. e. Allow over -night and residential parking at. the Monterey structure. f. Add parking meters on the 600 Block of Palm. g. Offer reserved parking at the Monterey structure. h. Only allow monthly passcards at the Monterey structure i. Add another meter rate zone with the highest amount in the central commercial core j. Use multi -space meters without attendants in the Monterey structure. Again the Committee does not recommend that the Council act on any of these at this . time. They are simply "in the pantry" and available for future consideration if and when needed. On the .other hand, many of these ideas are management strategies that are not tied to the Monterey Street parking structure. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund reviews (or any other appropriate times) as ways of improving downtown parking management and/or adjusting revenues. Next Steps If the Council accepts the Committee's recommendations, the next steps are: 1. Prepare request for proposals (RFP) for architectural review plans, select consultant 5/09 2. Submit application for architectural and environmental review 2 /10 3. Prepare RFP for environmental review, select consultant 5110 4. Complete draft environmental document 1/11 5. Review by Cultural Heritage Committee 3/11 6. Review by Architectural Review Commission 8/11 7. Review by Planning Commission 1 /12 8. Review by the Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications 4/12 9. Complete plans and specifications 10/12 10. Bid Construction Project TBD by Council B2 -14 ATTACHMENT Ad, Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations. Page 8 The above schedule does not reflect potential time increases to process appeals of certain milestones for the project (such as ARC or PC approvals) that may occur as part of the project development process. Even with the recommended action to move forward with this project, it will be 2014 before this project goes out to bid; and likely 2016 before it is open for operations. CONCURRENCES All members of the Committee were in agreement with the findings and the recommendations. Staff agrees with the Committee's finds and recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the Committee's recommendations: funds have already been appropriated for the next steps of environmental review and design. However, the total cost of building the Monterey Street Parking Structure is estimated at $20 million. As reflected in the attached scenarios, the Parking Fund has the fiscal capacity to build and operate the Monterey Street Parking structure. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do nothing and accumulate funds. Downtown parking demand will continue to increase while our parking supply in parking lots and streets deceases due to redevelopment: It will take a minimum of 3 years to design the project and obtain approvals. This alternative is not recommended because this report shows there will be parking demand and funding to move forward someday with the Monterey Street parking structure. 2. Use the funding to promote "green," parking alternatives rather than accommodate more parking in structures and lots. The Parking Fund will continue to work to promote a combination of "green" parking alternatives by adding bicycle parking and funding alternative transportation programs. However, it is unrealistic to think -that we can eliminate parking cars at this time. Parking structures can be used to accommodate hybrids, electric vehicles, bicycles, shared car programs and other "green" concepts as they develop in the City. 3. Fund more transit ,services. The Parking Fund contributes revenue to the Gold Pass program and maintains bus parking on city streets and in the Railroad Square parking lot: The Parking Fund will continue to work in combination with local transit and assist in promoting and funding transit services. This will lessen parking demand but not enough to eliminate the need for another parking structure. 4. Add more parking on existing downtown streets. One idea coming from the Committee was maximizing parking on downtown streets with the use of angled parking on Higuera and Marsh. This would add more parking supply but it would increase traffic in the core and it is not consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Conceptual Plan. Both plans enhance pedestrian access in the core and place parking in the form of structures on the perimeter of the downtown. This alternative is not consistent with these plans. B2 -15 I,'FVWIIM ENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 9 5. Purchase more parking lots. This would generate revenues, be less costly .and would accommodate parking demand. However, like the alternative above, it is not consistent to approved City plans that promote higher density of uses in downtown. This may be a viable option for areas outside of the immediate downtown, because they can be used for future structure locations. ATTACHMENT 1. Scenarios 1 -6 with assumptions 2. Council agenda report where the Council approved Palm = Nipomo concept plan and approved moving forward. n r` ? r!}- '§k " 8a r`L ''qz i' . `. • t .r3,,, ar` cz Ss, -t'`t.,,;'^2' 2* i'", . t t t f <i^iv r.3 ,.. Y °^c S , . z k 4''r -m 4' . }, a lr. ., V;;; sai?e,s s., d .n. `z,.. mil, t _>'!. {_t,, .3 ak ;S'.. z. " !ye jS `7 i 3•,.s Ric;t{z''L`c` TAAd Hoc Parking review Committee, !1: 1' Mtg\CAR do B2 -16 i N I M-+ J 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h 4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. h l SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING'CAPITAL Attachment 1,A Scenario #1: "No Palm- Nipotno Project : Status Quo Revenues" Actual Budgeti) Projected 2005-06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008.09 2009 -10 201041 201142 2012 -13 201344 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017 -18 2018.18 2019 -2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots 298,000 387,700 379,600 380,310 $ 481,942 $ 261,661 $ 134,375 135,719 $ 221,513 S '223,728 225,965 228,225 230,507 232,812 S 235,140 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,340,247 1,353,650 1,367,186 1,380,858 1,394,667 1,408,613 1,422,699 1,436,926 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,961 1,097,506 1,221,033 1,298,195 1,311,177 1,282,070 1,294,891 1,307.840 1,320,918 1,334,127 1,347,469 1,380,943 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 412,267 416,390 420,554 424,760 429,007 433,297 437,630 442,006 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358,014 360,564 363,139 365,741 368,368 371,022 Pae4ngln4JeuFear 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75.013 78,013 81,134 Other Service Charges 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 2,909,600 2,868,800 2,874,984 $3,577,449 $ 6,102,844 -$ 4,132,630 $ 3,509,154 $ 3,693,332 3,731,158 S 3,769,440 3,808,184 $ 3,847,398 3,887,092 3,927,272 Investment and Property Revenues 253,600 524,900 384,00 141,156 138,240 150,019 314,019 345,059 355,328 297,496 322,914 346,647 368,654 388,746 406,722 Flnes and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891,974 846,340 818,811 827,000 883,769 892,607 901.533 910,548 919,654 928,850 938,139 Otter Revenues 8 900' 8 600 Total Revenues 3,921,800 4,265,500 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $4,607,664 $ 7,099,203 $ 5,265,461 4,681,212 $ 4,932,429 4,921,261 4,993,886 $ 5,065,379 $ 5,135,706 5,204,688 5,272,133 Expenditures Operating Programs t" 1,871,700 1,997,200 2,004,400 2,201,900 $2,333,624 $ 2,436255 $ 2,525,713 2,626,638 $ 2,736,076 2,845,383 2,959,047 3,077,241 3,200146 S 3,327,952 3,460,854 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (4) 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 682,000 1,481,500 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473,600 1,471,500 1,473,700 968,200 972,900 972,900 972,900 972,900 972,900 Total Expenditures 10,915,000 4,891,600 3,634,500 83,996,000 $4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171 4,073,994 4,202,774 4,331,801 4,465,973 S 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 7,930,900 Total Other Sources (Uses) 7,930,900 Revenues and 00W Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 937,700 826,100) 393,000 145,781) $ 588,940 $ 2,966,348 $ 1,034,643 342;310 $ (1,927,742) 847,267 791,112 733,578 669,733 599,192 521,549 Working Capital, Beginning of Year 4 6,353,200 7,29.0,900 $ 6,664,800 7,057,800 $6,912,019. $ 7,500,959 $10.467.307 11,501,950 $ 11,944,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785 11,554,897 $ 12,288,475 $ 12,956,208 $13,557601 Working Capital; End of Year 7,290,900 $6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 6,912,019 $ 7,500,959 $10p67,307 $11,501,950 $ 11,844,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785 $11,554,897 $12,288,475 $12,958,208 19557,401 146078,950 Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures 01 390% 334% 352% 314% 321% 430% 455% 451% 3620% 378% 390% 399% 4115% 407% 407% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h 4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. h l Revenues Service MeterCdkections Parking Meter Collections Lots Streets Parking Garage Co6ections Long -Term Revenues Leese Revenues Parking In -Lieu Fees Other Service Charges Total Service'Charges Investment and Property Revenues Fines and Forfeitures Other Revenues Total Revenues Expenditures Operating Programs 0 Capital Improvement Plan Projects i`) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing Total other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, Beginning of Year Working Capital, End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures 's) SAN LUIS OBISPO PARIGNG FUND.CNANGES IN WORICING CAPITAL Attachment 1-8 Scenario #2: "No Palmi4pomo Project: Status Quo Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase" Actual"' Budget") Projoetedm 2005-08 2008-07 2007 -08 2008-09 2009 -10 2010-11 2011 -12 2012.13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2018-17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -2020 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 376,544.. S 472,446 $ 253,965 $ 129,132 $ 129,132 3 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 S 210,274 S 210,274 868200 9$6,600 1,039,800.' 1,017,713 1,275,199 1275,199 1,275,199 1275,199 1275,199 1275,199 1,275,199 1,275,199 1,275,199 1275,199 1275,199 672,800 802,400 796,200 806,912 1,075,882 1,188!133 1,254,510 1,256296 1215,882 1217282 1218,696 1,220,124 1221,566 1223.023 1,224,495 408,000 404,000 391,800 384,860 392,258 392258 392258 392258 392,258 392.258 392,258 392,258 392.258 392.258 392,256 219,400 244,300 243,100 237,856 237,856 237,856 235,856 235, 856 340,866 340, 856 340, 856 340,856 340,856 340,856 340,856 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 81,134 147,300 73,300 1 800 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2,946,400 2,909,600. 2,868,800 2,846,745 3,508,031 6,004,815 $ 4,006,338 3,350,496 $ 3,498,690 $ 3,502,655 3,506,736 3,510,938 3,515,266 3,519,723 $ 3,524,315 253,600 524,900 384,600 141,156 137,676 147,878 307,302 333,629 337,827 272,344 288,601 301A04 311,252 317,295 319467 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 83,143 829;664 794,730 794,730 840,876 840, 676 840, 876 840,876 840,876 840,876 840,876 8,900 8,600 3,921,800 $4,265,500' $4,027,500 $ 3,821,981 $4,528,849 $ 6,982,357 $ 5,106,371 $ 4,478,855 $ 4,677,393 $ 4,615,875 $ 4,636,213 $ 4,653,418 $ 4,667,394 $ 4,677,894 $ 4,684,658 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2.004.400, $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,525,713 $ 2,626,638 S 2,736,076 $ 2,845,383 $ 2,959,047 $ 3,077,241 $ 3,200,146 $ 3,327,952 $ 3,460,854 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1.481,500 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474.000 1°473,600 1,471,500 1,473,700 968,200 972,900 972.900 972,900 972.900 972,900 10,915,000 $4,891,600 $3,634,500 $3,996,000 $4,018,724 .g 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171 $ 4,073,994 $ 4,202,774 $ 4,331;801 $ 4,465,973,, $ 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583 7,930,900 7,930,900 937,700 6,353,200 626,100) $ 393,000 7,290,900 $ 6,664,800 174,019) $ 510,125 7,057,800 $ 6;883,781 2,849,502 7,393,906 877,553 $ 139,953 10,243,408 $ 11,126,961 2,182,778) $ 541,881 11,280,914 $ 9.078,136 433,439 $ 321,617 9,620.017. L10,053,456 S 201,421 10,375,073 72.398 $ (65,925) 10,576,495 $10,648.893 7,290,900 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 8,883`781 $ 7,393,906 .$10,243,408 11,120,961 $ 11260,914 9,078,136 $ 9,820,017 10 053,456 $10,375,073 10,576,495 10.64$893 S 10.582,968 390% 334% ' 352% 313% 317 %: 420 °% 440% 429% 332°% 338% 340% 337% 331% 320% 306% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. 4) CIP for 200&09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800); and reduction of $1,647,000 for Palm - Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according'to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. N OC y F3•d y n L N O A 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment 14- Scenario #3: "With Palm - Nipomo Project with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects)" Acual 01 Budget") Proiectedm 2005-06 2006 -07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 2010.11 201142 201213 201314 2014 -15 201546 2019.17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019.2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots $ 298,000 $ 387,700 $ '379,600 $ 380,310 $ 481,942 S 261,661 S 134,375 $ 149,291 $ 243,664 $ 232,308 S 258,094 $ 260,675 $ 263,282 S 292,506 S 295,431 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,478,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,866,104 1,682,765 1,859,136 1,877,728 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796200 814,981 1,097,508 1,221,033 1,298,195 1,442,294 1,416,277 1,424,380 1,582,486 1,598,311 1,614,294 1,793,481 1,811,410 Long -Tenn Revenues 408,000 404,000 -391.800 388,709 400.143 404,144 408,186 .453,494 458,029 476,402 643213 562,715 582,553 661,569 682,661 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358.014 360, 564 363,139 365,741 368,368 371,022 Parking In -Lieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 81,134 Other Service Charges 147,300 73,300 - 900. 100 100 100 100 100 100 . 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges $ 2,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 $ 2,874,984 S 3,577.449 $ 6,102,844 $ 4,132.630 $ 3,81 ,283 $ 4,016,784 $ 4,051,785 4,463,419 $ 4,523,172 $ 4,583,747 $ 5,053,173 $ 5,119,511 Investment and Property Revenues 253,600 624,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 271,460 306,232 334,220 296.713 31,612 81,898 80,927 98,225 130,742 Fines and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 $34,079 891,974 846,340 818,811 909,700 972,146 981.867 1,090,855 1,101,763 1,112,781 1,236,300 1,248,663 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 - - Net New Revenues Pr New Development ar Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 202,451 252,426 332,642 387,614 387,614 426,376 426,376 Monthly 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 65,688 71,775 85,759 92,565 92,565 101,822 104,622 Residential Zone Displacement rn 22,500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24,750 24,750 27.225 27,225 27225 30,000 30000 Total Revenues $ 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 7,187,864 $ 5,389,883 $ 5,271,840 $ 5,609,939 1. 5,679,316 6,031,510 $ 6,194238 $ 6,284,860 $ 6,94$,895 S 7,057,113 Expenditures - Operating Programs t4i $ 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,525,713• $ 2,626.638 $ 2,736,076 $ 2,840.183 2,953,639 $ 3,417,441 $ 3,553,955 S 3,695,913 S 3.843,533 Capital Improvement Plan Projects lst 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,564 240,764 2.650395 20260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 882,000 1,481,500 1 512 400 1,475,100 1.473.100 1,474.000 1473 600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,918 _ Total Expenditures $ 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 S 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $ 4,016,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6.860,171 $ 24,516,031 5,021,958 $ 5,559,943 $ 5,708,273 S 5,881,974 S 6,016,280 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 10I $ 7,930 900 10,000,000 Total Other Sources (Uses) $ 7,930,900 10,000,000 Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ 626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 3,055,009 $ 1,159,045 $ 932,938 $'(1,250,232) 8,836,715) S 1,009,552 $ 634,295 $ 76,586 $ 1,083,921 S 1,040,833 Working Capital, Beginning of Year $ 6A63,200 $ 7,290.900 $ 6.664,800 $ 7.057.800 $ 6,365,019 $ 5.993,673 $ 9,048 682 $ 10,207,727 $ 11,140,685 $ 9,890,433 1,053,718 $ 2,083,270 $ 2,897,564 $ 3,274,150 $ 4,358,071 Working Capitol, End of Year $ 7,290,900 $ 6,684,800 $ . 7,057,800 .$ 5,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $ 9,048,682 $ 10207,727 $ 11,140,665 $ 9,890433_ $ _ 1,053,7iS _ $ 2,063270 $ 2197564 $ 3,274,150 S 4,358,071 S 5,398,904 Working Capltat as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures FI 390% 334% 352% 2441A 257% 371% 404% 424% 361% 37% 70% 79% 92% 118% 1401A 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieidman. Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3), Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Goliemment Expenses, and MOA Adjustments, 5) CIP for 2008 -M includes. $319,000. carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm•Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,80D for waylinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the construction of Palm- Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the structure Is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $10,000,000 In net proceeds from the Palm• Nipomo Bond Issuance. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 201/6 of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poors rating criteria. ti 11 Revenues. Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots Streets Parking Garage Collections. forg Tenn Revenues Lease Revenues ' Parking In-Ueu Fees Other Service Charges Total Service Charges. Investment: and Property Revenues Fines and Forfeinrces Other Revenues Net New Revenues(* New Development (* . Transient Monthly Residential Zone Displacement nr Total Revenues Expenditures Operating Programs l Capital Improvement Plan Projects(" Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sourcas (uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing <o Total Other Sources (Uses) 7,930,900 13,000,000 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - - Revenues and Other Sources over - Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534 Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442 Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5 975 Working Capital as a Percentage of . Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis. 5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction ofPalm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria. N i N O liJ H SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment t-0Scenario114: With Palm- Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project" Actualill' Budget(* 2005 -06 2006-07 2007 -0e 2008-09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011.12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017.18 2018 -19 2019.2020 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 S 380,310 $ 481,942 $ 486762 $ 361,727 '$ 401,879 S 498,778 $ 469,973 $ 544,360 $ 549,803 $ 556,301 S 616,940 S 623,109868,200 956,600 1,039800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,478,104 1,493,695 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,765 1,859,136 1,877,728572,800 802,400 796200 814,981 1,097,508 1,106,483 1,184,519 1,316,000 1,282,720 1,295,547 1,439,353. 1,453,747 1,466,284 1,631,264 1,647,576408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 476, 402 543,213 562,715 582,553 661,569 Meet219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358,014 360,564 363,139 365,741 W8,388 371,022332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 57,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,886 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 61,134 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1002,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 $ 2,874,964 $ 3,577,449 $ 3,615,394 $ 4,246,306 $ 3,945,577 $ 4,138,341 $ 4,180,617 $ 4,606,552 $ 4,667,737 $ 4,729,757 $ 5,215,390 $ 5,2e3,350 253,600 524,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 199,559 238,188 270,648 236,906 60,111 86,985 10D,368 111,987 138,853 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891,974 , 950,944 920,013 1,022,134 1,092,299 1,103,222 1,225,679 1,237,936 1,250,316 1,389,101 1,402,9928,900 8,600 34,654 69,307 1.03,961 152,476 156,784 161,093 181,941 186,681 186,681 205,349 205,349 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 61,380 63,360 71,874 74,052 74,052 81,457 81,457 22,500 22,500 22.600 24,750 24,750 24.750 27.725 27,225 27,2?5 301)00 30 000 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 S 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 4,805,019 $ 5,532,839 $ 5,442,524 $ 5,744,401 $ 5,769,948 $ 6,173,383 $ 6,2B0,615 $ 6,368,398 $ 7,033,284 $ 7,142,001 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,540,128 $ 2,641,629 $ 2,751,667 $ 2,856,398 $ 2,970,502 $ 3,434,978 $ 3,572,193 3,714,881 S 3,863,260 8,161,300 1,412;900 117,700' 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 . 20,260,411 270,827 261,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500. 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471.500 1473700 1.546.285 2,036,278 2,117,878 2115978 Z118,203 2119378 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,643,000 $ 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 $ 4,245,232 $ 4,353,893. $ 6,875,762 $ 24,663,093 $ 5,277,606 $ 5,834,516 $ 5,981,097 $ 6,137,727 $ 6,299,487 7,930,900 13,000,000 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - - Revenues and Other Sources over - Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534 Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442 Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5 975 Working Capital as a Percentage of . Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis. 5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction ofPalm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria. N i N O liJ H N I N 1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. - 5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. . 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl pie SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment 1-E Scenario #5: "With Palm - Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project" Actual (1) Rudget") Proleowm 2005-06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2009.10 2010.11 2011.12 2012 -13 2013.14 201415 2075 -16 2016.17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019,2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lob 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 380,310 $ 481.942 E 261,661 $ 264,278. $ 293.612 $ 296,548 S 285,721 317,436 $ 320,611 S 323,817 $ 359,780 S 363,858 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 '1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,479,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,785 1.859,136 1,877,728 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,981 1,097,508 1,221,033 1,233,244 1,370,134 1,383,835 1,397,673 1,552,815 1,568,343 1,584,027 1,759,853 1.777,452 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404.000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 476, 402 543,213 562,715 582,553 661,569 882,881 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242.637 245,063 247,514 249,989 252AN 265A14 257,564 260,139 262,741 265,36s 266,022 Panting in4..ieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 59,284 61,655 84,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75.013 78,013 81,134OtherServiceCharges147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 S 2,874,984 $ 3,577,449 E 6,102,844 $ 3,539,581 $ 3,893,444 $ 3,934,227 . S 3,975,492 $ 4,390,090 S 4,450,140 $ 4,511,015 $ 41963,801 S 5.050.474 Investment and Property Revenues 263 ,600 624,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 271,460 290,633 322,830 955,500 90,506 120,869 139,785 158,982 189,551 Fines and Forfiftres 712,900 822,400 774,100 834.079 891,974 846,340 899.793 99SA70 1,009,666 1,019,763 1,132,957. 1,144,286 1,155,729 1284,015 1296,855 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 Net New Revenues (3) New Development r31 Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 198,143 243,809 318,424 368,657 368,657 405,523 405,523 Monthly 13,500 27.000 40,500 59,+00 63,608 67,815 79,225 83,853 83,853 92,238 92,238 Residential Zone Displacement 22.500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24,750 24,750 27,225 27,225 27,225 30,000 30 000 Total Revenues 3,921,800 S 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,2.19 $ 4,647,377 $ 7,1.87,864 $ 4,877,795 $ 5,420,372 $' 5,553,223 $ 5,687,129 $ 6,038,426 $ 6,195,031 6,286,264 $ 6,952,559 S 7,064,642 Expenditures Operating Programs 141 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,533,617 S 2,634,858 S 2,740,132 $ 2,844,402 2,958,026 $ 3,422,003 3,558,700 $ 3,700,848 3.848,665 Capital improvement Plan Projects 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20,260,411 270,827 281,660 2921926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 882,000 1,481,500 1,512 400 1,475.100 1,473,100 1 474 000 1,473,600 1 471500 1,473,700 1 415 437 1,797,493 1 860 843 1,861 393 1,861,418 1 855 918 Total Expenditures 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $ 4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,238,721 $ 4,347,122 $ 4,464,227 $24,520250 $ 5,026,345 $ 5,564,506 $ 5,713,018 $ 5,866,908 $ 6,021,412 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing to 7,930 900. 10 000 000 Total Other Sources (Uses) E 7,930,900 10,000,000 Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) ExpenditurasLand Other Uses 937,700 $ 626,100) It 393,000 $ 1,692,781) '$ 628,653 $ 3,055,009 $ 639,074 $ 1,073,250 $ 1,088,996 $-(8,833,121) 1,012,081 $ 630,525 573,245 $ 1,085,650 1,043,230 Working Capital, Beginning of Year 6,353,200 $ 7,290,960 $ 6,664,800 S. 7,057.800 $ 5,365,019 E Sigg3 673 $ 9.048,682 $ 9,687,756 $ 10,761,006 S 11.850,002 3,018,881 $ 4,028,962 4,859,487 $ 5.232,732 S 6,318,383 Working Capital, End of Year 7,290,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 15,365,019 $ 5,993,673 S 9,048;682 "&87,756 10;781.006 $ 11,850,002 S 3,011,881 4,028,962 $ 4.659,487 $ 5232.732 $ 6.318,383 $ 7.361.613 Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures pt 390% 334% 352% 244% 257°/ 371% 382% 408% 432% 106% 136% 136% 147% 171% 191% 1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. - 5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. . 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl pie LWIM N N Expenditures Operating Programs 141 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 161 Total Other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other sources Over Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, beginning of Year Working Capital,. End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures m 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139 7,930,900 10 000 000 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000 937,700 $ (628,106) $ 393,000 $ 1492,781) $ 620,653 $ SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL 777,645 $ 1240,363 $ 1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $ 6,864,800 $ Attachment 7.F 5,385,019 $ 5,993,673 $ Scenario *6: "With Palm- Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects" 8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $ 7,067,800. $ 6,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $' 6,651,976 $ 7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $ Actual (1) Budgetnl i Prokct dM 200546 2006-07 2007 -08 2008-09 200940 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 201344 2014 -15 2015 -16 201617 2017-18 2018 -19. 2019$020 Revenues - Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lob 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 380,310 S 481,942 S 486,762 S 491,629 $ 546,200 $ 551,662 $ 543,386 $ 603,702 $ 609,739 615.837 68-1,194 S 891,036 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1.464,460 1,479,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,765 1,859,138 1,877,728 Parking {usage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,981 1,097,508 1,108,483 1,119,568 1.243,840 1,256,278 1268,841 1.,409,682 1,423,779 1,438,017 1,5971636 1A13.813 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 47BA02 543,213 562,715 58ZS53 661,589 Ba2,681 Lease Revenues 219A00 244,300 243,100 240,234 242.637 245,063 247,514 249,989 252,489 255,014 257,564 260,139 262,741 285,368 288,022 Parking In -Lieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 57,003 59,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,_013 78,013 81,134 OtherSerAce Charges 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 M 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 S 2,909,600 $ 2,868,600 $ 2,874,984 $ 3,577,449 $ 3,615,394 S 3,653,257 $ 4,019,738 S 4,061,784 S 4,104,324 $ 4,533,223 $ 4,594,704 $ 4.057,025 S 5,146,018 $ 5,214,313 Investment and Property Revenues 253,800 524:900 384.800 141,156 107,300 119,873 199,559 222,889 260 ,100 296,494 33,897 65,613 84,341 101,410 134,129 Fines and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891.974 950,944 1,011,003 1,123,224 1,134,457 1,145,801 1,272,985 1285,715 1,298472 1,442,714 1,457,141 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 Net New Revenues rn New Development rn Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 152,476 152,476 167,723 167,723 167,723 184,496 184AN Monthly 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 59,400 59,400 65,340 5,340 65,340 71,874 71.874 Residential Zone Displacement r3r 22,500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24.750 24,750 27.225 27.225 27,225 30,000 30,000 Total Revenues 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 4,805,019 $ 5,030,781 $ 5,602,476 $ 5.692,966 $ 5,783,245 $ 6,100,394 S 6,206,321 6,300,227 $ 6,976,512 $ 7,091,953 LWIM N N Expenditures Operating Programs 141 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 161 Total Other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other sources Over Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, beginning of Year Working Capital,. End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures m 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139 7,930,900 10 000 000 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000 937,700 $ (628,106) $ 393,000 $ 1492,781) $ 620,653 $ 858,303 $ 777,645 $ 1240,363 $ 1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $ 6,864,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5,385,019 $ 5,993,673 $ 6,651,978 $ 7,429,621 S 8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $ 7,067,800. $ 6,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $' 6,651,976 $ 7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $ 9,883,132':5 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 $ 2.811.377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470.981 S 5.521,798 390% 334% 352% ' 244% 2570% 271% 292% 327% 359% 39% ' 74% 82% 95% 120% ' 143% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by.the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fkidman, Rolepp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City. San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. , 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MCA Adjustments. 5) C(P for 2008 -09 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007-08 and $1,547,000 for Palm-Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that 3339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Woddng Capital contribution of $10,000,000 forthe T constniction of Palen ipomo. Tile assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the'structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016.17. Fiscal Year 2014-16 wry 6) Includes 510,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance. 7) Minimum.worldng capital (reserve) should equal at feast 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according for the Citys fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. 1 i ATTACHMENT Attachment 1-G Assumptions for Parking Fund six scenarios: 1. The Parking In -Lieu Revenues have been updated to reflect the assumption that, beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 -10, three parking spaces are being paid for annually. The parking in -lieu fee is based on the Fiscal Year 2008 -09 fee of $17,072 per space and is adjusted by CPI each year 2. The projected annual change in CPI for Parking In -Lieu Fees, Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and Capital Improvement Plan Projects has been updated as discussed, i.e. in Fiscal Years 2009 -10 and 2010 -11; it is assumed to be 6% and 5 %, respectively. For Fiscal Years 2011 -12 onward, a CPI increase of 4% per year is assumed, based on a 20 -year historic CPI average of 3% plus an additional cushion of 1%. 3. The Capital Improvement Plan Projects tabs have been updated to include a base expense of at least $200,000 per year. These general updates apply to all six scenarios. Other specific updates have been made to the various scenarios. The following is a brief summary of the six scenarios and their specific updates, where applicable: 1. Without Palm - Nipomo Project: Status Quo Revenues 2. Without Palm- Niponio Project: Status Quo.Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase a. The 1% demand increases, affecting various revenue streams, have been taken out. 3. With Palm - Nipomo Project (with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects) a. Major impact on balance of working capital experienced in Fiscal Years 2013 -14 and 2014 -15. 4. With Palm - Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project a. Lot 3 and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the "without Chinatown" scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 3 and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 3 and 11 in the absence of the Chinatown project. . c. The $2.6 Million Parking In-.Lieu Fee from the Chinatown. proje ct has been deleted. d. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. e. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown have been taken out of the New Developments tab. f. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and .11 has been deleted. B2 -23 ATEACTIMENT Attachment 1 -G g. Major impact on balance of working capital starts in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and is especially prevalent in Fiscal Years 2014 -15 and 2015 -16. h. In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm - Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm - Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 5. With Palm- Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project a. Lot 2 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lot 2. This is due to the continued existence of lot 2 in the absence of the Garden Street Terraces project. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with the Garden Street Terraces- Project have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $7,600 and .$3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted. h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. 6. With Palm - Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects a. Lot 2, 3, and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Chinatown and without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 2, 3, and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 2, 3, and 11 in the absence of the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $2.6 Million Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Chinatown project has been deleted. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. B2 -24 Tir' ACT - _J_ Attachment 1 -G f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The $7,600 and $3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted: h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden. Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. L Major impact on working capital balance in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and 2014 -15 B2 -25 1 1 City Council Meeting Tuesday, March 17, 2009 CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to approve the Consent Age C1 MEETINGS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3 ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to waive oral motion carried 4:0 (Romero absent). C2. TRIATHLON. ATTACHMENT ? Page 3 as indicated below. SPECIAL AND RE( g and approve as presented; ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to, s recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City, enter into an agreement with Heritage Oaks Bank for spons ship of the San Luis Obispo Triathlon in exchange for a 5,000 monetary contributio nd other in -kind services of approximately $2,000; motion carried 4:0 (Romer absent). C3. FINAL ACCEP ANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS F A 16 UNIT ESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION DA PROPERTIES. L.P ACTION: Mo ed by Carter /Marx to adopt Resolution No. 10065 (2009 Series) accepting the public i provements, certifying completion of the required private improvements, and relea ing /reducing the outstanding sureties for Tract 2865; motion carried 4:0 Romer absent). BUSINESS ITEM 1.AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Director of Public Works Walter and Parking Services Manager Horch presented the agenda report. They, Finance & Information Technology Director Statler, and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum responded to questions. Public Comments Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo resident and member of Save Our Downtown, spoke in opposition to the parking structure. Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, supported the proposal with two exceptions: 1) He objected to calling it the "Monterey Street' parking structure. 2) He thought that the structure should not be limited to parking only, but that a design - oriented architect should be employed to develop a creative urban design space on the structure. s i ATTACHMENT ?- City Council Meeting page 4 Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Pierre Rademaker, representing the Chamber of Commerce on the Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee, concurred with both of Mr. Schwartz's concerns. He added that it should not be called the "Palm - Nipomo" parking structure either. Tom Swen, representing the Downtown Association on the Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee, spoke in support of the recommendations. In response to Council Member Ashbaugh, he indicated that while he may be in favor of having a mixed use, he had concerns related to how it would be funded and whether it would be City -owned and operated. end of public comments - -- Discussion followed during which staff responded to questions. Council Member Manx suggested using "Monterey - Nipomo Street" as the name for the structure. She suggested that it could be designed so as to leave options open for other uses or additional parking space. She said her concerns about the project are financial as she wants the City to be able to work with SLOCOG, the County or Court System, or Greyhound Bus to build a multi -modal facility in the vicinity of Marsh and Higuera or Santa Rosa Avenue should the opportunity arise. Council Member Carter spoke in support of moving ahead with the project. Council Member Ashbaugh expressed some concern regarding the distance of the site from the projected parking demand, suggested that the structure should include some multi -use options, and suggested that the environmental review should address whether there are other feasible alternate sites. Vice Mayor Settle spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Additional discussion ensued regarding the RFP process and whether there are other practical alternatives to the Palm - Nipomo site. Parking Manager Horch discussed the new law that passed early this year which will require the City to pay, retroactively from January 2009, County and State surcharges on parking citations. He provided an analysis of the costs the City will incur and said this matter will be brought before Council in the near future. ACTION: Moved by Ashbaugh /Marc to approve the staff recommendation with added direction that the Request for Proposals (RFP) be returned to Council for consideration before it's issued (4:0, Romero absent). Staff indicated that an option will be built into the RFP that would ask the architect to look at added uses on the project site. While the report may comment on whether there are other practical alternatives to the Palm- Nipomo site, it will not be staff's intent to do further investigation on alternative sites. The Special Meeting adiourned to the Regular Meeting at 7.40 p.m. B2 -2f RwsFAAnLY IMOR`I'E ARY A4i, +g cstt'.itS'Cc Sid;itk Enhwictd llaYin fnrir xlf c Calming Assn ,&m SODA WATER MISSION COLLEGE LX 5Am Lars O spo CHILDREN'S MUSEUM ATTACHMENT_ x SAN l like Radv EXISE7n i'Y t'S," FAt LUi E4ES i3Yi{Cri y LX 5Am Lars O spo CHILDREN'S MUSEUM ATTACHMENT_ a tk Y.'kssa3town —+ e # B2 -28 x I.E1'SHi it Future Project) a tk Y.'kssa3town —+ e # B2 -28 Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure: 1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project; and 2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained; and 3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply; and 4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses (including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and 5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update of analysis that staff has conducted concerning the demand for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Staff is seeking direction on several aspects of this project prior to moving into the environmental review and final design stage. In addition, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding entering into formal discussions with the SLO Little Theater for a long term lease and new Memorandum of Agreement for use of remnant area of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure site. 1 Packet Pg. 8 DISCUSSION Historical Summary of Structured Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo The availability of parking and access in Downtown is critical to the economic and cultural viability of the City of San Luis Obispo. Parking availability is critically important to the many stakeholders and visitors that come to the area. As a result, it has long been a City focus to pace production of our parking supply with existing and near term future demand. City parking structure construction has shown a pattern whereby construction occurs in association with existing and projected demand for parking. Historically, parking structures have a fairly long time period between project start up (land acquisition, design and environmental) and completed construction. The following summarizes when the City’s existing parking structures were completed: 1. 842 Palm (also known as Palm 1) 1988 2. Marsh Street Garage 1990 3. Marsh Street Garage Expansion 2002 4. 919 Palm 2006 Consistent with the City’s historic approach to provide parking in the Downtown core, the City Council discussed the need and timing for its next structure beginning with the 2003-05 Financial Plan. As part of the more recent 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council directed staff to return with a review of the City’s structured parking needs. The Potential Palm Nipomo Parking Structure The City has been moving forward with the pre-development of a fourth parking structure at Parking Lot 14 which is bounded by Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Street. Attachment E to this report includes a summary of previous Council actions on the project and additional background history. The project is referred to as the “Palm Nipomo” parking structure. Following the economic downturn in 2007, this project was put on hold until the economy improved. Over the past few years, the economy has improved immensely and is projected to continue to expand. Several major projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace have broken ground after many years of delay and will be generating new parking demand. The Palm Nipomo project represents a significant investment in parking supply for the City. The proposed project would include between 400 and 445 spaces at a construction cost estimate of $23,600,000. The spaces represent a net “new” parking supply of 323 to 368 spaces. The ‘net’ is a result of the displacement of 77 existing spaces at the lot at the location where the structure will be built. A final parking space count will depend upon the final design and building height. Previously approved funding commitments for the project include $1.65 million for project design and environmental review. The most recent Council action taken on the project was on January 3, 2012 when Council authorized moving forward with its environmental review and proceeding with final stages of 1 Packet Pg. 9 design. At that time it was believed the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects would occur the following year. As those projects were delayed, so too was beginning of the environmental and final design for Palm Nipomo. In 2014 the City completed an Organization Study of the Parking Services Division which was conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). As part of that work the consultant reviewed future parking supply/demand issues for the City to help determine potential operation and fiscal issues. Walker conducted a very high level review of the parking demand for Palm Nipomo. It was their determination that while the project could be built, occupancy of the project might be low (less than 60%). Consequently, Walker noted the City should carefully evaluate the timing, costs, project size, and alternatives to meeting parking demands prior to commencing with the project. During hearings on the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, staff informed Council that these issues would be explored in more depth and staff would return to Council for a direction on the next steps for the project. A related aspect of the project was that the Council had previously entered into an agreement with the SLO Little Theater (SLOLT) and had set aside a portion of the project site for the relocation of the Little Theatre on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street. That agreement is no longer valid because performance deadlines have passed and the site area for the Little Theater has changed at the Palm Nipomo location. Therefore if a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to be negotiated, staff needs to return to Council at a later date. Additional Parking Demand Data Walker Parking Consultants was hired to analyze parking demand and update its work from the 2014 Organizational study with greater accuracy for potential development that could use the Palm Nipomo project. Beginning in summer 2015, staff, in coordination with Walker, conducted parking occupancy counts of lots, streets, and the parking structures to determine capacity of the existing parking inventory. The geographical study (see Attachment A) area is larger than that analyzed in the Organization Assessment, covered more days (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday: three times each day), longer duration during the day (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and included peak factors such as a holiday weekend (Labor Day), dates when Cal Poly was in, and not in session, and special events in Mission Plaza. These counts were combined to get an average occupancy count by time of day for each weekday observed. This information was then forwarded to the consultant for use in tabulating a baseline for demand calculations for the project. As shown in the table below Walker found that the normal peak occupancy time observed was Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 67% of available public parking was utilized. 1 Packet Pg. 10 Thursday (Average) 12:00-2:00 p.m. Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus (+)/Deficit(1) 2582 parking Spaces 1,730 Vehicles 67% 645 spaces This means that for most times studied, over one-third of the public parking supply was available. We anticipate that this capacity can be used to absorb displaced parking associated with the closures of Lots 2 (Garden St. Terraces), 3 & 11 (Chinatown) as they occur. (Attachment B shows parking lot numbering and location of lots). Peak times for special events (such as Farmer’s Market) were also recorded however these peak times are not used for project “sizing” or design demand analysis since the result wou ld be we over build infrastructure (at a tremendous additional cost) for most other times when more normal demand occurs. In preparing the projections for Palm Nipomo, Walker considered three factors: 1. The likelihood that Palm Nipomo, when considering its proximity to new development, would attract parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 2. The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand and future development; 3. The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the closure of public lots. 1 Packet Pg. 11 1 Packet Pg. 12 Table 1 – Palm Nipomo Structure Demand Forecast (Walker, 2015) These three factors were then used to screen forecast demand scenarios at the Palm Nipomo location for the following three time frames: 1. Initial Phase: Displaced Vehicles due to relocation of existing demand for lot closures (Primarily loss of Lot 2 as a result of Garden Street Terraces) 2. Phase 1 - consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term (3-5 years). 3. Phase 2 - consists of projected parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments (longer term build-out) and closure of other public lots. The consultant forecasted that existing and potential demand for the Phase 1 scenario would be as high as 204 vehicles. This consists of 130 vehicles generated by new development and 74 generated by existing demand and displaced vehicles. This amount represents a need for less than half the capacity of the proposed structure of 400-445 spaces. Of the 130 spaces forecast by new development, two projects, Monterey Place (65 spaces required) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces required), contribute 80%. These projects have discretionary approvals, but neither of 48 48 48 26 52 130 264397 241 81 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2 Demand for Palm-Nipomo by Phase Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles Projected Demand Vacant Spaces them has yet to proceed to the construction phase and obtain building permits therefore they are a minimum of three years out for completion and likely more. Longer term, which accounts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the forecast shows the demand increases to approximately 364 vehicles. Using the lower end objective of 400 parking spaces for Palm Nipomo project, this results in an 87% occupancy factor for the project. This forecast is significantly higher than the previous calculations shown in the 2014 Parking Organizational Assessment which showed occupancy as low as 60%. This indicates that long term, daily need for the structure in this area of the Downtown may utilize much of the available capacity. However, the timing of private development will play an important role in how soon that need occurs. Many of these projects will be far in the future and it may be many years before they get underway. Some of these potential sites include redevelopment of the Reis Mortuary location, closure and redevelopment of Lot 10, the SLO Little Theater project and major remodel of the Creamery. The primary conclusions of Walker assessment were as follows: 1. Palm-Nipomo’s planned capacity of 400-445 spaces would have more spaces than necessary to accommodate projected demand of near term development (next 5 years). 2. Suggest caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. 3. However, when that development occurs the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly (since it centralizes space needs devoted to vehicles) and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. 4. Due to the delay in demand for the structure, when it is built a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary to attract the parking demand generated by longer term developments to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 5. If the City is willing to make a significant investment (or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared public parking. However it is critical to note that any exclusive private use of the parking structure will likely mean that any financing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase financing costs. Stakeholder Input In order to assist staff with the review of the Walker analysis, a group of stakeholders was created to discuss issues of the project location, timing and design. The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, The Little 1 Packet Pg. 13 Theatre, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA), Copeland Properties. Two meetings (September 22, and December 8, 2015) seeking their input to help the city identify relevant issues/concerns regarding this project. At the first meeting the group reviewed Walker study’ assumptions and provided feedback into topics such as the phasing assumptions and projects that should be included in each group. They also clarified timing of projects for the Little Theater and SLOMA. As a result of this feedback additional data collection was completed. The theory is that it would be helpful to have diversity in the days of the week and the time of year that the data was collected. The second meeting reviewed the draft conclusions of the Walker report. The consensus of the group was that the information going into the report was good and that the conclusions appeared appropriate based upon that information. Overall, most expressed desire for the Palm Nipomo project to move forward but recognized the project demand was not showing an immediate need for the structure. The issue of emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking dynamics were discussed with the suggestions that the City continue to consider these issues as decisions are made on parking supply and programs. As a result, under any scenario city staff will continually monitor and analyze any social trend that impacts parking supply, including Autonomous Vehicles (aka “self-driving cars”) and implementation of City mode split objectives and alternative transportation choices discussed in the General Plan. Other Issues - Little Theatre MOA At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council conceptually approved the relocation of the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) to a portion of parking lot 14 at 630 Monterey Street, located at the Palm Nipomo parking structure site. With direction from Council, the City entered into an agreement with the SLOLT, which has since expired. The Little Theater continues to be committed to relocating from its existing location (at the old Library site next to City Hall) and has been in discussion with staff regarding development of a new MOA. Attachment D to this report is the June 6th, 2000 agenda report and MOA as approved by Council. Staff is seeking Council direction on whether or not to pursue a new MOA with the Little Theater regarding a long term use of the remainder area of the properties and relocation from their existing use at the City owned, old library site. Major elements of a potential new MOA with SLOLT are: 1. Term of Lease 2. Annual Cost of Lease 3. Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre 4. City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan Amendment 5. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction and maintenance of front improvements 6. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction, operation and maintenance of the Theater 7. Little Theatre’s responsibilities as it relates to a Fund raising plan and fundraising key milestones 1 Packet Pg. 14 Figure 1– Conceptual Site Plan SLO Little Theater If Council directs staff to move forward with formal negotiations with SLOLT staff will return to Council with recommendations for consideration. Other than general direction whether to proceed with negotiations, no specific Council direction is being requested at this time on the seven items noted above. Public-Private-Partnership (P3) As part of prior project reviews the Council requested that the project include some area to incorporate other uses besides SLOLT and the parking structure. Because the design of the parking structure is fairly constrained in order to deliver the objective of a minimum of 400 spaces, the 2011 preferred site plan was only able to accomplish this via narrowing the street section along Nipomo Street and incorporating a narrow building area between the structure and the street. 1 Packet Pg. 15 Figure 2 – 2011 Preferred Site Plan Attachment C shows the 2011 preferred design for Palm Nipomo as well as the conceptual rendering of the SLO Little Theater location. The concept of this alternative was to provide a small footprint that a third party could utilize as part of a private development project for office space or other use. Incorporating these types of uses into the structure has historically added significant costs to the project and so having the area “independent” of the structure is critical to keeping project costs low. Additional area for potential private use could be created by increasing the depth of this area. That will, however, come at a cost of reduced parking supply and a less efficient structure. There have been some recent discussions of whether exploring a larger public-private- partnership (P3) for the project might yield a better financial scenario for the City and help offset the parking structure construction costs and provide opportunities for housing that is a Major City Goal. The City has reached out to Kosmont Companies, a firm specializing in financial issues associated with P3 projects, to do a review on this issue and determine if there is any significant benefit to revising the project with a larger P3 component. While it is doubtful that a larger footprint for private use would offset the parking space reduction and related design and operational challenges, an additional review on this issue is prudent to make sure staff has not overlooked any opportunities to maximize use of the property and/or whether there are any opportunity to provide new housing. This study is underway and will be completed by February. If substantial new information is discovered by this study staff will return to Council with that information prior to issuance of the final RFP for environmental services. 1 Packet Pg. 16 Next Steps Assuming no significant change by Council as part of this discussion item the next stage of the project is issuing the RFP for final design and environment review. The following is a tentative schedule of next steps and an estimate of work time to complete each task. Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Task Work Time 1) Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services and project design. Complete Kosmont study of P3 issues 5 months. 2) Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016 3) Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016 4) Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016 5) Complete work and present for Advisory body and Council review Fall 2016 – Summer 2017 It is intended that sufficient work be done on the project to coincide with developing the 2017-19 Financial Plan and that any major changes necessary to the project budget be included as part of the FY 2017-18 Parking Fund review. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015-17 Financial Plan includes cost estimates for the project based upon delivery of a 400- 445 space facility. The Financial Plan includes a construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 in FY 2017-18 with $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund, and $17,600,000 in proceeds from debt financing proceeds. Prior Financial Plan funding has been committed for environmental review and final project design with a current unspent balance of approximately $1,266,000. Financing of the Project In order to construct the project the City will need to use a mixture of available capital as well as borrowing to cover the costs of construction. Final construction cost will be dependent upon changes in design for the project including footprint modifications, mitigation measures necessary for construction, final parking space yield and aesthetic design. Since adoption of the Financial Plan staff has worked with the City’s financial consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to review issues associated with the borrowing of debt for the project. It appears that a General Fund Lease Revenue bond will be the most appropriate borrowing method for the project. Attachment F includes a memorandum from PFM outlining the significance of various debt strategies including General Fund Lease revenue bonds compared to Parking Revenue bonds. 1 Packet Pg. 17 PFM provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond based upon a project borrowing cost of $17,600,000 and a 30-year term for the bonds. PFM estimates annual costs at current rates would be approximately $1.3, an amount lower than the $1.45 Million estimated in the FY 2015-17 FP. This amount could change if rates increase prior to full financing of the debt so keeping the $1.45 Million estimate is prudent at this time. With the General Fund being used as a pledge on the lease revenue bond, there would be no annual debt service coverage covenant as there would with parking revenue bonds (debt service coverage requires a minimum ratio of parking revenue to debt service payments – PFM identifies that this could be as high as 2.0 times net revenue for the City if Parking Revenue bonds are used). Final decision on the financing plan (including but not limited to the use of General Fund assets to secure the Parking Structure) does not have to be made now. However, if the Council has any concerns regarding the concept of using General Funds Lease revenue bonds for the project it would be helpful to have those expressed so additional research can be conducted and brought back to the council at a future date. Upcoming Mid-Year Fund Review The Parking Fund continues to be healthy. Staff is completing Mid Year Budget discussion scheduled for February including consideration of FY 2014-15 year end results. As part of that item updates to the fund will be detailed. On a positive note, delays in the closures of Lot 2, 3 and 11 along with deferral of the Palm Nipomo project helped the fund end higher than anticipated with approximately $8,400,000 in working capital at year end. Payment of mitigation fees and parking in-lieu fees by the Garden Street and Chinatown Phase 2 projects will be received this fiscal year and those funds will assist in creating the working capital needed to help fund the project. On the downside, it was discovered that the mitigation fees associated with Phase I development of the Chinatown project were double programmed in the budget for this fiscal year. These funds were actually received as part of escrow closing in FY 2013-14. These funds were deposited in the Parking Fund in that year. While the amount is large ($972,000) the Parking Fund has significant year-end working capital forecast for future years, even with the construction of the Palm Nipomo project. The full effect of these adjustments will be shown in the Mid-Year update for Council review. The Parking Fund appears capable of funding the project if terms of the debt financing stay consistent with current estimates and the rate changes and other revenue enhancements that have been used as background assumptions for the forecast are implemented when needed. Finally, prior Council direction relative to adding Sunday parking fees and implementing periodic overall parking rate increases were done in part assuming low initial parking utilization 1 Packet Pg. 18 in the Palm-Nipomo structure. Therefore, staff recommends the city continue those programs and others previously identified to assure ongoing Parking Fund stability. While doable, other revenue enhancement strategies such as charging for parking past 6 p.m. or expanding residential districts around Downtown to drive demand into existing structures continues to be controversial without full support of potentially effected stakeholders. These options, as well as others can be brought forward if fund forecasts show that future revenues do not cover the costs for Palm Nipomo or Parking fund needs. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – Delay moving forward with the project. The Council could delay moving forward with the next stage of project development if significant concerns associated with cost, timing, financing or other issues of the project. Staff does not recommend this option since moving forward with the environmental review and design at this time does not commit the City to construct the project. Instead, additional information resulting from the next phase of project development should assist the City in making future and final decisions regarding the project and its timing and costs. Alternative 2 - Revise the Palm Nipomo Project design. The Council can direct staff to revise the project or add alternatives for consideration in the EIR for the project. This alternative is not recommended since this site plan has previously authorized for further design by the City Council. Alternative 3 – Put the project on hold and pursue other parking and access strategies. The Council can direct explore other ways of meeting the parking and access needs. This could include limiting new parking supply to purchasing new property for surface only parking lots, developing more aggressive pricing policies for employee parking and expanding transit subsidies or looking at other structure locations. Similar to response to Alternative 1 above, staff recommends moving forward with the environmental and design completion at this time even if Council directs staff to pursue a major shift how to increase our parking supply. Final project costs for Palm Nipomo and area impacts will only be know when the full environmental and designs are known for the project. If the Council chooses to increase the emphasis on other strategies, they can be pursued in a parallel path to Palm Nipomo development with a final decision to construct the project by Council when the EIR is brought forward. It is likely that some of these strategies may be identified as part of the EIR process to help mitigate the project. Attachments: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) b - Downtown Parking Lot Map c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 1 Packet Pg. 19 MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) is considering construction of a parking structure on the south eastern corner of Nipomo Street and Palm Street (the “structure”). The multi-level 445-space planned structure would replace the existing Parking Lot 14, which has an inventory of 77 parking spaces. In December 2014, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) completed an organizational assessment for the City’s Parking Services Division. The assessment, the focus of which was a staffing analysis for Parking Services, included a preliminary projection of the demand for the parking spaces in the proposed garage. In preparing the projections, Walker considered three factors: x The projected capture of parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 1 x The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand; x The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the approved developments. Based upon these three factors, in the 2014 Walker projected that on a typically busy weekday, the Palm/Nipomo structure would have a surplus of 263± parking spaces, more than half the planned supply of the parking structure. Now, the City has engaged Walker to project the parking demand that might be generated in the Palm/Nipomo structure based on a two-phase build out scenario. Phase I consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term. Phase II centers around potential parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments. In formulating its projections, Walker considered the same three factors that were used for the 2014 projections. After presenting a summary of Walker’s findings and recommendations based upon the findings, this memorandum discusses the assumptions and methodology used to project the parking demand of the two-phase build out scenario. 1 For the 2014 study those developments were Monterey Place, San Luis Square, and Marsh Commons. DATE: January 5, 2015 TO: Peggy Mandeville, Tim Bochum, Alex Fuchs COMPANY: Parking Services, City of San Luis Obispo ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: San Luis Obispo, CA CC: HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Steffen Turoff, Derek Adams PROJECT NAME: Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Demand Study PROJECT NUMBER: 33-1871.00 SUBJECT: Projected Parking Demand for Palm/Nipomo Structure 606 South Olive Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Office: 213.488.4911 Fax: 213.488.4983 www.walkerparking.com 1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR CURRENT ANALYSIS Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445- space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I. Table 1, below, summarizes the Phase I demand projections. Table 1: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase I Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects a demand for 364± parking spaces for the design day peak. Assuming an effective supply of 0.92 (409 spaces for a 445-space parking facility) we project a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2, below, summarizes the demand and surplus projections at the completion of Phase II. Table 2: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase II Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 205 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 3. Includes all approved developments under design day conditions. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 Phase II Displaced Vehicles 26 vehicles 4 Phase II Projected Demand 134 vehicles 5 45 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply 3. Includes all approved developments. 4. Total includes 2015 observed demand for Lot 10. 5. Total reflects design day conditions with no special events. Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown. The structure could accommodate the projected parking demand for some of the Phase I approved development if parking policies necessary to encourage use of the structure are implemented and enforced. Even then, the structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces would be significantly more than necessary to accommodate the projected demand for those spaces. The assumptions contained in the Phase II of development suggest significant development A) occurring within a reasonable walking distance of the structure site and B) built with little or no parking on site. This kind of development suggests a need for a significant supply of new parking spaces to accommodate the parking demand Phase II would generate. However, we suggest that caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. Further, we note that a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary for a new parking structure to capture the parking demand generated by the Phase II developments. For the Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a shared manner, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. In such a scenario, the City would likely want to consider using its parking in lieu fee program to have developers of proximate sites assist in the funding of the structure, although we point out that such funds tend to flow slowly, often presenting a challenge for funding the parking structure. Nonetheless, given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to invest or partner with developers to provide funding, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. ASSUMPTIONS In developing the parking demand projections for the approved developments in Phase I and the potential parking demand projections for Phase II, Walker Parking Consultants made the following assumptions when analyzing the program and parking occupancy data provided by the City. The assumptions reflect (i) Walker’s familiarity with the parking system in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo, and (ii) Walker’s familiarity with parking systems in similar downtowns in California. The assumptions, some of which were developed for the 2014 study, reflect Walker’s understanding of conversations with City staff. For the parking demand projections developed for this memorandum, Walker assumed the following. 1. The parking demand projections are for a typically busy weekday afternoon without special events. 2. The Phase I program data reflect information from development projects approved by the City. 3. The Phase II program data reflect potential developments. 1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 4 a. These potential developments reflect provisional assumptions about how land uses might function upon full build out and occupancy. b. The parking demand ratios for the Phase II potential developments are not necessarily suitable for projecting parking demand at present day conditions at existing land uses. 4. The interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs on Thursday between 12 PM and 2 PM. 5. The 2015 parking occupancy data reflect the anticipated parking demand of existing land uses in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo at the full build out and occupancy of both phases of the design scenario. 6. In its analysis of the Phase I and Phase II program data, Walker assumed that the Shared Parking Model developed for the 2014 study remained sufficiently calibrated for the parking demand projections presented in this memorandum. 7. Vehicles displaced by the demolition and redevelopment of existing public off-street parking facilities within approximately 800 feet of the Palm Nipomo garage may seek to park in the garage upon its completion. 8. Projected parking surpluses for private developments will not be shared with private developments that have projected parking deficits. PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS The parking demand figures presented in this memorandum reflect a combination of two types of projections. The parking demand for the two-phased development scenario were projected using the Walker Parking Consultants/ULI Shared Parking Model. The parking demand for the rest of the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo were projected using parking demand data collected by City staff. The parking demand data for the Downtown area were collected on nine days between August 19, 2015 and October 17, 2015. On each day, City staff performed occupancy counts every other hour from 10 AM to 8 PM, inclusive. Table 3, below, lists the days on which occupancy counts were performed. The timing of the occupancy counts were meant to capture the high demand for parking that may be generated both in the late summer, the beginning of the Cal Poly semester, and the overlap of the summer and school seasons. Table 3: Parking Demand Data Collection Schedule Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. In performing the count of parked vehicles, City staff excluded the following categories of parking spaces. Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015 Sep 02, 2015 Sep 03, 2015 Sep 05, 2015 Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015 1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 5 o Handicapped Spaces o Commercial Loading Zones o Passenger Loading Zones o Post Office meters Similarly, City staff excluded the following categories of parking behavior. o Multiple Vehicles Parked in One Space (e.g. 2 or More Motorcycles Parked in One Space) o Illegal Parking (e.g. Parking in Red Zone) Given the City staff’s familiarity with its parking system, Walker assumed that the excluded categories of parking spaces and parking behavior did not materially impact the parking demand collected by the City. PEAK PARKING DEMAND In its analysis of the 2015 parking data provided by the City, Walker determined that for the purposes of this study the interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs between 12 PM and 2 PM on Thursday afternoons. The designation of this time period as the interval of peak demand on a typically busy day assumes that typical peak demand rather than weekly or less frequent events such as a Farmer’s Market should not be a determining factor in determining the inventory of the proposed parking structure. To account for seasonal changes in the peak parking demand, Walker averaged the reported demand for the three Thursday counts. Moreover, to assess the adequacy of the parking supply, Walker used a blended effective supply factor of 0.92. An effective supply factor (ESF) is a projection of a parking system’s operational effectiveness. An ESF accounts for those spaces that are momentarily unavailable for use while cars circulate within a parking system. An ESF also accounts for the number of spaces in a parking system that are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance, mis- parked vehicles, and other factors. Finally the cushion of spaces identified by the effective supply can be used to accommodate more vehicles during spikes in demand above and beyond the design day peak demand. Table 4, below, summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typically busy weekday for the Downtown study area. Table 4: Study Area Average Peak Parking Demand, Weekdays Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. By way of comparison, in 2014, the study area analyzed consisted of a total of 2,041± on- and off- street parking spaces. The effective supply of spaces was 1,867± spaces. The interval of peak AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION SURPLUS (+)/DEFICIT (-) Study Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 vehicles 67% 645 parking spaces 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 6 demand was identified as occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on Saturday. During that interval, 1,289 vehicles were parked resulting in a utilization percentage of 63% and a surplus of 578 parking spaces. For this year’s study, the area of study was expanded however the observed trend for peak parking demand remained consistent. The differences in inventory, effective supply, occupancy, and parking surplus are due to the City’s designation of a study area for the 2015 fieldwork that was centered on the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site. While a full discussion and analysis of the differences between the data collection area are beyond the scope of this memorandum, the slightly increased level of occupancy (from 63% to 67%) is an indication that the 2015 data allow for a more conservative projection of the impact of the two phases of development on the parking demand in the proposed structure; demand for parking in the Downtown is assumed to be slightly higher for this analysis. The 2015 peak week day data allow for a more conservative than the 2014 data because the former reflect a higher level of occupancy in areas that will likely generate parking demand in the planned garage. Based upon additional analysis of the parking demand and program data provided by the City, Walker concluded that the two-phase development will likely displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 and that these displaced vehicles would likely be parked in the proposed garage. Walker projects that the Phase I and Phase II developments will displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 as follows. 1. City staff, based on their knowledge of parking patterns Downtown, asked Walker to assume that half of the parking demand in Lot 2 observed during the interval of peak demand would also park in the Palm Nipomo garage. At the peak a total of 52 vehicles were observed parked in Lot 2. 2. The construction of the parking structure requires the elimination of Lot 14 which would displace spaces where 48 vehicles are parking. 3. The build out of the Phase II development will require the elimination of Lot 10, which will displace 26 vehicles. Table 5, below, summarizes by phase the projected vehicle displacement for Lots 2, 10, and 14. The projected displacement is based upon data collected by City staff. Table 5: Vehicle Displacement Projections by Phase Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based on the on-street data collected, it is our assumption that motorists used to parking in Lot 10 and Lot 14 will seek to park in the proposed structure rather than on street or at another off-street PHASE AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION VEHICLES DISPLACED* Lot 2 59 parking spaces 54 parking spaces 52 vehicles 88% 26 vehicles Lot 14 77 parking spaces 71 parking spaces 48 vehicles 63% 48 vehicles Phase II Lot 10 27 parking spaces 25 parking spaces 26 vehicles 96% 26 vehicles * Values indicate number of vehicles that are assumed to park in the Palm/Nipomo structure. Phase I 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 7 parking facility. We also assume that the City will actively engage in policies to encourage additional parking demand generated in the area to utilize the new structure. PHASE I AND PHASE II PROGRAM DATA The City asked Walker to project the parking demand for a two-phase development scenario. Phase I consists of seven (7) approved projects. The seven approved projects of Phase I fall into one of two categories. The first category consists of four approved developments that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. This category includes: x The Garden Street Terraces, x Chinatown, x Pacific Courtyards, and x Discovery San Luis Obispo. The second category is comprised of three approved developments that likely will generate a significant level of parking demand in the garage. These three developments are: x Monterey Place, x the Creamery, and x the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA). Table 6, below, provides a summary of the Phase I program data by land use. Table 6: Summary of Phase I Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. Phase II consists of five provisional development sites. These five sites are provisional in that they reflect assumptions that are conceptual in regards to land uses and user groups. Because of the Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf) 66,318 s.f. Family Active Entertainment 17,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 6,700 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 7,500 s.f. Museum 23,000 s.f. Spa 5,000 s.f. Hotel-Leisure 153 keys Residential 72 total d.u. 1 bedroom† 4 d.u. 2 bedroom† 51 d.u. >3 bedroom† 17 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 22,080 s.f. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 8 conceptual nature of these assumptions, the five land uses have parking generation ratios that do not necessarily reflect contemporaneous conditions for similar land uses in the Downtown area. Table 7, below, summarizes the Phase II program data by land use. Table 7: Summary of Phase II Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. To project the parking demand for both phases of the development scenario, Walker used the Walker Parking Consultants/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM). Walker led the research effort to update the most recent ULI Shared Parking Model. Walker’s internal SPM is based on the ULI model but includes more detail, data points and specific land uses. Furthermore, the Walker SPM allows for calibration based upon on observed conditions within a study area and anticipated conditions within proposed developments. Based upon conversations with City staff, Walker concluded that the base parking demand ratios used for the 2014 parking demand projections should also be used for the projections presented in this memorandum. Table 8, below, summarizes the ratios used in the Walker SPM for the parking demand projections for the two-phase development scenario. Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf) 14,440 s.f. Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 3,607 s.f. Family Restaurant 3,607 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,607 s.f. Performing Arts Theater 200 seats Residential 82 total d.u. 1 bedroom† 82 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 25,000 d.u. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 9 Table 8: Ratios Used in Walker Shared Parking Model for San Luis Obispo, 2014 and 2015 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2014-2015. It should be noted that the net new parking demand projection for the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA) was reduced by 50%. This reduction represents the conclusion of Walker that SLOMA will double the parking demand it currently generates, based on past and projected attendance data. The reduction reflects the assumption that the current parking demand for SLOMA is assumed to be accounted for in the 2015 occupancy demand data collected by the City. It should also be noted that the demand ratio for SLOMA reflects a blended demand ratio that includes the planned office space and other new land uses that will be available after the site has been redeveloped. Table 9, on page 10, details the program data and parking demand projections for the four developments in Phase I that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. The table reflects the City’s present understanding that the Garden Street Terraces will address its projected parking deficit by having twenty six (26) vehicles park in the Palm Nipomo garage. Table 10, on page 11, details the program data and parking demand projections for the three developments in Phase I that are anticipated to generate significant parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo structure. Table 11, on page 12, provides a detailed summary by land use of the program data for Phase II. Base Parking Demand Drive Non-Captive Retail/Commercial Space 3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 90% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100% Restaurant 9 to 15.25 spaces per ksf GLA* 60% - 70% 76% - 88% Employee 1.5 to 1.75 spaces per ksf GLA* 70% - 80% 100% Family Active Entertainment 4.5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Speciality Grocery 4 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Spa 6.6 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee .4 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Art Museum 5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Peforming Arts Theater .3 spaces per seat 60% - 70% 100% Employee .07 spaces per seat 65% - 75% 100% Hotel 1 space per key 90% 100% Employee .18 space per key 65% - 75% 100% Office .3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100% Employee 3 spaces per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100% Residential First space per unit is reserved. Studio 1 space per d.u. 1-bedroom 1.5 spaces per d.u. 2-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. 3-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. Visitor .15 space per d.u. * Values indicate ranges for three restaurant sub-categories: fine casual, family, and fast casual. 70% (All units) 100% (All units) Ratios Land use Shared Parking Adjustments Shared parking adjustments account for fluctations in parking demand by land use type. These fluctuaions generally center around hour of day, day of week, month, and season. These adjustments are performed by the Walker Parking Consultants Shared Parking Model. 1.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 10 Table 9: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Unlikely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USESGarden St. Terraces1119 Garden St.ChinatownPacific Courtyards1321/1327 Osos St.Discovery San Luis Obispo(DSLO)Marsh & ChorroTotalRetail (<400 ksf) 15,542 s.f. 43,750 s.f. s.f. s.f.59,292 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining s.f.3,000 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,000 s.f.Fast Casual/Fast Food s.f. s.f. s.f.7,500 s.f.7,500 s.f.Family Active Entertainment s.f. s.f. s.f.17,500 s.f.17,500 s.f.Spa 5,000 s.f.0005,000 s.f.Hotel-Leisure 64 keys 78 keys keys 0142 keysResidential Guest† 8 d.u. 32 d.u. 9 d.u.049 d.u. 1 bedroom† d.u. d.u.1 d.u.01 d.u. 2 bedroom† 8 d.u. 17 d.u. 6 d.u.031 d.u. >3 bedroom† d.u.15 d.u. 2 d.u.017 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 41 spaces 53 spaces* 34 spaces0128 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥93 spaces 183 spaces 27 spaces 54 spaces 370 spacesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-52 spaces -130 spaces7 spaces‡-54 spaces -236 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**26 vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles26 vehiclesNotes‡ Surplus provided for reference only. The projected 236 space deficit excludes 7 space surplus.* Indicates stacked parking spaces† Dwelling units (d.u.)^ Projected supply after loss of 15 parking spaces.** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.1.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 11 Table 10: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Likely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USESMonterey Place667/679 Monterey St.Creamery Additional/RemodelSLOMATotalRetail (<400 ksf) 6,270 s.f. 756 s.f. s.f.7,026 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining 3,700 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,700 s.f.Museum0023,000 s.f.23,000 s.f.Hotel-Leisure 11 keys keys 011 keysResidential Guest† 23 d.u. d.u. 023 d.u. 1 bedroom† 3 d.u. d.u. 03 d.u. 2 bedroom† 20 d.u. d.u. 020 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft 14,030 s.f. s.f. s.f.14,030 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 29 spaces*0 spaces 0 spaces29 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥94 spaces 1 space 39 spaces§ 134 vehiclesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-65 spaces -1 space -39 spaces -105 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**65 vehicles 1 vehicle 39 vehicles 105 vehiclesNotes§ Total assumes that SLOMA parking demand will be approximately double the existing art gallery.† Dwelling units (d.u.)¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.* Indicates stacked parking spaces** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage1.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 12 Table 11: Phase II Program Data Assumptions Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. PHASE II LAND USES Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 TotalRetail (<400 ksf) 8,500 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 14,440 s.f.Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.6,500 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Family Restaurant 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Fast Casual/Fast Food 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Performing Arts Theater200 seats 200 seatsResidential Guest† 50 d.u. 20 d.u. 12 d.u. 82 d.u. 1 bedroom† 50 d.u. 20 d.u. 12 d.u. 82 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft 22,000 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 25,000 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 50 spaces 16 spaces 12 spaces 21 spaces 99 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥107 spaces 47 spaces 17 spaces 53 spaces 9 spaces 233 spacesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-57 spaces -31 spaces -5 spaces -32 spaces -9 spaces -134 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**57 vehicles 31 vehicles 5 vehicles 32 vehicles 9 vehicles 134 vehiclesNotes† Dwelling Units (d.u.)¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage1.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 13 Figure 1: Proposed Locations of Palm/Nipomo Structure and Phase I and Phase II Developments Source: Image, Google Earth Professional, 2015; development locations, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015; graphics, Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.1.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 14 CONCLUSION Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility as currently envisioned, would have a parking space surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I, based on a projected demand for 204± spaces and effective supply factor of 0.92. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase II, based on a projected demand for 364± spaces (combined phases I + 2) and effective supply factor of 0.92. The Palm/Nipomo structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces is significantly more than currently necessary to accommodate current parking demand. The likely demand for parking generated by Phase I development represents less than half the planned supply of parking. However for Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking for future development, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. Given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to make a significant investment(or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. However, if the projected Phase II development were not to occur as envisioned, the usefulness of the structure could be limited. 1.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - Downtown Parking Lot Map (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Preliminary Design1.c Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Urban Design Plan1.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. They were also asked to be mindful of the City’s height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures: a self park structure, like the City’s current parking structures; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay. May 25, 2004 City Council Direction Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options: 1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing. 2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built. 3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street. 4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project. 5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground. 6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for the roof of the structure. 7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line. July 5, 2005 City Council Direction On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of 1.e Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components: 1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street. 2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on project plans. 4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design. 5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached “Dwelling over Garage”). 6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and note where exceptions are needed. 7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings. 8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site. 9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street. 10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass. In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional refinements to Self Park Option D3: a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible. b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access. c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey. To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights. In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure. 1.e Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 April 24, 2007 City Council Direction In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by “others” when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost. Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure oriented to reduce building height impact. Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f. No. of Levels 4 ½ 5 ½ 6 Building Height (35 ft.) * Height exception needed? 39 ft. Yes 41 ft. Yes 37 ft. Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft.) Street yard exception needed? Other yard (10 ft.) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0-10 ft. Yes 25 ft. No Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 12,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design. Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, 1.e Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 however much of the residence’s rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure’s roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure. Site Diagram for Option D3 The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers. Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet March 17, 2009 City Council Direction On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? 1.e Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016-17. 2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.” 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. 5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure. However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots. In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years. Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district. To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years. December 1, 2009 City Council Direction Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The consultant team was hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary urban design plan developed that has been well received by the community. The design assumes the removal of five City owned residences; two of which are located within a historic district. Environmental studies undertaken determined that removal of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the Downtown Historic District and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed to allow for their removal. January 3, 2012 City Council Direction Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the cultural resource issue as well as potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic. Due to staff resources and other City priorities, this work effort was delayed. As part of the 2015 annual Parking Fund review, Council directed staff to return with a study session to present an update on the delivery of the project and bring forward financial issues. This decision was made in the midst of the Great Recession and assumptions of background private development that would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many significant projects (Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions. 1.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 The uncertain timing of new development and potential for major revisions to their parking demand led staff to conclude it would be prudent to defer work on the environmental impact report and the final project design until the economy recovered. In essence, issues that need to be determined in the structure’s final design (such as total number of spaces, height limitations and building footprint) could be affected if major shifts occurred in parking demand due to revised private development needs. January 19, 2016 – Project Reboot City Council Direction Staff is seeking additional council concurrence with project recommendations and moving forward with design and the EIR. In addition, staff is seeking Council direction on negotiating a new MOA with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties. 1.e Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 50 California Street Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 982-5544 415 982-4513 fax www.pfm.com October 14, 2015 Memorandum To: Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo Jeff Brown, City of San Luis Obispo From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc. Re: Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations Public Financial Management, Inc. (“PFM”) has prepared the following memorandum as a high- level summary of some of the financing alternatives the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) may want to consider in determining its approach to the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project. Assuming the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage will be a public, City-owned parking structure, the City has several options for financing the project. Two primary alternatives are lease revenue bonds and parking revenue bonds. As it has done in the past (e.g., Series 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds), the City could issue lease revenue bonds to fund the project, using either the project itself or another existing City asset as the security for the bonds. Lease Revenue Bond Considerations: x The General Fund is pledged to repayment (though the City can budget the debt payments from the Parking Fund, similar to what it has done with prior lease revenue bond issuances, where debt service is allocated to other enterprise funds depending upon the projects financed with the bond proceeds) x Lease revenue bonds carry a lower interest rate than parking revenue bonds x The City must have available of unencumbered asset(s) to pledge x If assets of sufficient value are not available, the City will need to use capitalized interest during construction Alternatively, the City could finance the Palm-Nipomo project using parking revenue bonds, pledging the net revenues of the Parking Fund to repay the debt. Parking Revenue Bond Considerations: x With a parking revenue bond, the obligation to repay is limited to the net revenues of the parking system, so there is no General Fund exposure 1.f Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations October 14, 2015 Page 2 x Due to the limited pledge of revenue, this type of financing carries a higher borrowing cost than lease revenue bonds x Parking revenue bonds are uncommon, perhaps due to associated risks and the resulting cost of borrowing x Net revenues of the parking system (after O&M) will need to generate annual debt service coverage of approximately 2.0x x The City will have to covenant to set parking rates at levels sufficient to meet this coverage requirement x Unless existing system revenues are sufficient to pay debt service on the new garage (and generate required coverage), the City will need to capitalize interest during the construction/ramp up period For comparison, we have provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond and a parking revenue bond, based upon a project cost of $17,600,000. Given that construction is not anticipated to begin until FY2017-18, we have assumed some increase in municipal bond interest rates, which are currently near historic lows. For both scenarios we have assumed that interest on the bonds during the construction period is capitalized, that the bonds have a debt service reserve fund, and that the term of the bonds is 30 years. Annual debt service on a lease revenue bond issuance is estimated at approximately $1.3 million and with the General Fund pledge on a lease revenue bond, there is no annual debt service coverage covenant. Annual debt service on a parking revenue bond is estimated at approximately $1.7 million. To generate 2.0x debt service coverage, the parking system would need to generate $3.4 million of net revenue in the Parking Fund. For either of the two security structures discussed above, the City could also consider financing the Palm-Nipomo parking structure through a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (the “I-Bank”), as it did in 2001 for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure. The I-Bank may offer interest rates that are lower than the City could achieve though a public offering of bonds. There is an application process for I-Bank financing that can be lengthy, so this alternative should be explored well in advance of the funding need for the project. Should the City elect to pursue a project at the Palm-Nipomo site that involves a partnership with a private entity, plans for private use of a portion of the garage, or other modifications to the basic concept of a City-owned facility available for use by the public, the financing options may change and the costs differ from those described above. 1.f Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) counci lj aQEncla aepoat Meeting/Dat e JI T Item Numb// / of C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Jay Walter, Director of Public Work Prepared By : Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Pubk'c Work s Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT : MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE REQUEST FO R PROPOSAL S RECOMMENDATIO N Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for architectural design and environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if withi n the project budget . DISCUSSION The Monterey Street Parking Structure project (previously referred to as the "Palm-Nipomo") wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003-0 5 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets (see Attachment 1, Summar y of Council Actions). At its April 24, 2007 meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Optio n D3 (self-park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure (se e Attachment 2, Site Plan Option D3). The selected design was chosen over a mechanical o r automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure . It did include an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street . At its meeting of March 17, 2009 the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fun d prepared by a consultant and reviewed by a Council-appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Revie w Committee. The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings an d recommendations then directed staff to take the next steps of environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans an d specifications. The Council also directed that the Request for Proposals for these services b e returned to Council for consideration prior to its issuance . Subsequently a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been prepared and is ready for distribution (se e Attachment 3, Draft Request for Proposals). As requested by Council, the RFP includes a requirement for the consultant to take a final look into the issue of additional potential uses of the structure or surrounding site and the estimated cost/benefits of those uses . Scope of Work Summar y As discussed in previous project reviews, the Council has established the following project goal s which will shape the consultant's design that will return to Council for final approval : Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 2 •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not look like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e. Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater on a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifies cultura l uses in addition to parking on the site. •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure and provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make every effort to preserve the large oak tree and integrate into the site design . •Incorporate green/sustainable technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . The consultant selected will be responsible for performing the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City and consistent with the Preferred Site Plan (D3). In the course of the design work, the consultant will be required to present plans to various Cit y Commissions including the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commissio n and the Planning Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A final design will be approved by the City Council . The following tasks have been outlined in th e RFP : Project Task s A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with the site an d the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulation around the site, access patterns, utilit y locations, as well as previous reports, studies and documents related to the project . Consider an y findings and/or recommendations that may further develop, revise, or question any previou s decisions by the City on the design of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the City project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous City Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . The proposal shoul d reflect meetings with the project team prior to each meeting with the City Council and Cit y Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost of thos e uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize the use of the site b y exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum of options for thei r consideration . Some options have been previously studied and discarded . They are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 3 D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), in accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the application requirement s for architectural review, environmental review and the Planning Commission use permit . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the City. Th e IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts in compliance with the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IES will present mitigation measure s needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them to insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that the consultant will, at a minimum, be required t o prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusing on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impacts of building a structure 16 feet below grade and th e impacts on both the parking structure and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study includin g shading impacts on adjacent properties and a study of archeological and historical issues .A Phase II Hazardous Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need furthe r investigation . The anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determines that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort an d cost of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritage Commission , Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction and operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, ARC and the PC into the project plans as directed . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make changes as directed . Although not included in the scope of work for this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retained to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . RFP Schedule Task Date Monterey Street Parking Structure 1 .Issue RFP.12/2/0 9 2 .Receive Proposals.1/8/1 0 3 .Evaluate Proposals .1/15/1 0 4 .Conduct Finalist Interviews .1/22/1 0 5 .Check References and Award the Contract 1/29/1 0 6 .Complete work for Council Approval 3/11 Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 4 FISCAL IMPAC T To date approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis . Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget fo r design services and environmental review . Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likel y increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions . ALTERNATIV E Deny or defer design RFP.The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in th e area increases . It is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could b e available for use, therefore staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase . Rather, staff recommends this time could be devoted to researching innovative ways to increase th e initial demand for and subsequent use of the Monterey Street parking structure . ATTACHMENT S 1.Summary of City Council Actions, Monterey Street Parking Structure 2.Site Plan Options D 3 3.Draft Request for Proposals, Description of Wor k T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2009\Parking\Monterey St . Parking Structure\CAR Draft Revision 20091103 .DOC ATTACHMENT I SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION S MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTUR E The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near th e corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential us e as a multi-level parking structure . The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owne d surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Stree t and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site ; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site . They were directed to incorporate uses intended by th e Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center .They were also asked to be mindful of the City's heigh t regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval ma y include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking i s the principal use . Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures : a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures ; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in th e structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay . May 25, 2004 City Council Directio n Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eigh t schematic design options . Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, th e consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parkin g proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space . At that meeting, Council directed staff to procee d with refinements to two designs : Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as th e "baseline" design options for further study . Council also directed staff to consider the following in th e refinements of the two options : 1.Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land are a on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some are a along Palm Street for offices and/or housing . 2.Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built . 3.Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street . 4.Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project . 5.Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground . 6.Proposing other possible uses (ie . senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for th e roof of the structure . 7.Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line . July 5, 2005 City Council Directio n On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roo f of the structure . At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3 , mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of th e structure . Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, ATTACHMENT I added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use . Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components : 1.Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . 2.Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer - Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3.Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St . and 645 Palm St.) on project plans . 4.Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design . 5.Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adob e detached "Dwelling over Garage"). 6.Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations and not e where exceptions are needed . 7.Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-se t the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings . 8.Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site . 9.Identify location of access/servicing area for "Future Use by Others"- if office use is developed o n Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street . 10.Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons fo r the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass . In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additiona l refinements to Self Park Option D3 : a.Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible . b.Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access . c.Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey . To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographi c survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine buildin g heights . In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other use s on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing . The Council dismissed this idea afte r receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs o f construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements . These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related . Additionally, building height exceptions would come int o play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the ne t amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure . The Council agreed that it would b e more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an alread y expensive parking structure . April 24, 2007 City Council Directio n In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options . All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), ATTACHMENT I maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by "others " when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place . The three options were compare d from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost . Table 1- Summary of Key Site Plan Option Feature s Design Comparisons D3 H2 H 3 Summary of Key Features Self par k structure wit h portions of upper level s removed t o reduc e building heigh t impact . Mechanica l structure wit h portions of upper level s removed to reduce buildin g height impact . Mechanica l structure oriented to reduce buildin g height impact . Building Footprint 34,350 s .f.20,500 s .f .20,500 s .f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s .f.118,750 s .f.121,500 s .f. No . of Levels 4 %5 %6 Building Height (35 ft .)* Height exception needed? 39 ft . Yes 41 ft . Yes 37 ft . Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft .) Street yard exception needed ? Other yard (10 ft .) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft . Yes 10 ft . No Oft . Yes 10 ft . No 0-10 ft . Ye s 25 ft . N o Total Parking Spaces 445 491 56 5 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Futur e Use by Others 11,400 s .f.8,700 s .f. 12,700 s .f . 19,800 s .f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s .f.4,500 s .f .3,000 s .f. 7,000 s .f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, an d the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design . Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving roo m for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the stree t from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a publi c use area and a pedestrian paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design unti l the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast , including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation syste m ATTACHMENT I is not required . Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs fo r ventilating and waterproofing the structure . Site Diagram for Option D 3 The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not include elevator towers . Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 fee t March 17, 2009 City Council Directio n On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultan t and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Montere y Street Parking Structure. The questions were : 1.Can we afford it? 2.And if we build it, will they come? Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committe e provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration : 1.The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financia l condition through fiscal year 2016-17 . 2.Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure ." 3.Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process . ATTACHMENT 4.The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and th e General Plan . 5.The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street space s combined with increases in parking demand . Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure . However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking . Projects such as Chinatow n and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce publi c parking surface lots . In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/o r converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown . Based on past consultant reports, parkin g demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years . Further, because the City is in the earl y phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantl y upon creation of the district . To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure wil l be needed in the next 5 to 10 years . A / PALM ST Entry/see STATISTIC S Ground: 93 Parking Space s Typical: 109 Parking Space s Top:25 Parking Space s Auxiliary Entry/Exll U. n 0S ROOF LEVEL /. .-uo:Y_- 'euumuc. it uha euucr Parking Count Estimate s 4%2 Levels :445 Parking Net Gain 445 - 79 = 36 6 Building Height Estimate s North Sout h 44'-6"33'-6" Building Height per Zoning 39'4" Building Square Footage Parking 150,850 sq.ft. Efficiency 4%2 Levels: 150,850 / 445 = 339 sf/ca r pe c ee Public Jae 88C.10KOR 2Future use bo Others '(Cultural and cr Feslbentlal l 11,a0C si 2 5 _9' ~~~~ 7 ///%u` mgom~'o.qa NIPOMO Option D 3 cM ww's IG°Aq888 SECTION B-B ------------------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- wo°»or Adobe .2881 0 0 ~5re'7 a DAN A PALM SECTION A-A September 27, 2006 Palm / Nipomo Parking `tructure City of San Luis Obisp o o zP 40'60'80 100'120' I I I I I I I 11 .120 WRN S 600'8..12 2;SAN ORANCIS CO RLIG nR0.1A A 0 2 at S .4G0.222F AXp1R.666 .0100 FAX city o~ san lu g s oBlspo ATTACHMENT 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo • CA • 9340 1 Notice Requesting Proposals fo r Architectural Design and Environmental Review : Monterey Street Parking Structure Specification No . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California will receiv e sealed proposals for the design and environmental review of the Monterey Street Parkin g Structure pursuant to Specification No ..The Department of Public Works must receiv e all proposals by 3 :00 P .M . on January 8, 2010 . Proposals received after said time will not b e considered . To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to th e Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title , specification number, consultant name and address, and time and date of the proposal opening . Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package . Obtaining a Specification Packag e ■Download from the City's Web site www .slocity .org - Bids & Proposals pag e ■Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above addres s ■Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the above addres s ■Fax a request to the City of San Luis Obispo at 805-781-7537 – include company name , street address, phone, fax, email and the name of the contact person . Requests must include the RFP title and specification number . General Work Description :Prepare plans and architectural elevations for an approximately 40 0 space "self-park" parking structure on a City-owned site in downtown San Luis Obispo ; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance wit h the California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guidelines that identify potential project impacts ; prepare preliminary construction cost estimates ; prepare a report that presents plans , environmental findings and cost estimates for presentation to the Cultural Heritage Commission , the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council . For additional information, contact Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner b y telephone at (805) 781-7590 or by e-mail at pmandeville(a~slocity .org . Additional information is also available by downloading the following City Council Agend a Reports from the City's website : May 25, 2004 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e July 5, 2005 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e April 24, 2007 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e March 17, 2009 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations ATTACHMENT 3 Specification No . TABLE OF CONTENT S DESCRIPTION OF WORK 3 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 7 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 8 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS 9 PROPOSAL CONTENT 9 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION 9 FORM OF AGREEMENT 1 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS 1 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1 8 INSURANCE CERTIFICATE 1 8 SUBCONSULTANT LISTING 1 8 REFERENCES 2 0 STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS 2 2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS : Consultant Services 2 3 APPENDICES 2 4 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 2 of 24 ATTACHMENT 3J Section A DESCRIPTION OF WOR K Background : The Monterey Parking Structure project was established by the City Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Council has met on severa l occasions to discuss the location of the structure on the City-owned Palm-Nipomo site an d consider designs for a parking structure at this location . At its last Monterey Parking structur e meeting held in April 2007, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual design options an d selected a preferred site plan design for the proposed structure . At their March 2009 meeting the City Council unanimously approved moving forward with th e next steps of environmental review, completion of design and preparation of plans an d specifications . The Preferred Site Plan (Option D3 ) 9ECI;ONA.A Important considerations of the site plan include locating the parking structure main entry o n Palm Street, maintaining the large oak tree on Monterey and allowing portions of the site to b e developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be buil t first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding i s in place . The preferred site plan locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipom o Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Montere y Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Montere y Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, includin g two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestria n paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the propert y along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 3 of 248Z-/3 ATTACHMENT devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has bee n removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center o f the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoinin g residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion o f the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to th e adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required . Additional parkin g levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofin g the structure . The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not includ e elevator towers . Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =36 feet Palm Street =44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" =21 feet The City Council directed that the proposed final design for the parking structure also look a t added uses on the site and the cost of those uses . Proiect Goal s •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not loo k like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e . Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater o n a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifie s cultural uses in addition to parking on the site . •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make an effort to preserve the large oak tree . •Incorporate green technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . Scope of Work : The consultant selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City Council and consistent with the Preferre d Site Plan (D3). The final design will include a biddable set of plans and specifications fo r construction, consistent with current policies and procedures . In the course of the design wor k the consultant will be required to present plans to various City Commissions including th e Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commission and the Plannin g Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A fina l design will be approved by the City Council . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 4 of 24 ATTACHMENT The Deputy Director of Public Works will establish a Project Team that will work with th e selected consultant and provide information, direction and advice . The Project Team wil l include civil and traffic engineering, parking services and planning . In completing the design fo r this project, the City anticipates that the selected consultant will perform the following tasks : A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with th e Palm-Nipomo Street site and the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulatio n around the site, access patterns, utility locations, as well as previous reports, studies an d documents related to the project . Consider any findings and/or recommendations tha t may further develop, revise, or question any previous decisions by the City on the desig n of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous Cit y Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . Th e proposal should reflect meetings with the Project Team prior to each meeting with th e City Council and City Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost o f those uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize th e use of the site by exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum o f options for their consideration . Some options have been previously studied and are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), i n accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the requirements o f the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the Cit y (attached as Appendix 1). The IES shall identify all potentially significant project impact s in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IE S will present mitigation measures needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them t o insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that th e consultant will at a minimum, be required to prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusin g on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impact s of building a structure 16 feet below grade and the impacts on both the parking structur e and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study including shading impacts on adjacen t properties and a study of archeological and historical issues . A Phase II Hazardou s Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need further investigation . Th e anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negativ e Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determine s that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and cos t of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritag e Commission (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Plannin g Commission (PC)for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction an d operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, AR C and the PC into the project plans as directed . Refer to the checklists attached a s Appendix 2 . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make change s as directed . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 5 of 24 ATTACHMENT Although not included in this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retaine d to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . Deliverable s •Analysis of potential additional uses on the site . •Architectural site plans and elevations . •Architectural Review application including submittal requirements . •Cost estimates for construction and maintenance of design submitted for City Counci l approval . •Environmental Initial Stud y Agreement Management : The selected consultant will be expected to assign a single point person who understands th e overall agreement and can manage paperwork associated with it . This person does not need t o be assigned to any of the individual projects, but should be available to listen and follow up o n concerns regarding performance . Cost proposals will be received after scoping meetings, an d may include the cost of the scoping meeting . The City will evaluate the proposal upon receip t and negotiate workscope further as needed . The consultant will receive a Purchase Order afte r the proposal scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the project work . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 6 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITION S PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Requirement to Meet All Provisions .Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet al l of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package . By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RF P specifications . 2 . Proposal Submittal .Each proposal must include the form(s) provided in the specifications, accompanied b y any other required submittals or supplemental materials . Proposal documents shall be enclosed in a n envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 91 9 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 . In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal shoul d be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time o f proposal opening . No FAX submittals will be accepted . 3 . Insurance Certificate .Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing : a.The insurance carrier and its A .M . Best rating . b.Scope of coverage and limits . c.Deductibles and self-insured retention . The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant's insurance coverag e during proposal evaluation ; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required unti l contract award . The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section F . 4. Submittal of References .Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the for m provided in the RFP package . 5 . Statement of Contract Disqualifications .Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any pas t government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package . 6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening .A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to th e time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal , in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened . No proposal received after the tim e specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered . Al l proposals will be opened and declared publicly . Consultants or their representatives are invited to be presen t at the opening of the proposals . 7 .Submittal of One Proposal Only .No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file , or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested ; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submittin g a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals . 8 . Communications .All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response fro m the City . Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted . However, an y such oral communication shall not be binding on the City . 9 . Alternative Proposals .The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes wil l also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way . In this case, the proposer must provide a n analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under wha t circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 7 of 24 ATTACHMENT CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTIO N 10.Proposal Retention and Award .The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days fo r examination and comparison . The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in an y proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except t o the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations . 11.Competency and Responsibility of Consultant .The City reserves full discretion to determine th e competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants . Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision . 12.Contract Requirement .The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the Cit y within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in it s proposal . The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications . 13.Insurance Requirements .The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d amounts specified in these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution . 14.Business License &Tax .The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and ta x certificate before execution of the contract . Additional information regarding the City's business license and ta x program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134 . 15.Failure to Accept Contract .The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is mad e (Consultant) fails to enter into the contract : the award will be annulled ; any bid security will be forfeited i n accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required ; and an awar d may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, wh o shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made . —/O Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 8 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section C PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCES S PROPOSAL CONTEN T 1 . Submittal Form s a.Acknowledgement b.Certificate of Insuranc e c.Subconsultant Listing d.Reference s e.Statement of Past Disqualification s 2 . Evaluation and Selection Criteri a a.Understanding of the work required by the City . b.Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal . c.Proposed approach for completing the work . d.Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the wor k required by the City . e.Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of wor k f.Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub-consultant s g.Recent experience in successfully performing similar services . h.Demonstrated ability of assigned staff to communicate effectively with elected and appointed City officials . i.Reference s j.Proposed compensation . k.Estimated cost to prepare construction plans and specifications . 3 . Work Program a.Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigne d Capital Improvement Plan work . b.Services or data anticipated to be provided by the Cit y c.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decisio n 4 . Proposal Length and Copie s a.Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information . Charts and other short for m approaches to convey information are encouraged . b.Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted . PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTIO N Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows : 5 . Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selectio n Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the responsiveness , qualifications and understanding of the Consultant relative to these specification requirements . A group o f finalist candidates will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations, or requests for additiona l clarifying information, before a final top ranked consultant is determined . e F--/7 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 9 of 24 ATTACHMENT 6.Oral Presentations/Interview s Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about thei r proposal, or respond to a written request for additional information within an allotted time . The purpose of this second phase to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal, to evaluate th e proposer's ability to clearly and concisely present information orally, and to expand on the approach to workin g integrally with City staff . 7.Consultant Selectio n After evaluating the proposals and discussing them with the finalists, a ranking of the consultants based o n these items will be generated . Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the bes t overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including : the written proposal criteri a described above ; results of background and reference checks ; results from the interviews and presentation s phase ; and proposed compensation rates . 8.Proposal Review and Award Schedul e The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award : Issue RFP 12/3/200 9 Conduct pre proposal conference 12/17/200 9 Receive proposals 1 /8/201 0 Complete proposal evaluation 1/15/201 0 Conduct finalist interviews 1/21/201 0 Finalize staff recommendation 1/29/201 0 Award contract 2/2/201 0 Execute contract 2/5/201 0 Start work 2/8/201 0 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 10 of 24 196 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:13 AM To:Purrington, Teresa Subject:FW: Comments on the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Project DEIR Attachments:202_16_18...nipomogaragedeir.pdf Hi Teresa- Just making sure you got this letter for the PC for the February 28th meeting regarding Item #2. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 4:39 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Comments on the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Project DEIR For you….. From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 4:13 PM To: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Comments on the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Project DEIR Dear Scott and Tim - Would you kindly forward my comments, attached below, regarding the Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage DEIR to the appropriate parties? Thanks! - Allan To: Scott Lee, Parking Manager & Tim Bochum, Deputy Director Transportation Re: Comments on the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Project DEIR From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: February 16, 2018 I believe that the DEIR should have identiﬁed the “environmentally superior alternative” to be Alternative 1: No Project because this garage will not meet the “project objectives” which are “to ameliorate the current high demand for parking” (see below). However, if the Council decides to move ahead with the construction of a garage at this location then I would urge them to select the DEIR’s other environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 4: Historic Resource Preservation, which would include the parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, but retain the two houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Street. The theater would not be included as part of this alternative. After all, why is the City favoring the SLO Repertory Theatre when there are numerous other non-proﬁts that could beneﬁt from such a facility? A decision was made by Council on April 4, 2017 to build the parking structure ﬁrst while other components, such as the Repertory Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The City’s January 19, 2006 MOA with the Repertory Theatre is no longer binding. We are encouraging Council to hold off on pursuing a new MOA with the Repertory Theatre. However, I would prefer that Alternative 4 be modiﬁed by replacing the 5,000 square feet of commercial space with ofﬁces at the ﬁrst level and residential on the second story along this stretch of Nipomo Street because the commercial development proposed to be located along Nipomo Street is inappropriate. It will be isolated from the main shopping areas in the downtown core. What is missing in this DEIR is a trafﬁc analysis taking into account that the Broad Street “dogleg” may be partially or totally closed (now formally part of the Downtown Concept Plan), that Broad Street may become a bicycle boulevard and that the Highway 101 off- and on-ramps accessing Broad Street may someday be closed. The DEIR states: “The City of San Luis Obispo is in the process of updating the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, which may result in changes to the Broad Street ‘dog leg’. The cumulative forecasts were developed assuming no changes to vehicle access near Mission Plaza. The modiﬁcations under consideration as part of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan would not substantially change the ﬁndings of this transportation analysis (CCTC 2017). No other roadway network changes affecting the study locations were assumed to be in place under cumulative conditions.” How can one assume that no cumulative changes would result from the closure of the “dog leg” or that other “roadway network changes” (i.e., closure of the Broad Street on/off ramps and a proposed bicycle boulevard)? The DEIR further states: “Consistent with the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, a neighborhood trafﬁc analysis that evaluates ADT on roadways classiﬁed as Local Residential is not included in this section because the study area roadways are classiﬁed as Local Commercial roadways.” This project is surrounded with residential development and two schools. I believe that, before this project goes any further, there should be a neighborhood trafﬁc analysis. Moreover, such an analysis could help determine the best location for a 4th parking garage. The noise analysis is surprising in that there is no prediction of increased decibel levels along Broad between Highway 101 and the proposed garage. See below: “The addition of project generated trafﬁc would increase noise levels along the project’s studied roadway segments. As shown in Table 17, residences along Palm Street would experience a roadway noise level increase of approximately 1.0 dBA, which would result in an ambient noise level of approximately 60.4 Ldn. Residences along Nipomo Street would experience an increase in roadway noise levels of 0.7 dBA, resulting in an ambient noise level of 63.5 Ldn. Both Broad Street and Monterey Street would not exhibit changes in ambient noise levels, based on the number of trips generated by the project, therefore, noise impacts along these roadways would be less than signiﬁcant.” Wouldn’t one surmise that there would be increased usage of the Broad Street/Highway 101 on- and off-ramps once the garage is installed? In conclusion, the DEIR states that Alternative 1: No Project/No Development could also be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project because the site would remain as is and it would not result in any signiﬁcant environmental impacts; however, it would not meet the project objectives. However, there is no demonstrable need at this time for this project in that there is little demand for parking at this end of town. In 2015, Walker Parking Consultants stated “The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown.” The demand exists, instead, in the major growth areas east of Santa Rosa. The 2014 Walker Parking Consultant demand study projected that occupancy would be at 60%. Over 1/3 of the parking spaces will remain unoccupied. Private and public development projected to take place here in this part of town will take years to develop. We should also recognize that back when the ﬁrst demand study was written in 2009 the size and scale of both the Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown projects were signiﬁcantly greater than now. If the Palm/Nipomo parking structure will not ameliorate the current high demand for parking, then does this garage at this location meet “the project objectives”? Moreover, the construction cost projection ($23,600,000) may be too low (at $53,034 per space for a 445 space facility) and it is ﬁscally irresponsible to prepare an EIR that will cost $1.65 million without any proof that this project is needed. The Walker report warns that any exclusive use of the parking structure will likely mean that “any ﬁnancing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase ﬁnancing costs”. This exclusive use refers to the demand for parking for Monterey Place (65 spaces) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces). This additional ﬁnancing cost will only further burden a City that has let it's unfunded liabilities build up over the years This money (were it to be available) would be better spent on alternative transportation systems. The City should look at decentralized solutions to the parking problem taking into account emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking dynamics. Thank you! 197 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Wednesday, January 3, 2018 3:46 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Russell, Anne; Bochum, Tim Subject:SLO REP Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Attachments:RE: SLO Rep (Formerly SLO Little Theatre); Negotiating Agreement Bob, For the last few years I have been working with SLO Rep on getting some sort of agreement in place regarding their access to the property in front of the Palm Nipomo parking structure to build a new facility. The majority of the time was spent waiting for them to decide what they want to do. We have a draft agreement developed that is basically ready to go to Council once we are ready to take it. SLO Rep would like this to happen in the first quarter. Based on our last meeting with Tim, he envisioned having to go to Council with something Palm Nipomo related in the first quarter so we thought it would be a good to have this agreement follow whatever Tim’s item will be. We are just waiting for Tim to pick a date. Here is a link to the folder with all the relevant info. T:\CommunityPartners\SLO Rep I have also attached some of the most recent emails so you can get a sense of where things stand. Let me know when you want to get together and discuss. We can also set up a meeting with Kevin Harris or I can just do an email intro. Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org 1 From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:56 PM To:Johnson, Lee; Bochum, Tim; Codron, Michael Subject:RE: SLO Rep (Formerly SLO Little Theatre) Thanks for the walk and talk conversation and agree that a meeting would be good and finalize the MOA, please place on the forecast when you feel it is ready. Tim, can you remind me of when we plan on taking the parking structure to the CC and can you place it on the forecast? From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:46 PM To: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Rep (Formerly SLO Little Theatre) ***Any thoughts on the below?*** Team, It looks like SLO rep is progressing with their fundraising and preparing to staff up for a full push. In the past the City had an MOA regarding a new site in front of the Palm Nipomo parking structure. We have been working on a new MOA. One of the big remaining questions is what will happen if Palm Nipomo does not happen or if it is delayed. In talking with Tim the best time for us to have this discussion internally is after we get the initial EIR info in the next few weeks. In preparation for the discussion I am working to finalize a draft of the MOA with Anne R in the City Attorney’s office. What I need from you guys is your input on who needs to be involved in this discussion on our end. The SLOrep folks have asked us if it is possible to get some clarity (possibly through bringing the MOA to Council) early in 2018. Please let me know who you think needs to be in on our initial discussion and I will get the information gathered and coordinate the meeting. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org 198 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Monday, December 11, 2017 9:56 AM To:Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Michelle Wendler Subject:Screencheck Draft EIR - Please reply by 5pm Attachments:Palm Nipomo Draft EIR_2017-12-11_tracked changes.docx Good morning. Attached is the revised Draft EIR with tracked changes. Please review these changes and let me know whether you have any further revisions or if we can move forward with printing this document by the end of today if possible. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 199 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 5:07 PM To:Shauna Callery Cc:Lee, Scott; Michelle Wendler; Bochum, Tim Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo Parking garage Admin Draft EIR Ready for review! Attachments:Palm Nipomo Admin Draft EIR_2017-09-29.docx Categories:1:1 Scott Hi Shauna- Attached is the EIR for the Palm Nipomo parking garage. There is only one minor edit that I saw. Below is an e-mail from Hal regarding FEMA flood mapping for the site. Please check out Hal’s comments and see how we can best address them in the the EIR. You can reach Hal best through Shelsie Kloepper at SKloepper@slocity.org. Other than Hal’s comments, none of the other departments gave me any written feedback. There was a note from Transportation that they might have comments, but I could not find them. Maybe you can follow up with Scott to see if there was anything there. I will be out of the office until December 6, 2017. If you have questions, please reach out to Scott. Have a great Thanksgiving holiday. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Hannula, Hal Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 5:41 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Kloepper, Shelsie <SKloepper@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking garage Admin Draft EIR Ready for review! Hi Rachel, Pretty minor but Section 5.2.8 has an incorrect statement that no structures will be built into the 100-year floodplain. The mapped AE zone (SFHA) clips the westerly frontage along Nipomo. LandUse shows a little wedge starting about 30’ up Palm and extending down along Nipomo about 130’. I will need to make sure that our FEMA file overlay is accurate and then zoom in but it appears that the floodzone clips the proposed structure. A more significant portion of the structure is located in the shallow (x shaded) floodzone. I remember that Peggy and Les Evans were working on this issue. I don’t believe that the City ever processed a Letter of Map change or completed additional analysis. This will still not be a significant impact. I believe that our Drainage Design Manual and current study 200 assumed general plan build-out for this area. Nonetheless, it seems that the EIR language should be corrected and include a more appropriate response. Let’s chat on Monday. Thanks, Hal From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 11:12 AM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Kloepper, Shelsie <SKloepper@slocity.org>; Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Brown, Molly <mbrown@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcenas@slocity.org>; Sadowski, Mark <msadowski@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveille@slocity.org>; Hudson, Jake <jhudson@slocity.org> Cc: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo Parking garage Admin Draft EIR Ready for review! Hello all- The Admin Draft EIR for the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage is ready for review. Here is a link to the folder with the document plus attachments: \\chstore7\groups\PublicWorks\Permits\StreetAddresses-Energov\EID-0349-2017\Draft EIR The review process has been opened in Energov so you should see it in your project list. Comments are due by Monday, October 30, 2017. Hal, Shelsie, Bob, Rodger, Miguel and Mark – Please review Section 5 pertaining to your specialty area. Brian – Please review Section 4.2 in the EIR: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Jake – Please review Section 4.4: Transportation Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 201 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:35 AM To:Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties Subject:RE: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Attachments:Cultural Resources Inventory Report 2011.pdf Good morning Patti- Attached is the Cultural Resources Inventory for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. I hope you have a great day. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties [mailto:salinantribe@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:12 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Re: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Great! Can I get a copy of the report when you receive it. Thanks, Patti Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties 7070 Morro Rd. #A Atascadero, CA 93422 805.464-2650 office 805.464-2651 fax info@salinantribe.com www.salinantribe.com -----Original Message----- From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> To: Salinantribe <salinantribe@aol.com> Cc: Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 2:11 pm Subject: RE: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Dear Ms. Dunton- Thank you for your e-mail. We appreciate receiving your comments regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage project. We have noted your comments and they will be taken into consideration as part of the environmental review process. Rincon, the environmental consultants for the project, have informed me that an archaeological survey has been completed for the site as part 202 of the evaluation. If you have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org -----Original Message----- From: Salinantribe [mailto:salinantribe@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 12:59 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: AB 52 notices Greetings Rachel, I have reviewed the two proposed development projects. I have concerns about both projects. He first projec t is the proposed housing development at 791 Orcutt Rd. Because the property is surrounded by two creeks and undeveloped we have concerns there could be unknown resources at the location. We would like to see a phase I archaeological study be done. If the survey is positive for resources we would then request more studies be done. Any ground disturbance activities for studies or development, must be monitored by a cultural resource specialist from this tribe be on site. If there is a negative result we would request that since there maybe buried unknown resources we would request that we are able to do spot monitoring. To make sure unknown recourses such as burials are not being impacted. Now for the second project this is concerning the new Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Because of the projects location to mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and San Luis creek we realize there may also be known and unknown resources at this site. Even though most of the property has been previously disturbed there may still be intact buried resources. You would know more if resources have ever been identified at that location or not. I would request that a phase I archaeological survey be done even with the minimal ground that is not covered. And again when the asphalt is removed and any after any other demolition. This would insure intact or disturbed resources can be identified. If resources are identified then we would request that all further ground disturbing activities be monitored by a cultural resource specialist from this tribe. Thanks so much, Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator Sent from my iPhone 203 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Monday, August 7, 2017 4:57 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Attachments:Cultural Resources Inventory Report 2011.pdf Hi Rachel, Attached is a copy of the 2011 survey report. Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 11:30 AM To: Shauna Callery Subject: FW: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage FYI – see below. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties [mailto:salinantribe@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:12 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Re: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Great! Can I get a copy of the report when you receive it. Thanks, Patti Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties 7070 Morro Rd. #A Atascadero, CA 93422 805.464-2650 office 805.464-2651 fax info@salinantribe.com www.salinantribe.com 204 -----Original Message----- From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> To: Salinantribe <salinantribe@aol.com> Cc: Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 2:11 pm Subject: RE: AB 52 notices: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage Dear Ms. Dunton- Thank you for your e-mail. We appreciate receiving your comments regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage project. We have noted your comments and they will be taken into consideration as part of the environmental review process. Rincon, the environmental consultants for the project, have informed me that an archaeological survey has been completed for the site as part of the evaluation. If you have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org -----Original Message----- From: Salinantribe [mailto:salinantribe@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 12:59 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: AB 52 notices Greetings Rachel, I have reviewed the two proposed development projects. I have concerns about both projects. He first projec t is the proposed housing development at 791 Orcutt Rd. Because the property is surrounded by two creeks and undeveloped we have concerns there could be unknown resources at the location. We would like to see a phase I archaeological study be done. If the survey is positive for resources we would then request more studies be done. Any ground disturbance activities for studies or development, must be monitored by a cultural resource specialist from this tribe be on site. If there is a negative result we would request that since there maybe buried unknown resources we would request that we are able to do spot monitoring. To make sure unknown recourses such as burials are not being impacted. Now for the second project this is concerning the new Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Because of the projects location to mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and San Luis creek we realize there may also be known and unknown resources at this site. Even though most of the property has been previously disturbed there may still be intact buried resources. You would know more if resources have ever been identified at that location or not. I would request that a phase I archaeological survey be done even with the minimal ground that is not covered. And again when the asphalt is removed and any after any other demolition. This would insure intact or disturbed resources can be identified. If resources are identified then we would request that all further ground disturbing activities be monitored by a cultural resource specialist from this tribe. Thanks so much, Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator Sent from my iPhone 206 From:Lee, Scott Sent:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:31 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Check in Meeting Attachments:Palm Nipomo Information Request_2017-07-11 WITH FOLLOW UP NOTES.docx Rachel, Attached is the document sent to Michelle from Shauna, and then our comments / updates. #4 Project alternatives is the one we are still seeking clarification on from you. I think Shauna is thinking the CEQA requirements are much broader than I assume. Scott From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:05 PM To: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Check in Meeting Also please see attached for an update on open items. From: Michelle Wendler Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:03 PM To: Lee, Scott (SLee@slocity.org); Bochum, Tim (tbochum@slocity.org) Subject: Check in Meeting Hi Scott and Tim Can you call in to the number below and click the blue join the meeting link so we can share a screen during the call. Michelle Palm Nipomo Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:30 pm | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) | 1 hr Meeting number (access code): Meeting password: When it's time, join the meeting. Join by phone 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal 207 WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 watrydesign.com 208 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:58 PM To:Bochum, Tim; Lee, Scott Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo Attachments:Palm Nipomo Information Request_2017-07-11.docx Hi Scott and Tim Attached and below is an update from Shauna. I am working with Debbie on the answers that we need to give. Would you like Shauna to be on our call Thursday to discuss? Michelle From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:29 PM To: Michelle Wendler Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Michelle, The EIR is going well and we have taken it as far as we can until we get some additional information. I have attached these information needs. The first set of questions are for the City and the second set are for you or RRM. Can you please facilitate getting answers to these questions, or let me know if I should join a call with you and the City to discuss any of them? We can complete the EIR in approximately four weeks of receiving this information. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I should join in on the call with the City to review any of these items. Thanks! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 209 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 9, 2017 12:17 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo PowerPoint Attachments:Palm Nipomo Scoping Meeting Presentation_2017-05-09.pptx Hi Rachel, AƩached is a slightly shorter version of the PowerPoint. Please let me know if you would like any changes. Also, please let me know if you are planning to present any of this. Thanks! Shauna -----Original Message----- From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:04 AM To: Shauna Callery Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo PowerPoint Ok. Thanks for the heads up. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org -----Original Message----- From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:03 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo PowerPoint Hi Rachel, I am condensing a couple of the slides from the PowerPoint I sent you yesterday. I will send this over to you by noon at the latest. Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Program Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. Direct: 805-250-8513 Mobile: 805-704-5860 210 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Monday, May 8, 2017 2:31 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Lee, Scott; Michelle Wendler Subject:Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Draft Scoping Meeting Presentation Attachments:Palm Nipomo Scoping Meeting Presentation_2017-05-08.pptx Hi Rachel and Scott, Attached is a draft presentation for the Palm Nipomo Scoping Meeting. Please take a look and let me know if you would like any changes. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Project Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:14 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Lee, Scott Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Thanks Shauna. I am sending you the City’s template for presentations (please disregard the content). As you prepare your slides, please use this template. We will take your slides and add them to our presentation. My goal is to put all the slides together on Monday afternoon (Tuesday morning at the latest). The presentation will follow the staff report more or less. I have also attached a link to the website with the staff report to use as a reference. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will not be in the office on Friday, but will be back Monday. You can feel free to reach out to Scott Lee on Friday if you have any questions. Staff report: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=15345 Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org 211 T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:17 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Cc: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Good Morning, The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Initial Study/NOP package was delivered to State Clearinghouse this morning. The package contained: 15 copies of the Initial Study, 15 copies of the NOP, and one copy of the NOC. I have attached the delivery confirmation for your records. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:53 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; 'drudd@rrmdesign.com' (drudd@rrmdesign.com) Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Hi Shauna- Attached is the signed Notice of Completion. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:15 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; 'drudd@rrmdesign.com' (drudd@rrmdesign.com) <drudd@rrmdesign.com> 212 Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Importance: High Hi Rachel and Tim, Last but not least, I need to submit a Notice of Completion form with the NOP and Initial Study to State Clearinghouse. Can I get a signature on the attached form as soon as possible? Thanks! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:03 AM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; 'drudd@rrmdesign.com' (drudd@rrmdesign.com) Subject: Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Hi Shauna- Attached is the signed NOP and Initial Study for the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage. Please let me know if there is anything more you need from me in order to get the NOP out. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 213 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Monday, May 1, 2017 11:03 AM To:scallery@rinconconsultants.com Cc:Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; 'drudd@rrmdesign.com' (drudd@rrmdesign.com) Subject:Palm Nipomo Parking Garage - Signed Initial Study and NOP Attachments:Palm Nipomo Initial Study_final.docx; Palm Nipomo NOP_final.doc Hi Shauna- Attached is the signed NOP and Initial Study for the Palm Nipomo Parking Garage. Please let me know if there is anything more you need from me in order to get the NOP out. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project Initial Study prepared by City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, California 93401 April 2017 This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents Initial Study i Table of Contents Initial Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Project Title ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Lead Agency Name and Address ...................................................................................................... 3 3 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................................. 3 4 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 3 5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................................................... 3 6 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................................. 3 7 General Plan Designation ................................................................................................................. 3 8 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 6 9 Description of Project ....................................................................................................................... 6 10 Required Approvals .......................................................................................................................... 6 11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................................. 7 12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................................ 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................................. 9 Determination ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................................. 9 1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 12 2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................................... 14 3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 23 5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 27 6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 29 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................. 33 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 38 9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 44 10 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................... 48 11 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 50 12 Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 51 13 Population and Housing.................................................................................................................. 51 14 Public Service .................................................................................................................................. 58 15 Recreation....................................................................................................................................... 61 16 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 62 17 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 68 18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................ 71 References ............................................................................................................................................. 73 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 75 City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project ii Tables Table 1 Issues for Further Analysis in Environmental Impact Report ........................................... 10 Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds ................................................ 17 Table 3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Quarterly Construction Emissions................................. 19 Table 4 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Operational Emissions Comparison .............................. 20 Table 5 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................ 35 Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ......................................................... 36 Table 7 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources .................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 8 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources .......................................................................................................................... 53 Table 9 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels Not To Be Exceeded More Than Thirty Minutes in Any Hour) ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 10 Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels ....................................................... 54 Table 11 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation (Less than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment ..................................................................................... 54 Table 12 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term Operation (Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment ...................................... 55 Table 13 Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM Peak Hour) .......................... 64 Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ...............................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Site Plan ..............................................................................................................................8 Appendices Appendix A CalEEmod Air and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates Appendix B Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report Initial Study Initial Study 3 Initial Study 1 Project Title Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 2 Lead Agency Name and Address City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3 Contact Person and Phone Number Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Transportation (805) 781-7203 4 Project Location The project site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of Monterey Street. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-412-001, 002- 412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project, and Figure 2 shows the project site within the local context. 5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6 Existing Setting The project site is located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of Monterey Street. The site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments). The project site is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District. 7 General Plan Designation Office: APNs 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012 Medium-High Density Residential: APN 002-412-003 City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 4 Figure 1 Regional Location Initial Study Initial Study 5 Figure 2 Project Location City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 6 8 Zoning Office with Historic Overlay (O-H): APNs 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012 Medium-High Density Residential (R-3): APN 002-412-003 9 Description of Project The project would involve the construction of an above-ground five-level parking structure, non- profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on Nipomo Street. There would be one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each driveway. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street; however, a direct pedestrian connection would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. Pedestrian access would also be provided to public sidewalks from each corner of the structure. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street. The parking structure’s maximum height, excluding elevator towers, would be approximately 50 feet. In addition, the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre would be relocated to the site, fronting Monterey Street adjacent to the parking structure. The Little Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet. The basement level would house a rehearsal area, workshop, and storage. The main level would be comprised of a main theater with 155 seats and a smaller theater with 100 reconfigurable seats, for a total of 255 seats. The third floor would include offices and a conference room. The project would include an entry plaza fronting Monterey Street, and improved landscaping near the sidewalks along Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street. The maximum height of the theater structure would be 43 feet. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan. The project would involve the removal of the existing 77 space surface parking lot and demolition or relocation of the existing five residential structures and detached garage. The project would involve a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as deviation to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. In addition, the project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Project alternatives include the following: • Alternative 1: Same as the preferred project described above, except the 5,000 square feet of commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four residential units would be included • Alternative 2: Same as the preferred project described above, except the Little Theatre would be replaced with 22 two-bedroom residential units 10 Required Approvals The following approvals would be required for the project: Initial Study Initial Study 7  Planning Commission Use Permit approval required for multi-level parking structure, non-profit theater, commercial space, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirement  General Plan Amendment to Public Facility  Zone Change to PF-H  Maximum Coverage Variance to exceed 60 percent  Floor to Area Ratio Variance to exceed 1.0  Architectural Review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission of the proposed structures and site plan 11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The area surrounding the site is urbanized, consisting of various land uses. Adjacent parcels to the northeast are zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) and have existing residences developed on-site. Across Palm Street to the northwest is the Mission College Preparatory school athletic field, which is zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3). Across Nipomo Street to the west is the Reis Family Mortuary & Crematory, which is zoned Office with a Historic district overlay (O-H); residences zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3); and mixed commercial and residential suites zoned Downtown Commercial with a Historic District and Planned Development overlay (C-D-H-PD). Across Monterey Street to the south is the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum, which is zoned Public Facility with a Historic District overlay (PF-H), and residential units zoned Downtown Commercial with a Historic district and Special Considerations overlay (C-D-S-H). 12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required Regional Water Quality Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 8 Figure 3 Site Plan Source: Watry Design, Inc. 2017 Nipomo St Dana St Monterey St Palm St Initial Study Initial Study 9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ■ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forest Resources ■ Air Quality ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use/ Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise □ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation ■ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination Based on this initial evaluation: □ I find that the preferred project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ I find that although the preferred project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that the preferred project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ I find that the preferred project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the preferred project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the preferred project, nothing further is required. May 1, 2017 Signature Date Tyler Corey Principal Planner Printed Name Title City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 10 The following table summarizes the environmental issue areas and work scope items that will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the project. Table 1 Issues for Further Analysis in Environmental Impact Report Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact EIR Work Scope Item Aesthetics Degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings The project would increase the size and scale of development on the site, which is located in the historic district. The EIR shall evaluate the potential visual impacts of the project on the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. Recommendations shall be developed to reduce identified visual impacts. General design guidelines shall be identified to assist the City in terms of design features and elements of the project to assure visual compatibility with the surrounding area. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area The EIR shall evaluate the new sources of light and glare from car headlights and area lighting. General design guidelines shall be identified to assist the City in terms of design and lighting features and elements of the project to assure that lighting and glare associated with the preferred project would be compatible with adjacent and surrounding uses. Cultural Resources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource The EIR shall evaluate potential impacts to historic structures and cultural resources, as well as impacts to the historic district. The EIR will analyze impacts to these resources in further detail and recommend mitigation measures. Noise Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards; substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project The project would be surrounded by noise sensitive uses, and the impact of project operations on ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors shall be evaluated in the EIR. Sound level measurements shall be taken on the project site and the level of significance shall be determined using the City’s noise level thresholds. In addition, the project would generate traffic that would contribute to noise levels in the project area that could exceed City thresholds. The EIR shall quantify the increase in vehicle noise levels resulting from project-generated traffic at sensitive receptors along Palm Street, Nipomo Street and Monterey Street and determine the level of significance based on the City’s noise level thresholds. The EIR shall identify any mitigation necessary to reduce significant noise impacts to less than significant levels. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project The EIR shall quantify the level of construction noise based on anticipated construction equipment. The level of construction noise generated by the project shall be compared to the City’s applicable noise level thresholds to determine the level of significance. The EIR shall identify any mitigation necessary to reduce significant temporary construction noise impacts to the extent feasible. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant A traffic analysis shall be prepared for the EIR. The traffic analysis shall contain an evaluation of project impacts on study area roadway segments and intersections under both existing + project and cumulative + project conditions, as well as impacts related to overall vehicle miles traveled generated by the project. Impacts, including any potential secondary impacts from required circulation system Initial Study Initial Study 11 Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact EIR Work Scope Item components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities improvements, will be described and mitigation measures shall be identified as necessary. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 12 Environmental Checklist 1 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista □ □ ■ □ b. Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ■ □ □ □ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area ■ □ □ □ Setting San Luis Obispo is located on predominantly undulating topography, with low hillsides rising from drainages and creeks. The overall landform of the City and its surroundings is generally defined by the convergence of the Chorro and the Los Osos Valleys. A series of low, visually distinct mountain peaks, such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis, separate the two valleys and provide a scenic focal point for much of the City. The Cuesta Ridge and Santa Lucia Mountains border the Chorro Valley to the north and east, while the Irish Hills border the Los Osos Valley to the southwest. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of this region and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The visual boundaries to the south and southeast are distant and are defined by low hills rising up from valleys. Development in the region occurs predominantly at the lesser elevations and on the low hills. The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the downtown planning area. The visual environment surrounding the site is urbanized, consisting of various land uses. These uses include, residential units, commercial and mixed-use development, the Mission College Preparatory school athletic field, and the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum. The project site and adjacent parcels to the east, west, and south are located within the City’s Historic Overlay. The site currently contains urban development including a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments). The site is not located within a City General Plan designated scenic vista or along a designated scenic highway; however the site is located near U.S. Highway 101, which is eligible for scenic highway designation. Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Initial Study 13 Discussion a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The site is not located in a City General Plan designated scenic vista. Neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings in a state scenic highway? The nearest highway is U.S. Highway 101, designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation. Due to the height of the parking structure and theater, the project may be visible from Highway 101; however, this segment has not been designated as a state scenic highway; thus, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would damage scenic views. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project site is located in the City’s Downtown Planning area, adjacent to the Downtown Core (City of San Luis Obispo 2014). It is also located in a Historical Overlay district. The site currently contains urban development including a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments). The preferred project and alternatives would involve the removal of the existing parking lot, detached garage, and residential structures, and the construction of a five-story parking structure, commercial space, and theater or residential units. Therefore, while the project and project alternatives would be visually compatible with the existing urban environment of the site and the surrounding area, they would increase the size and scale of development and change the uses on the project site. The project would require a General Plan amendment/Zone Change to Public/Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as deviation to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. In addition, the project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. The increase in size and scale of development on the project site and the sensitivity of the project site within the Downtown Historic District could result in potential impacts to the visual character of the site. The change to the site’s visual character is a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed further in the EIR. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would introduce new lighting from car headlights and for parking and pedestrian ways and lighting for the commercial space, theater, and/or residential units. Such lighting could create new sources of light or glare. While the project site is located in an urban area where substantial nighttime lighting currently exists, the increased height of the proposed structure and the proximity to residential uses could result in light spillover and additional glare that could result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, the change to the site’s lighting is a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed further in the EIR. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 14 2 Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land. This includes the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, along with the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract □ □ □ ■ c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) □ □ □ ■ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use □ □ □ ■ e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■ Setting The San Luis Obispo Area Plan (County of San Luis Obispo 2014) designates the Agriculture land use category as areas that have existing or potential agricultural production capability. A large portion of the greater San Luis Obispo area is designated for agriculture, which almost entirely surrounds the urbanized area within City limits. Because the project site is located within City limits, the San Luis Obispo Area Plan does not provide designations for the project site. The project site is not located on an existing or Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forest Resources Initial Study 15 potential agricultural production area as provided for in the City’s zoning code (San Luis Obispo Land Use Element 2014). Discussion a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and residential structures. The project site does not contain any agricultural resources, land identified for potential agricultural production, lands designated as or zoned for agricultural use, or lands under a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, no timberland land exists on the project site. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources or forest land would occur as a result of the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or 2. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 16 3 Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan □ □ □ ■ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation □ ■ □ □ c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) □ ■ □ □ d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations □ ■ □ □ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people □ □ □ ■ Setting The City of San Luis Obispo falls within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) and is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin. SLOAPCD monitors air pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or as “non-attainment.” SLOAPCD is in non-attainment for the 24-hour state standard for particulate matter (PM10) and the eight hour state standard for ozone (O3) (SLOAPCD 2015). The major sources of PM10 in the SCCAB are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust produced by high winds. Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust; mineral extraction and production; combustion products from industry and motor vehicles; smoke from open burning; paved and unpaved roads; condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid or solid particles; and wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction, agricultural operations, off-road vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. In the SCCAB, the major sources of ROGs are motor vehicles, organic solvents, the petroleum industry, and pesticides. The major sources of NOx are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (SLOAPCD 2015). Environmental Checklist Air Quality Initial Study 17 Construction Emissions Thresholds The SLOAPCD has developed specific daily and quarterly numeric thresholds that apply to projects within the SCCAB. Daily thresholds are for projects that would be completed in less than one quarter (90 days). The SLOAPCD’s quarterly construction thresholds are applicable to the project because construction would last for more than one quarter. Thresholds are based on guidance in the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012). These include: ROG and NOX Emissions • Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction equipment. If implementation of the Standard Mitigation and BACT measures cannot bring the project below the threshold, off-site mitigation may be necessary; and • Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 6.3 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), and off-site mitigation. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions • Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 0.13 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT for construction equipment; and • Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the 0.32 ton per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a CAMP, and off-site mitigation. Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust Emissions • Quarterly: Exceedance of the 2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP. Operational Emissions Thresholds SLOAPCD‘s long-term operational emission thresholds are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds Pollutant Daily Threshold Annual Threshold ROG + NOX (combined)1 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 1.25 lbs/day --- Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year CO 550 lbs/day --- Source: SLOAPCD 2012 1 SLOAPCD specifies that CalEEMod winter emission outputs be compared to operational thresholds for these pollutants. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 18 Discussion a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), project-level environmental reviews that may require consistency analysis with the Clean Air Plan and Smart/Strategic Growth Principles adopted by lead agencies include: subdivisions, large residential developments and large commercial/industrial developments. Neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 is a subdivision or large residential project, and would not be considered a large commercial or industrial development according to the screening criteria set forth in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 has the potential to be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan or Smart/Strategic Growth Principles. In addition, the project is considered infill development located within an existing urban area, which are land use strategies supported by the SLOAPCD Clean Air Plan (2001) policies, including:  Cities and unincorporated communities should be developed at higher densities that reduce trips and travel distances and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation  Urban growth should occur within the urban reserve lines of cities and unincorporated communities (Clean Air Plan L-1 Planning Compact Communities) The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no impact with respect to a conflict with or obstruction to implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As of September 2011, SLOAPCD recommends the use of the most recent version of California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (version 2016.3.1) to calculate construction and operational emissions of a project. The CalEEMod results for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 can be found in Appendix A. The emissions model for the preferred project was based on build out of the proposed 445 parking space structure, 255 seat theater, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Alternative 1 was based on build out of the proposed 445 parking space structure, 255 seat theater, 2,500 square feet of commercial space, and four residential units. Alternative 2 was based on build out of the 445 parking space structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 22 two bedroom residential units. Trip rates for the commercial space, parking structure, and Little Theatre were obtained from the Traffic Study prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (2017). Default trip rates for the residential units were obtained from CalEEMod. The emissions model for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 assumes a maximum area of disturbance of 1.4 acres (the total size of the project site). In addition, it assumes a net 5,700 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site. Construction Impacts Construction activities would generate fugitive dust particles, ozone precursors, and diesel exhaust that could result in an increase in criteria pollutants and could also contribute to the existing San Luis Obispo County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Sensitive receptors near the project site include adjacent residences to the south and east, the Mission College Preparatory School athletic field to the north, residences across Nipomo Street to the west, and residences and the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum to the south. Table 3 summarizes the estimated project emissions generated from construction Environmental Checklist Air Quality Initial Study 19 activities. Maximum quarterly emissions are shown in Table 3 (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod results), and compared to the applicable SLOAPCD construction emissions thresholds Table 3 also shows estimated construction emissions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 to the project. Table 3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Quarterly Construction Emissions ROG and NOX (combined)1 Fugitive PM10 (dust) DPM2 Preferred Project Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter Alternative 1 Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter Alternative 2 Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter SLOAPCD Significance Threshold 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 0.13 tons/quarter (Tier 1) Threshold Exceeded? No No No 1. The combined ROG and NOX emissions were derived from the rolling maximum quarterly emissions for “ROG + NOX” from CalEEMod. 2. The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM. See Appendix A for CalEEMod software program output. Quarterly emissions for Fugitive PM10 and DPM were calculated by dividing maximum annual construction emissions from CalEEMod by 4, since construction activities would extend for a duration exceeding 90 days, as recommended by SLOAPCD. As shown in Table 3, the preferred project would not exceed SLOAPCD quarterly construction emissions for ROG and NOX, PM10, or DPM. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in similar construction emissions to the preferred project, and would not exceed applicable SLOAPCD quarterly construction emissions thresholds. In accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors (Mission College Preparatory Academy, existing residential units and San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum) are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the SCCAB is in non-attainment for PM10. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. Construction impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Operational Impacts The project and alternatives would result in an increase in vehicle trips that would generate new criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, operation of the project and alternatives would result in ongoing emissions associated with natural gas use and area sources, such as landscaping, consumption of consumer products, and off gassing from architectural coatings. Table 4 shows the daily and annual operational emissions associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod results and assumptions), compared to the applicable SLOAPCD operational emissions thresholds. Operational emissions from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not exceed the applicable SLOAPCD operational emissions thresholds. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 20 Table 4 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Operational Emissions Comparison ROG and NOX (combined) Fugitive PM10 (dust) DPM1 CO Preferred Project Daily Emissions 6.2 lbs/day 2.0 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 11.1 lbs/day Alternative 1 Daily Emissions 6.2 lbs/day 1.9 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 11.1 lbs/day Alternative 2 Daily Emissions 3.4 lbs/day 1.2 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 7.2 lbs/day SLOAPCD Daily Threshold 25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Preferred Project Annual Emissions 0.8 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.3 tons/year Alternative 1 Annual Emissions 0.8 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.4 tons/year Alternative 2 Annual Emissions 0.6 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.6 tons/year SLOAPCD Annual Threshold 25 tons/year 25 tons/year n/a n/a Threshold Exceeded? No No n/a n/a 1 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM. CalEEMod – use winter operational emission data to compare to operational thresholds. As shown in Table 4, area source and operational emissions associated with the preferred project and Alternative 1 and 2 would not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, or DPM. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor the alternatives exceed applicable SLOAPCD operational air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation. Operational emissions associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. Sensitive Receptors While the estimated construction emissions associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be below the SLOAPCD thresholds and would not introduce new hazardous air pollutants to the area, in accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors (Mission College Preparatory Academy, existing residential units and San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum) are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the South Central Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM10. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be required for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction emissions associated with the preferred project or Alternative 1 or 2 and to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. AQ -1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds Environmental Checklist Air Quality Initial Study 21 exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible; • All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114; • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible; • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off- road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 22 • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Electrify equipment when feasible; • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel. AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: • Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible; • Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and • Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm AQ-2(c) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook (2012) identifies typical land uses that have the potential to result in increases in odorous emissions and provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses in close proximity to these uses. None of the uses proposed under the preferred project or alternatives, including a parking garage, commercial, theater, or residential uses, are listed as uses project that typically create objectionable odors. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor the alternatives would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No impact related to objectionable odors from the project or Alternatives 1 or 2 would result. Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Initial Study 23 4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service □ □ □ ■ b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service □ □ □ ■ c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means □ □ □ ■ d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites □ ■ □ □ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance □ □ ■ □ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■ Setting This region of San Luis Obispo County falls within the Outer South Coast Ranges geographic subdivision of California. The Outer South Coast Ranges subdivision contains an array of vegetation community types City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 24 that range from southern oak forest, blue-oak/foothill-pine woodland and chaparral to grasslands and agricultural/urbanized areas. The Outer South Coast Ranges subdivision is part of the larger South Coast Ranges geographic sub-region, which is a component of the even larger Central Western California physiographic area. The section of the state that is designated as CW occurs within the cismontane side of California, which is more generally referred to as the California Floristic Province (CA-FP – Hickman 1993). The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code Section 703-711) protects all migratory birds, their nests and eggs against take, possession, or destruction. The MBTA was enacted in 1918 and is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Abiding by the MBTA requires that active nests be avoided. Discussion a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife or sensitive plant or animal species (City of San Luis Obispo 2006; California Natural Diversity Database 2016). Thus, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no impact. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no impact to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community from the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or 2. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not contain federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and therefore would not have a substantial adverse effect on such resources. There would be no impact to federally protected wetlands. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife and the surrounding urban uses would act as barriers to wildlife movement. It is not located in any wildlife corridors or potential wildlife corridors identified within the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). However, trees on the site may support nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The removal of trees and general construction activity may Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Initial Study 25 affect protected nesting birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to protect nesting birds. Impacts to migratory bird species would be potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure, and compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements, would be required for the preferred project or Alternative 1 or 2 to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. BIO-1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The Conservation and Open Space Element has a policy that pertains to significant trees. Section 7.5.1 states that significant trees that are making substantial contributions to the natural habitat or urban landscape based on their species, size or rarity, shall be protected. The project site currently includes a large oak tree. This tree has the potential to be recognized as a “significant tree” by the City Council Tree Committee because it may potentially be recognized as a native tree and/or because of its size, historical significance, etc. as determined by the City Council’s Tree Committee. Current project design includes the preservation of the identified oak tree on the southeastern edge of the site as well as existing trees on the southern corner where Nipomo Street and Monterey Street converge. If any existing trees on the site were to be identified as a ‘significant tree,’ and the project were to determine the tree would need to be destroyed, removal of the tree would be subject to criteria and mitigation requirements set forth in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 8.6.3. With existing city ordinances and preservation of the large oak tree on site, the conflicts with local policies or ordinances would be less than significant for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site does not occur within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state Habitat Conservation Plan City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 26 (California Department of Fish and Game 2016). The project site does not occur within the designated Greenbelt Zone for the City. No impact would occur. Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources Initial Study 27 5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □ c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries ■ □ □ □ e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 ■ □ □ □ Applied Earthworks prepared a Cultural Resources Study in 2011. The 2011 investigation included a records search, archival and historical research, field survey of the property, predictive modeling of archaeological resources, evaluation of any potentially significant historic structures on the property, and assessment of potential impacts to the surrounding Downtown Historic District. This section is based on the information and findings of this report. Setting According to the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010), archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including Chumash) have inhabited the Central Coast since as early as 10,000 B.C. The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was established. Late in the 19th Century, San Luis Obispo became a stop on the Southern Pacific Railroad, closing the gap between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The railroad brought industry to the region and accelerated the growth of the community. Cultural and historic resources from each period still shape the setting of San Luis Obispo today. The project site is located within the Historic Overlay in the downtown region of San Luis Obispo. It is also recognized as a Cultural Facilities Area (Land Use Element 2014). City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 28 Discussion a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The project site is currently developed with a paved parking lot, five residences, and a detached garage. The Cultural Resource Survey determined that residences at 633 and 633 ½ are not located within the Downtown Historic Preservation District nor are the structures considered historic or eligible to be designated as historic. However, the Cultural Resources Inventory determined that the two residences, located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, are contributors to the Downtown Historic District and provide essential continuity along a historic streetscape. The current project design includes the removal or demolition of these two historically contributing residences. In addition, the detached garage on the 610 Monterey Street property would be demolished as part of the preferred project and alternatives, which is a contributing element to the historic district. Impacts to these historic resources are potentially significant, and will be further analyzed in an EIR. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? According to the 2011 Cultural Resources Inventory Report, subsurface archaeological deposits exist throughout the city, including areas adjacent to the project site. Archaeological features in the general area, and overall site integrity is anticipated to be good. Three archeological sites have been identified previously within or immediately adjacent to the current project area. In addition, archaeological investigations for a project approximately 1/8 mile east of the project site found significant Native American deposits present along a long stretch of Palm Street on the side opposite the mission; it is unclear whether that deposit extends into the current project area. The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and residential structures. According to the 2011 Cultural Resources Inventory Report, however, because only six structures and the surface lot have ever existed on the project site, it is quite likely that any subsurface cultural remains are intact. Therefore, ground disturbing construction activities have the potential to encounter or disturb undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains. If encountered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed. Adherence to Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code would protect any previously unidentified buried human remains. In addition, the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) would need to be followed if the remains are determined to be Native American. Impacts to such resources from implementation of the project would be potentially significant, and will be analyzed in the EIR. e. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? The project site is located within an established urban area and is currently developed. Tribal cultural resources can include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Though no known tribal cultural resources have been identified on the project site as described by Public Resources Code Section 21074.a(1), the project may cause substantial adverse change to historic residences along Monterey Street pursuant to Section 21084.1, thus impacts to a tribal cultural resource are potentially significant, and will be further analyzed in the EIR. Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils Initial Study 29 6 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: □ □ ■ □ 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault □ □ ■ □ 2. Strong seismic ground shaking □ □ ■ □ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction □ □ ■ □ 4. Landslides □ □ ■ □ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil □ □ ■ □ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse □ ■ □ □ d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property □ ■ □ □ e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater □ □ □ ■ A Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment (Geotechnical Report) was prepared for the project site by Earth Systems Pacific in 2011 (Appendix B). The purpose of this study was to assess the major geotechnical issues that could potentially affect the project by providing information regarding general site characteristics and identification of geotechnical characteristics that could represent a conflict to development. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 30 Setting San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. There are no known fault lines on the site or in the immediate vicinity. The Los Osos, Hosgri, and San Andreas faults are considered to be the most significant regionally active faults that could affect the project site during its anticipated lifespan. The closest active fault to the site is the Los Osos Fault which lies approximately 2.5 miles southwest. At this distance, there is only a very low potential for ground rupture to occur on site due to nearby active faults (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). The City is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code and City Codes. The site is relatively flat with no significant slopes on or immediately adjacent to the site. The site is not subject to geological hazards including landslides and slope instability (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Based on the Geotechnical Report, the site is generally suitable for development. The soils consist of alluvial sediments overlying bedrock, with a potential for expansion. The soils are comprised of laterally discontinuous zones of sandy clay, clay, and clayey gravel extending to depths of 25 to 40 feet below the surface. The consistency of the clay soils is medium to very hard. The alluvium is underlain by weak to moderately strong shale bedrock of the Franciscan Formation. The subsurface clayey soils contain interbedded layers of sand. Discussion a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Although no faults have been mapped across the project site, seismic events caused by active and potentially active faults in the region could result in seismic ground shaking on-site. The City, along with all of Southern California and the Central Coast, is within Seismic Zone 4 and subject to seismic ground shaking from faults in the region. A seismic hazard cannot be completely avoided in these regions. However, effects can be minimized by implementing requirements specified in the California Building Code (incorporates the Uniform Building Code) and the California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 (revised 2008), which includes design and construction requirements related to fire safety, life safety, and structural safety. Compliance with existing building standards would ensure impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 remain less than significant. a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site determined that the potential for liquefaction on- site is very low to none, due to the density of the clay and granular soils, as well as the discontinuous nature of the potentially liquefiable layers (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Therefore, impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils Initial Study 31 a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2012), the project site is not located in an area that would be subject to high or moderate potential for landslides. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Report found the potential for landslides or slope instability on-site to be very low (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Therefore, impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The soils on the project site are classified as Los Osos-Diablo complex soils, with 5-9 percent slopes. This soil type is considered well drained and has a low to moderate susceptibility to erosion (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). The project site gently slopes toward the northwest and subsurface water was encountered at depths ranging from 23 to 34 feet (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Both temporary construction impacts and long-term operational impacts are discussed below. Construction Impacts The project would require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activities because the project would involve clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one or more acres of total land area. Under the conditions of the permit, the City would be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for project construction activities, and perform inspections of the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the SWPPP. Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit would ensure that construction-related erosion impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. Operational Impacts The soil type on-site (Los Osos-Diablo complex soils) is considered well drained (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Because the majority of the existing project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would mimic current drainage patterns. The runoff generated by the proposed parking structure would be collected by a storm drain system and would not result in new on-site erosion issues. No off-site water currently drains onto the site, and there are no existing storm drain facilities on-site. Given the gently sloping topography, the drainage characteristics of on-site soils, and presence of impervious surfaces, neither the preferred project nor the alternatives would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? According to the Geotechnical Report, expansion index testing on a composite of two soil samples yielded a value of 87. A value of 87 indicates that soils anticipated at proposed excavation depths are moderate to highly expansive. Expansive soils tend to swell with seasonal increases in soil moisture and shrink during the dry season, as soil moisture decreases. The Geotechnical Report determined that the existing fill located on-site would not be a suitable foundation for the proposed development. In addition, the Geotechnical Report also determined that soils on-site have the potential for total and differential settlement. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1(a) would be required to reduce impacts associated with City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 32 the preferred project or Alternative 1 or 2 to a less than significant level. These impacts are therefore potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to a less than significant level. GEO-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to on- site soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: • Use of imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork • A layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick • Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade • Shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls • Overexcavation and recompaction • Utilization of a deep foundation system, such as caissons, driven piles, or rammed aggregate piers A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would require a septic system or any alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Initial Study 33 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases □ □ ■ □ Setting Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits the earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include fossil fuel burning (coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane generated by landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased over by 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition. Changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission 2009). CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory direction for the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions appearing in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The 1,150 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) threshold is based on emission target set out by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board. Emissions from projects that exceed the 1,150 MT CO2e/yr. Bright-Line Threshold could still be found less than cumulatively significant if the project as a whole would result in a GHG efficiency of 4.9 MT CO2e per service population per year. If projects as City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 34 proposed exceed both thresholds, they would be required to implement mitigation measures to bring them below the 1,150 MT CO2e/yr. Bright-Line Threshold or within the 4.9 MT CO2e per Service Population Efficiency Threshold. A project’s GHG emissions could also be found less than significant if they comply with a qualified GHG reduction strategy. Methodology Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98.9 percent of all GHG emissions by volume (IPCC 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would emit in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, CFCs, and SF6, which are primarily associated with industrial processes, were also considered for the analysis. However, because the project is a residential/commercial development, the quantity of fluorinated gases would not be significant. Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2 (CO2e). Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change white paper (2008) and included the use of the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (2009). GHG emissions associated with the project were calculated using the most recent version of CalEEMod (version 2016.3.1) (Appendix A). Construction Emissions Although construction activity is addressed in this analysis, CAPCOA does not discuss whether any of the suggested threshold approaches adequately address impacts from temporary construction activity. As stated in the CEQA and Climate Change white paper, “more study is needed to make this assessment or to develop separate thresholds for construction activity” (CAPCOA 2008). Nevertheless, air districts such as the SLOAPCD (2012) have recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over the life of the project; SLOAPCD suggests the life of a project is typically 50 years for residential projects and 25 years for commercial projects. The project includes commercial uses; therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of construction emissions, emissions were amortized over the shorter project lifetime estimate of 25 years. Construction of the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of operation of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. This analysis assumes 5,700 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site. CalEEMod provides an estimate of emissions associated with the construction period, based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated construction. Operational Emissions CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Emissions from energy use include emissions from electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are based on the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and California Climate Action Registry. Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CalEEMod User Guide 2016). The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the California Energy Commission-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies. Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from ARB, U.S. EPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CalEEMod User Guide 2016). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Initial Study 35 User Guide 2016). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the California Energy Commission’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California. For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site were quantified using CalEEMod. Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (Appendix A provides calculations). Rates for N2O emissions were based on the vehicle fleet mix output generated by CalEEMod and the emission factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. Discussion a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) would result in new GHG emissions from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. CalEEMod was used to calculate emissions resulting from the preferred project (and alternatives) construction and long-term operation. Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period of time in relation to the overall life of the project. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over a 25-year period to determine the annual construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the project. Table 5 shows construction emissions for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2, which are the same. As shown in Table 5, the construction would result in an annualized average of approximately 16 MT CO2e/yr. Table 6 shows the preferred project’s total annual GHG emissions, including operational emissions and annualized construction emissions. In addition, Table 6 shows the estimated GHG emissions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 5 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year Preferred Project and Alternatives 1 and 2 Construction Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) Total 399 Total Amortized over 25 Years 16 See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 36 Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) Construction 16 Operational Area <1 Energy 474 Solid Waste 2 Water 10 Mobile CO2 and CH4 258 N2O1 14 Preferred Project Total GHG Emissions 774 MT CO2e/yr Alternative 1 Total GHG Emissions 765 MT CO2e/yr Alternative 2 Total GHG Emissions 666 MT CO2e/yr GHG Emissions Threshold 1,150 MT CO2e/yr Exceeds Threshold? NO 1. N2O output is not calculated by CalEEMod. See NOx from Mobile Worksheet in Appendix A See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets. As shown in Table 6, the project is estimated to produce approximately 774 metric tons of CO2e per year. The project’s annualized GHG emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s GHG emissions threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e. Therefore, the projects impacts would be less than significant. As shown in Table 6, Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in similar GHG emissions to the project, and similarly would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s GHG emissions threshold. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan In 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its Climate Action Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan identifies strategies to guide the development and implementation of GHG reduction measures in the City of San Luis Obispo and quantifies the emissions reductions that result from these strategies. In addition to addressing strategies to reduce GHG emissions, the Climate Action Plan includes adaptation measures to improve the City’s ability to address the potential impacts that climate change may have on the City and its residents. The Climate Action Plan enables the City to maintain local control of implementing state direction (AB 32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. GHG reduction strategies align with existing General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan. Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Initial Study 37 Senate Bill 32 On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, which requires the State to reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 is an extension of AB 32. SB 32 extends AB 32, directing ARB to ensure that GHGs are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. The other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged. The project would be in operation before the SB 32 horizon. The California Air Resources Board is currently working to update the Scoping Plan to provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The updated Scoping Plan is expected to be completed and adopted by the California Air Resources Board in 2016 (California Air Resources Board 2015). As part of the analysis in checklist question a, the project would not result in new significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. As the applicable GHG thresholds have been developed by SLOAPCD, and the project would not exceed the adopted GHG thresholds, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with applicable policies to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 38 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials □ □ ■ □ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment □ □ ■ □ c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school □ □ ■ □ d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ ■ □ □ e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area □ □ □ ■ f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area □ □ □ ■ g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan □ □ ■ □ h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands □ □ ■ □ Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials Initial Study 39 A hazardous materials assessment for the project site was prepared in April 2011 by Earth Systems Pacific (Appendix B). Additionally, a constraints-level Environmental Assessment report was conducted in 2005. The information contained in the 2005 study was incorporated by reference into the hazardous materials assessment conducted in April 2011. Setting Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. Federal Many agencies regulate hazardous substances. These include federal agencies such as the U.S. EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation, and the National Institute of Health. The following are federal laws and guidelines governing hazardous substances: • Federal Water Pollution Control Act • Clean Air Act • Occupational Safety and Health Act • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act • Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards • Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act • Safe Drinking Water Act • Toxic Substances Control Act At the federal level, the principal agency regulating the generation, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances is the U.S. EPA, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The U.S. EPA regulates hazardous substance sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Applicable federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). State The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services establish rules governing the use of hazardous substances. The State Water Resources Control Board has primary responsibility to protect water quality and supply. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 40 Applicable State laws include the following: • Porter Cologne Water Quality Act • Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes • Hazardous Substance Control Law • Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act • Hazardous Substances Release Response Plans and Inventory Act • Air Toxics Hot Spots and Emissions Inventory Law • Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act Within CalEPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, formerly the Department of Health Services, has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state agency, for the generation, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law. State regulations applicable to hazardous substances are indexed in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Discussion a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The preferred project includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Operational activities associated with the preferred project and alternatives would not require the routine storage or transport of hazardous substances. Similarly, neither the preferred project nor alternatives would include any activities that would create a hazard to the public through upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, the preferred project and either of the alternatives would involve the removal or demolition of five residential units and a detached garage that were constructed between 1927 and 1957. Due to their age, these existing structures may contain asbestos and lead. Demolition and transport of materials from these structures could result in health hazard impacts to workers if the structures are not remediated prior to construction activities. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the U.S. EPA in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor. Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials Initial Study 41 Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing asbestos-containing building material removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified asbestos-containing building material removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a sensitive use, the existing Mission College Preparatory (Mission Prep) School. However, as discussed under Impacts a and b, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 includes uses that would result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Based on the results of a government database records search, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Cortese database identified one site located within one-eighth mile from the project site at 748 Pismo Street. This site is listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site where cleanup has been completed. Due to the closed status of hazardous materials case at this site, it would not affect the project site. In addition, the RWQCB identified one historical LUST site located within one-eighth mile of the project site at 641 Higuera Street. Due to the closed status of hazardous materials case at this site, it would not affect the project site. However, according to the hazardous materials assessment in the Geotechnical Report, archived documents at the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department indicate that the previous use of the site as a welding/automobile repair shop contained several areas of oil-stained soil, a dry well, and a hydraulic lift (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). It is unknown whether or not soil sampling was conducted at the time of removal of these features and there is a potential that these or other undocumented buried features would be encountered during excavation. Furthermore, soil samples taken (in 2005) at three and four feet indicate the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons in quantities that exceed City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department action levels. The presence of nickel and chromium were also detected, although the concentrations were below actionable levels. Because the preferred project, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would require excavation and removal of existing fill based on the geotechnical analysis, construction activities could result in potential health impacts to workers exposed to on-site soils. Therefore, Mitigation City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 42 Measure HAZ-1 would be required to reduce impacts associated with the preferred project, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to a less than significant level. HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City should review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio- remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or in two miles of a public use airport or airstrip. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would result. g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project would involve the removal of the existing parking lot, detached garage, and residential structures and the construction of a parking structure, commercial space, and theater (and residential units under Alternatives 1 and 2). Construction of neither the preferred project nor Alternative 1 or 2 would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required to comply Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials Initial Study 43 with San Luis Obispo Fire Department specifications and Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code. Impacts would be less than significant. h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is surrounded by urban development and no wildlands are in the vicinity of the project site. According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is not located in an area considered at risk for wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts would occur. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 44 9 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements □ □ ■ □ b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □ d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite □ □ ■ □ e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff □ □ ■ □ f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality □ □ ■ □ g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map □ □ ■ □ h. Place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows □ □ ■ □ Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality Initial Study 45 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam □ □ □ ■ j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow □ □ □ ■ Setting Drainage Patterns The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, which drains an area of approximately 84 square miles, including the City of San Luis Obispo and its surrounding hills, mountains, and valleys. According to the San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan (WMP), average seasonal precipitation in the City of San Luis Obispo is approximately 21 inches. Because the City is part of a coastal watershed, it is subject to wide ranges in precipitation from droughts to heavy storms. Flooding Flooding within the San Luis Obispo Creek system is generally caused by intense Pacific storm systems that occur during the months of December, January, February, and March. The great topographic variability of the watershed causes these systems to drop large amounts of precipitation, especially along the higher ridgelines. The Irish Hills, cresting at about 1,650 feet in elevation, can experience twice the rainfall observed in the lower portions of the watershed. San Luis Obispo Creek can respond very quickly to short, high intensity rainfall bursts. Floods in San Luis Obispo Creek tend to be of high magnitude and relatively short duration. Water Quality According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, San Luis Obispo Creek is on the 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for pathogens. Urban stormwater runoff and agricultural runoff are identified as the primary sources of pathogens to the creek. To address pathogen levels the Central Coast Water Board adopted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for pathogens in the San Luis Obispo Creek, which went into effect July 2005. In 2010, two San Luis Obispo Creek tributaries, Stenner Creek and Prefumo Creek, were added to the TMDL as impaired waters for pathogens. The TMDL implementation schedule calls for achieving pathogen levels in San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries by 2015. A Water Quality report created in 2013 stated that TMDL targets for pathogens in San Luis Obispo Creek are not being met in the urban boundary and downstream of urban boundary. The City of San Luis Obispo is tasked to evaluate implementation of additional stormwater management practices to reduce and/or eliminate bacteria discharge associated with the tunnelized portion of San Luis Obispo Creek, which runs under the city’s business district (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Report Card 2013). The project site is roughly 200 feet from the San Luis Obispo Creek. Groundwater quality in the San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin has been reduced in part due to the degradation of surface waters in San Luis Obispo Creek. Groundwater in the unconfined aquifers within the basin contains high levels of nitrates, iron, manganese, and organic compounds. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 46 Discussion a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The protection of water quality is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB, and the preferred project would be required to comply with all state and federal requirements pertaining to the preservation of water quality. As previously discussed, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required when a site involves clearing, grading, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one or more acres of total land area. Coverage under the General Permit must also be obtained prior to construction and the preferred project is subject to these requirements. Under the conditions of the permit, the City, as the project applicant, would be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project construction activities, and perform inspections of the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the site SWPPP. The state permit prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water discharges, and prohibits all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established at 40 CFR 117.3 or 40 CFR 302.4. The state permit also specifies that construction activities must meet all applicable provisions of Sections 30 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Conformance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act would ensure that the preferred project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In addition, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required to comply with the City’s and RWQCB’s Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. To demonstrate compliance, a Stormwater Control Plan is required to be submitted for the project. Based on compliance with existing regulations, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and potential impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residences, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Because the current use of the site is developed, the preferred project would not result in additional impervious surface area. The preferred project would also mimic existing on-site drainage patterns. Therefore, the net change in impervious surfaces would not increase and existing drainage patterns would remain the same, the preferred project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. In addition, the preferred project and alternatives would not interfere with groundwater on-site, due to the depth of groundwater (Earth Systems Pacific 2011), and only two percent of the City’s water supply comes from groundwater sources. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would substantially deplete groundwater supply, and impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality Initial Study 47 c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including by altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite? d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite? e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, due to the existing City-owned parking lot, five residences, and detached garage. In addition, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would utilize existing drainage infrastructure. As previously mentioned, no net change in impervious surfaces would occur and the existing drainage patterns would remain the same. In addition, neither the preferred project nor alternatives would result in substantial new sources of stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff rates would be similar to existing conditions and existing stormwater infrastructure would be utilized. Impacts to the existing drainage patterns and drain infrastructure associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Would the project place in a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? The western edge of the project site is within a 100-year flood zone, as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ID 06079C1068F. According to the map, however, the flood elevation is 188 feet, which is two feet below finish floor for the lowest level of the proposed structure (RRM Design 2017). Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 and 2 would place housing in a 100-year flood hazard or impede or redirect flood flows. No impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur. i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding including that occurs as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is located 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean with elevations ranging between 190 and 203 feet above sea level. The project site is not located in a dam inundation area or Tsunami Inundation Zone, as designated by San Luis Obispo County. The potential for a tsunami to affect the site is nil (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). The closest open body of water to the site is Laguna Lake, located approximately 1.63 miles west and separated by Cerro San Luis and associated topography. Given the distance from Laguna Lake and the terrain that exists between the site and the lake, no seiche impact would occur. No impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur with respect to flooding as a result of levee or dam failure, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 48 10 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Physically divide an established community □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect □ □ ■ □ c. Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan □ □ □ ■ Setting The City has approximately 46,117 residents (California Department of Finance 2016), and covers roughly 13 square miles. Primary land uses include residential development at a low to moderate density, professional services, government facilities, and general retail. The core of the City constitutes a compact urban form, including a downtown area and distinct surrounding neighborhoods. The City is surrounded by a green belt, which defines a separation of urban uses within the City and rural uses outside of the City. Regulatory Setting The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo. The following regulatory framework includes policies identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center that apply to the project. San Luis Obispo City General Plan Land Use Element (2014). The following Land Use Element policies would apply to the preferred project: 4.10 Parking. The city shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside the core, and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers and clients. San Luis Obispo City General Plan Circulation Element (2014). The following Circulation Element policies would apply to the preferred project: 13.2.4 Public Parking Structures. The city shall only approve construction of additional parking structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study. The Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center (Downtown Plan 2016). This plan calls for the project area to be developed with cultural facility uses fronting Monterey Street, retail uses fronting Nipomo Street, and a parking structure use fronting Palm Street. The plan also recommends that vehicle congestion in the Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning Initial Study 49 downtown be minimized by locating parking facilities at the core’s periphery along key streets that enter the City. Discussion a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project or alternatives would be located on a developed parcel within an urban setting and would not divide an established community. No impact associated with the preferred project or alternatives would occur. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the City’s General Plan, along with the Zoning Ordinance, are the primary land use planning guidance documents for the development pattern of the City. The site’s existing General Plan land use designations are Office and Medium-High Density Residential. Its zoning designation is Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3). The project would involve a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as deviation to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. In addition, the project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Upon approval of the General Plan amendment/Zone Change, Use Permit, and variances, General Plan amendment, and Zone Change, the impacts of which are discussed throughout this document, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations. The preferred project would be consistent with both Land Use and Circulation Element Policies. Circulation Element Policy 13.2.4 requires completion of a comprehensive parking study prior to development of parking structure projects. Such a study was completed for the proposed structure by an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee in March 2009; the study determined that a downtown structure will be required to meet the City’s downtown parking needs within the next 5 to 10 years. As such, the preferred project and alternatives would be consistent with the City’s general plan. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. No impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 50 11 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ Setting According to the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, quarries and mines in the San Luis Obispo area previously produced basaltic stone, “red rock,” and cinnabar. However, mining is no longer permitted within the City, pursuant to Section 17.08.070 of the Zoning Regulations. Discussion a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, four five residential structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. As such, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would result in the loss of a known mineral resource. Moreover, extraction of mineral resources is not permitted within the City limits. There would be no impact to mineral resources or due to the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or 2. Environmental Checklist Noise Initial Study 51 12 Noise Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ■ □ □ □ b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels ■ □ □ □ c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above those existing prior to implementation of the project □ □ ■ □ d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those existing prior to implementation of the project ■ □ □ □ e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels □ □ □ ■ f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise □ □ □ ■ Setting Sensitive receptors near the project site include adjacent residences to the south and east, the Mission College Preparatory School athletic field to the north, residences across Nipomo Street to the west, and residences and the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum to the south. Regulatory Setting State of California The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles, freeway noise affecting classrooms, sound transmission control, occupational noise control, and airport noise. The state has also developed land use compatibility guidelines for community noise environments. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 52 The State Office of Noise Control in “Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan,” (November 1988) provided guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific CNEL contours. It diagrammatically identifies “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. For the residential uses, CNEL of up to 60 dBA for low-density residential (65 dBA for multi-family) is normally acceptable. A noise exposure of up to 70 dBA is considered normally acceptable for schools, churches, and libraries. City of San Luis Obispo The noise criteria for the City and the State of California for current and projected conditions state that the noise intrusive to interior habitable space of residential units from exterior sources should not exceed 45 decibels (dBA) CNEL. Outdoor living areas are restricted to 60 dB CNEL. Table 7 lists the maximum noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses due to transportation noise sources. The Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996) of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan uses modified land use compatibility standards recommended by the California Department of Health Services. The City’s maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses (specific to transportation noise sources) are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources Outdoor Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces Land Use Ldn or CNEL, in dBA Ldn or CNEL, in dBA Leq in DB2 Lmax in dB3 Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 --- 60 Theaters, auditoriums, music halls --- --- 35 60 Churches, meeting halls, office buildings, mortuaries 60 --- 45 --- Schools, libraries, museums --- --- 45 60 Neighborhood parks 65 --- --- --- Playgrounds 70 --- --- --- Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, 1996. 1If the location of the outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. 2As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road. The City requires that noise generated by new stationary sources be mitigated so as not to exceed the exposure standards shown in Table 8 for noise-sensitive uses, as measured at the property line of the receiver. Table 8 for noise-sensitive uses, as measured at the property line of the receiver. Environmental Checklist Noise Initial Study 53 Table 8 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) Hourly Leq in dB1, 2 50 45 Maximum level in dB1, 2 70 65 Maximum impulsive noise in dB1, 3 65 60 1 As determined at the property line of the receiver. When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures. 2 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response. 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response. Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, 1996. The City’s Noise Element lists mitigation strategies in a descending order of preference. If preferred strategies are not implemented, it is the responsibility of the project applicant to demonstrate through a detailed noise study that the preferred approaches are either not effective or not practical, before considering other design criteria described in the General Plan. The City considers the following mitigation measures appropriate where existing sound levels significantly impact noise-sensitive land uses, or where cumulative increases in sound levels resulting from new development significantly impact existing noise- sensitive land uses: 1. Rerouting traffic onto streets that can maintain desired levels of service, consistent with the Circulation Element, and which do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses. 2. Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses. 3. Constructing noise barriers. 4. Reducing traffic speeds through street or intersection design methods. 5. Retrofitting buildings with noise-reducing features. 6. Establishing financial programs, such as low-cost loans to owners of a noise-impacted property, or developer fees to fund noise-mitigation or trip-reduction programs. The following Noise Element policies are applicable to the project and the local noise environment: Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 4.10-3 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses which were established before the new transportation noise source. Policy 1.6. New Development and Stationary Noise Sources. New development of noise-sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development to meet the standards of Table 4.10-4, for existing stationary noise sources. Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) of the City’s Municipal Code specifies noise standards for various categories of land use. These limits, shown in Table 9, would apply to long-term operation of the site, and are not applicable during construction. As shown in Table 10, these noise level standards are not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any one hour and noise levels are prohibited from exceeding the noise level standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 54 Table 9 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels Not To Be Exceeded More Than Thirty Minutes in Any Hour) Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) R-1 and R-2 C/OS Low Density Residential 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50 R-3 and R-4 High Density Residential 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50 Office and Public Facility (O and PF) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 55 Neighborhood, Retail, Community, Downtown and Tourist Commercial (C-N, C- R, C-C, C-D, C T) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 65 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 60 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Table 10 Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels Noise Standard for Existing Land Use Maximum Time Period Allowed +0 dBA 30 minutes/hour +5 dBA 15 minutes/hour +10 dBA 5 minutes/hour +15 dBA 1 minute/hour +20 dBA Any time Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 9.12.060 Table 11 and Table 12 show the City’s maximum allowable noise levels for short-term operation of mobile equipment and long-term operation of stationary equipment at residential properties. Where technically and economically feasible, the City requires that construction activities that use mobile or stationary equipment which may result in noise at residential properties be conducted so that maximum sound levels from mobile equipment at affected properties would not exceed 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses (Municipal Code 9.12.050). Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the City Community Development Department, the City prohibits operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line. Table 11 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation (Less than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Residential/ Commercial Daily, except Sundays and legal holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and legal holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Environmental Checklist Noise Initial Study 55 Table 12 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term Operation (Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Mixed Residential/ Commercial Daily, except Sundays and legal holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and legal holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Discussion a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? The project would introduce new commercial and parking uses on the project site. Existing sensitive uses near the project site and proposed new uses on-site may periodically be subject to noise associated with operation of the project, including stationary equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning HVAC systems, trash hauling, parking structure noise, and other general activities associated with commercial and parking activities. However, these on-site sources of operational noise would be similar to those associated with existing nearby commercial uses. Delivery truck and trash hauling trips to the site would be an occasional source of noise, and would be similar in noise level and frequency to existing truck trips associated with other commercial uses located adjacent to the project site. Typical noise sources associated with parking structures include tire squeal, doors slamming, car alarms and horns, and engine start-ups. As a result, impacts would be potentially significant, and this issue will be analyzed in the project EIR. b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project construction would potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in groundborne vibration levels. Groundborne vibration can expose nearby structures to vibration damage or excessive vibration noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The City of San Luis Obispo considers construction-related vibration significant if construction-related activities create a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold. The vibration perception threshold is defined in the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Section 9.12.050) as “The minimum ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of 1 to 100 Hz.” In addition, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) guidance is used to determine whether or not groundborne vibration resulting from project- related construction could cause damage to nearby structures. Damage criteria vary depending on the type of building adjacent to the vibration source. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines state that a continuous vibration level of up to 102 velocity decibels (VdB) (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec PPV) (FTA May 2006) would not result in any construction vibration damage. For older residential structures, the construction vibration damage City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 56 criterion is 98 VdB (0.3 in/sec PPV). For non-engineered timber and masonry (“fragile”) buildings, the construction vibration damage criterion is 88 VdB (0.1 in/sec PPV). The FTA guidelines indicate that for fragile structures, such as those located immediately adjacent to the project site, a vibration level in excess of 88 VdB may result in damage. Construction of the proposed parking structure may require the use of driven piles or other construction techniques that would result in vibration levels up to 98 VdB at 50 feet from the source. Therefore, due to the project’s proximity to fragile, historic structures and older residential structures that are sensitive to high levels of groundborne vibration, project construction may result in vibration levels that could cause structural damage to fragile historic structures or older residential structures. As a result, impacts associated with vibration would be potentially significant, and this issue will be analyzed in the project EIR. d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity during the construction period. The main sources of noise during construction activities would be the heavy machinery used in grading and clearing the site. Average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment at construction sites can range from about 76 to 95 dBA at 25 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of construction (FTA 2006). In addition, the project would generate construction-related traffic that would occur over the construction period and would vary depending on the stage of construction. Vehicles containing construction materials and equipment would access the site throughout all construction phases. However, construction vehicles would be routed to avoid residential streets. The project would also include the demolition or relocation of the five existing homes and detached garage, which would generate hauling trips to and from the project site. The temporary noise generated by vehicles has the potential to disturb receptors nearby to the project, and along the routes to and from the project site. However, as previously noted, truck trips would be routed to avoid residential streets. Noise-sensitive uses near the project site include residences to the east, residences immediately adjacent to the project site and across Monterey Street to the south, residential uses across Nipomo Street to the west, and Mission Prep School to the north of Palm Street. These land uses may experience a temporary noise annoyance during construction. Based on current site plans for the project, construction activities may occur within 25 feet or less of the residences to the east of the project site. The City’s noise standard for short-term construction activities (fewer than ten days) at residential uses is 75 dBA, and the standard for relatively long-term construction activity (10 days or more) at residential uses is 60 dBA. As a result, existing sensitive receptors could be exposed to construction noise that exceeds the City’s applicable standards. Therefore, temporary noise during project construction is a potentially significant impact, and will be analyzed in the project EIR. e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would result. Environmental Checklist Population and Housing Initial Study 57 13 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) □ □ ■ □ b. Displace substantial amounts of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere □ □ ■ □ c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The preferred project does not involve development of residential uses and; therefore, would not induce population growth. However, Alternatives 1 and 2 would include residential units. Alternative 1 would include four units, while Alternative 2 would include 22 residential units. Assuming approximately 2.2 persons per household, Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate a population of 9 and 49 persons, respectively. This number of persons would not represent substantial population growth. In addition, this growth would occur within City limits where it would be served by existing urban services. Moreover, the residential component of Alternatives 1 or 2 would contribute to the housing stock of the City. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The preferred project would require the demolition of five residences and therefore displace approximately 11 persons. There are an estimated 20,951 housing units and 46,117 people within the City (Department of Finance 2016). While five units and approximately 11 individuals would be displaced, this does not represent a substantial number of people resulting in the need for replacement housing elsewhere. In addition, there are other planned and pending housing projects within the City that would compensate for the loss of housing on the project site. Alternative 1 would include four units, while Alternative 2 would include 22 residential units, which would offset the loss of the existing housing units. Impacts related to the displacement of housing or people associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 58 14 Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection □ □ ■ □ 2. Police protection □ □ ■ □ 3. Schools □ □ ■ □ 4. Parks □ □ ■ □ 5. Other public facilities □ □ ■ □ Setting Fire protection services are provided by the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (SLOFD). The Fire Administration Department is staffed by four professionals, and the Emergency Response Department which is staffed by 42 firefighters. Services provided by SLOFD include fire response, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, public assistance, and non-emergency services such as fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, and public education (SLOFD 2016). The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection for the city. The Department has 86.5 employees including 60 sworn police officers. The department is divided into two Bureaus; Operations and Administrative Services. The Operations Bureau includes the Patrol Services Division, the Traffic Safety Unit, Situation Oriented Response Team, and Neighborhood Services. The Administrative Services Bureau includes the Administrative Services Division, Investigative Division, Communications Division, and Records Unit (SLOPD 2016). The San Luis Coastal Unified School District is the agency primarily responsible for providing school services to the City of San Luis Obispo. The District operates 10 elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and an adult school. Discussion a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to Environmental Checklist Public Services Initial Study 59 maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Fire protection services for the project would be provided by City Fire Station One, located at 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately one mile southeast of the project site. The project includes the removal of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached garage. Implementation of the preferred project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The preferred project does not include residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo. Alternative 1 would include up to four residential units, and Alternative 2 would include up to 22 residential units. Neither the preferred project nor the project alternatives would result in substantial new population growth that would require the construction of new fire protection facilities. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city or result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts from the preferred project, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? The project site is within the existing service area of the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. The project includes the removal of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached garage. Implementation of the preferred project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for police protection services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for police protection. The preferred project does not include residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo. Alternative 1 would include up to four residential units, and Alternative 2 would include up to 22 residential units. Neither the preferred project nor the project alternatives would result in substantial new population growth that would require the construction of new police protection facilities. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city or result in the need for new police protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police protection facilities and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 60 maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? The project site is located in the existing service area of the City’s schools, parks, and other public facilities. The project includes the removal of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached garage. Under the preferred project, the site would be redeveloped with a parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and a relocated Little Theatre. The preferred project does not include residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo such that it would necessitate the construction of new schools, parks, or other public facilities. However, Alternatives 1 and 2 would include residential units. Alternative 1 would include four units, while Alternative 2 would include 22 residential units. Assuming approximately 2.2 persons per household, Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate a population of 9 and 49 persons, respectively. These alternatives would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not directly result in the need for new park, school, or other government facilities to serve the project; however, the developer would be required to pay a school impact fee as required by Senate Bill 50 (Government Code Section 65970) and a parkland in- lieu fee per the Quimby Act to offset potential impacts on school and park facilities, respectively. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Recreation Initial Study 61 15 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated □ □ ■ □ b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment □ □ ■ □ Setting The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for managing and maintaining the City’s eight mini parks, ten neighborhood parks, and eight community parks. Some of the City’s parks are joint-use sites. A wide variety of recreational activities can be conducted at these facilities, including baseball, softball, football, tennis, jogging, swimming, skateboarding, and other passive recreational sports (City of San Luis Obispo 2012). Discussion a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed under Public Services Impact a.4, the preferred project does not include residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the preferred project would not result in substantial new population growth that would result in physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities or require the construction of new recreational facilities. Alternative 1 would include up to four residential units, and Alternative 2 would include up to 22 residential units, which would generate a population of 9 and 49 persons, respectively; however, the developer would be required to pay a park land in-lieu fee to offset potential impacts on park facilities. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 62 16 Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ■ □ □ □ b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ■ □ □ □ c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? □ □ □ ■ d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ ■ □ □ e. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ■ □ □ □ Setting The city is accessed primarily by roadways including Highway 101, State Route 1, and State Route 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is Environmental Checklist Transportation Initial Study 63 characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the city. According to the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Program EIR (2014), the roadways bounding the project site are classified as local roadways. These facilities are two-lane streets that provide local access and service. The desired maximum average daily trips for local roadways is 1,500 for local streets that primarily serve residential development and 5,000, for local streets that primarily serve non-residential development. SLO Transit is the City’s fixed-route bus program, which serves the public within the city limits, surrounding county areas and the Cal Poly campus. The program operates seven routes throughout the city on weekdays, five routes after-hours on weekdays during the school year, six routes on Saturdays and four routes on Sundays. In addition to the fixed route system, SLO Transit operates the Downtown Trolley, a shuttle service geared towards visitors that operates Thursdays through Saturdays between the downtown commercial area and hotels located along Monterey Street. The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is a joint powers authority operating fixed-route bus service in San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, the incorporated City of San Luis Obispo currently contains: • 7.2 miles of Class I Bicycle Paths • 29.7 miles of roadway with Class II Bicycle Lanes • 24.0 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes The City maintains sidewalks on almost all City roadways, as well as pedestrian crosswalks throughout the downtown area. Sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the project boundary along Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Streets. City Level of Service Standards The City’s Circulation Element (2014) establishes the following multimodal minimum level of service (LOS) standards: • Bicycle – LOS D (however, bicycle LOS objectives only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan; as such, this standard is not applicable to this project) • Pedestrian – LOS C • Transit – Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower (only applies to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan; as such, this standard is not applicable to this project) • Vehicle – LOS E or for an intersection or roadway segment in the downtown area In addition, Table 4 of the Circulation Element identifies maximum average daily trip (ADT) standards for its various roadway classifications. The desired maximum ADT for local roadways is 1,500 for local streets that primarily serve residential development and 5,000 for local streets that primarily serve non- residential development. The Circulation Element (2014) also establishes priorities of each mode, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode does not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. In the downtown area, modes are prioritized as follows: 1) pedestrians, 2) bicycles, 3) transit, and 4) vehicle. Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density. In accordance to the criteria specified in the San Luis Obispo Circulation Element and LUCE Program EIR, a project has a significant impact on the above modes of transportation when it causes an exceedance to one of these LOS standards. For modes already operating below the established LOS standards, any City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 64 further degradation to the LOS score would also be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Impacts are considered significant if the project degrades a higher priority mode. Discussion a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot with 77 parking spaces, five residential structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with an above-ground, five-level parking structure with up to 445 spaces, theater, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Alternative 1 would include the parking structure, theater, 2,500 square feet of commercial space, and four residential units. Alternative 2 would include the parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 22 two bedroom residential units. Table 13 shows the estimated weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the preferred project. This increase in trips could potentially degrade multi-modal LOS. Impacts are potentially significant and will be further studied in an EIR. Table 13 Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM Peak Hour) Land Use In Out Weekday Peak PM Hour Parking Structure1 118 147 265 Commercial Space 2 1 7 8 SLO Little Theatre3 15 15 30 Total 134 169 303 1 Rates derived from counts at 919 Palm parking structure; average of Tuesday and Wednesday. Estimate reflects 368 net new spaces (445 new minus 77 existing) 2 ITE Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. Average rate used for Peak Hour trips. 3 Estimated based on information provided by Little Theatre staff. Source: Central Coast Transportation Consulting (2017) c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project site is not located in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan Area and would not result in an increase of air traffic levels or a change to air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? Vehicle Site Access and On-Site Circulation Environmental Checklist Transportation Initial Study 65 Access to the project site would be from Palm Street, with secondary access along Nipomo Street, as shown on Figure 3. There would be one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each driveway. The service rate of vehicles entering and leaving a parking facility is a function of the entrance approach, driver familiarity, internal circulation, volume of traffic on adjacent streets, and number of pedestrian conflicts. The type of parking control affects the number of vehicles that can be served in a given hour at a parking garage entry. Typical entrance and exit parking control service rates range from 100 to 400 vehicles per hour, per lane. The project traffic analysis used with an entry service rate of 134 vehicles per hour per lane (see Table 13). The City of San Luis Obispo uses different exit control devices in its parking structures for which the service rates can vary. However, on-site queuing at exit gates is less critical since queuing occurs within the parking structure. The current project site plan shows an entrance that can store up to two vehicles, which means each service gate can serve up to 110 vehicles per hour per lane before queuing onto the street in most conditions. Given two service gates and a peak-hour inbound volume of 134 vehicles, the entrance capacity would be adequate. All estimated approaches and departures are estimated to have a maximum queue of less than 50 feet. With low volumes on Nipomo Street and Dana Street, the number of potential conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the proposed parking structure is expected to be infrequent. Vehicle site access would be adequate and impacts would be less than significant. Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts Long curb extensions along the project frontage would prevent architectural elements immediately adjacent to the driveways from hindering the ability of drivers exiting the parking structure to see pedestrians walking along the sidewalk adjacent to the parking structure, or vice-versa. The community outreach identified concerns related to speeding and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at the existing offset intersection of Nipomo Street between Dana Street and Monterey Street. The project is not proposing to modify this intersection; therefore, the project is not expected to create a new operational condition at this intersection. The City of San Luis Obispo has an adopted Operating Policy for Pedestrian Crosswalks (January 2000) that establishes guidelines on where pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian traffic control warning devices and other miscellaneous pedestrian control devices are installed on City streets. Compliance with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code would ensure that impacts related to vehicle- pedestrian conflicts would be less than significant. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The preferred project is expected to generate some pedestrian and bicycle demand by patrons and employees using the parking structure, as well as employees at and visitors to the Little Theatre and commercial space. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also generate some pedestrian and bicycle demand by residents. Most of the pedestrian destinations would be the existing and planned land uses towards the downtown core along the north and south sides of Palm Street and east side of Nipomo Street. Pedestrian access would be provided at each staircase in three of the four corners of the parking structure, which would provide direct access to the parking structure and adjacent and nearby land uses. Per City requirements, the project will maintain the existing sidewalks on the north and west sides of the project frontage. Thus, the existing and proposed pedestrian facilities can reasonably accommodate the increased demand and the newly constructed pedestrian facilities will not conflict with planned facilities; therefore, impacts to pedestrian facilities are anticipated to be less than significant. Bicycle parking would be provided on the southern side of the parking structure near the project driveway at Nipomo Street in accordance with the bicycle parking space requirements in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (§17.16.060).The existing bicycle facilities can reasonably accommodate the increased demand, and implementation of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 will not conflict with any planned facility; therefore, less than significant bicycle impacts are anticipated. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 66 The project site plan does not identify any modifications or enhancements to existing transit facilities. It does not conflict with the existing transit system or planned transit system. Based on the project impact criteria listed above, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 will have a less than significant impact on transit facilities. Project Construction This construction period of the preferred project would result in short-term construction traffic, construction parking, and modifications to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation during the construction period. The traffic associated with the construction of the project could be a potentially significant impact. The preparation of a construction management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce construction impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant with mitigation. T-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan should include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. • Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction on site, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Access to the project site would be from Palm Street, with secondary access along Nipomo Street. Proposed internal roadways and access points would be sized to accommodate emergency vehicles per Environmental Checklist Transportation Initial Study 67 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department standards and would therefore provide adequate emergency access. No impact would result. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 68 17 Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board □ □ ■ □ b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects □ □ ■ □ c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects □ □ ■ □ d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed □ □ ■ □ e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments □ □ ■ □ f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs □ □ ■ □ g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste □ □ ■ □ Setting Wastewater The City’s wastewater collection system and Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) is managed by the Utilities Department. The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 136 miles of gravity sewer lines, three miles of force main, and nine sewer lift stations. Wastewater is conveyed to the WRRF, located on Prado Road near U.S. Highway 101. The WRRF removes larger material, treats the waste stream to reduce the amount of nutrients and bacteria, separates sludge, and discharges treated effluent into San Luis Obispo Creek near Los Osos Valley Road and is distributed as recycled water for irrigation. Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems Initial Study 69 The sludge is separated from the wastewater, dried in open ponds at the WRRF, and hauled away for disposal. The WRRF treats about 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) during dry weather conditions. The current treatment capacity of the WRRF during dry weather conditions is 5.1 mgd. Therefore, the WRRF currently has excess capacity of 0.6 mgd. Average dry weather treatment flows have been stable over the past several years due to a balance between increased population and improved water conservation. In 2015, average flows to the WRRF were approximately 3.5 mgd. Water The City Utilities Department provides water service throughout the City. The City obtains water from five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility, and a limited amount of groundwater. The water is treated at the City water treatment plant prior to distribution. Total annual water use in the City was 5,541 acre feet in 2012. The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Update estimated that water demand will increase to 7,815 acre feet per year upon build-out. The estimated water supply is 9,980 acre feet, including the City’s primary water supply (7,815 acre feet), reliability reserve (1,214 acre feet), and secondary water supply (951 acre feet). Based on the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Final EIR, the City does not anticipate a need for supplemental water supplies through the year 2035 and build-out of the LUCE. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan incorporates mandated water conservation targets in response to the severe drought conditions. The City’s 2015 interim target gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was 120, and the actual 2015 GPCD was 92; as noted in the Draft Plan, the City met and surpassed 2015 interim water use reduction targets. Stormwater The City’s stormwater drainage system is a separate system that collects surface runoff and conveys it to community retention basins, such as parks, local lakes, and creeks. San Luis Obispo Creek is the main tributary in the City, discharging into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Bay. The City’s stormwater drainage system currently consists of 59 miles of storm sewer with 2,148 drainage inlets and 490 storm drain manholes (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). Solid Waste The regional waste collection facility is Cold Canyon Landfill, located approximately six miles south of the City on Highway 227. The San Luis Garbage Company is the sole provider of solid-waste collection services in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority estimates that the daily per capita solid waste disposal rate from all sources in the State of California is approximately 4 to 5 pounds. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2012) permitted to receive up to 1,620 tons of solid waste per day, with an estimated remaining capacity of 1,830,000 cubic yards (16.8 percent remaining capacity). Discussion a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 70 The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residential structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. The preferred project and alternatives would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater, and storm water facilities. Development of the site would be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use (LUCE EIR 2014). Currently, storm water facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which could have significant environmental effects. Further, water and wastewater impact fees would be required and are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of new development. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued. Impacts from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant. d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residential structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no net increase in residential units and Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of 17 residential units. Assuming approximately 2.2 persons per household, Alternatives 2 would generate a net population approximately 37 persons. Based on a per capita water use of 119 gallons per day, Alternative 2 would have a water demand of approximately 1.4 acre feet per year. Based on this incremental increase in water demand, and adequate capacity, impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, including an existing City-owned parking lot, five residences, and a detached garage. The net change in impervious surfaces between existing uses and the proposed parking structure would be minimal, and the existing drainage patterns would remain the same. Therefore, the preferred project would utilize the existing drainage infrastructure and no new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts to storm water drainage facilities associated with the preferred project and alternatives would be less than significant. f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Solid waste would be generated during construction and demolition of the existing parking lot and residential structures. Construction waste would be temporary in nature, and in accordance with AB 341, would be required to divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, which would minimize potential impacts to the Cold Canyon Landfill. The amount of waste generated from operation of the project or Alternative 1 and 2 would be minimal. San Luis Garbage Company and Cold Canyon Landfill have adequate capacity to serve the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. Impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance Initial Study 71 18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ■ □ □ □ b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ■ □ □ □ c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ■ □ □ □ a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Based upon the analysis throughout this Initial Study, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. However, the project site does contain resources that may be historically or culturally significant. The impacts on these resources will be evaluated in the EIR. These effects towards cultural resources are potentially significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 72 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? With the exception of transportation and noise, which will be evaluated in the EIR, the impacts of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the preferred project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas:, air quality (AQ-1 and 2), biological resources (BIO-1), geology and soils (GEO-1), and hazards and hazardous materials (HAZ-1). The cumulative effects of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 on noise and traffic are potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in potential adverse impacts to human beings. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts related to air quality, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. However, impacts to aesthetics, noise, and transportation are potentially significant. These impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. References and Preparers Initial Study 73 References and Preparers References Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure. San Luis Obispo, California. June 2011. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA and Climate Change whitepaper. January 2008. Available at: www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White- Paper.pdf California Climate Action Registry. January 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Available at: www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, DMG Open-file Report 96-08. 1996. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. Revised 2008. California Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016. Available at: www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/ReportsPapers.php. California Department of Fish and Game, 2011. Biogeographic Information and Observation System Viewer. Accessed October 18, 2016. Available at: http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database: Commercial Version. Accessed October 18, 2016. California Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan. November 1988. California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of. EnviroStor Database. Accessed October 2016. Available at: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ California Energy Commission (CEC). California Energy Demand 2010-2020 - Commission Adopted Forecast and Demand Forecast. Adopted December 2, 2009. Publication # CEC-100-2009-012-CMF. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-012/index.html California Water Resources Control Board, State of. GeoTracker Database. Accessed October 2016. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Central Coast Transportation Consulting. Draft Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM Peak Hour). January 2017. Earth Systems Pacific. Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure. April 21, 2011. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 74 Hanson, Carl E., Towers, David A., and Meister, Lance D. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. May 2006. Available at: www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA Kleinfelder, Inc. June 8, 2005. Constraints Level Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment Proposed Palm-Nipomo Garage Site, San Luis Obispo, California. Morro Group. Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 15, 2009. Available at: www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/environmental/EnvironmentalNotices/Environmental_Impact_R eports_2009.htm RRM Design. E-mail correspondence with Jerry Michael. April 4, 2017. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region 3. Watershed Management Initiative. January 2002. Available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County. December 2001. Available at: www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 2012. Available at: http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence March 2012. Available at : www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Thresholds%20and%20S upporting%20Evidence%204-2-2012.pdf San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2015 Annual Air Quality Report. http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/2015aqrt-FINAL.pdf San Luis Obispo, City of. Airport Area Specific Plan. Revised September 2014. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294 San Luis Obispo, City of. Community Design Guidelines. June 2010. Available at: www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/Community%20Design%20Guidelines/CDG %20Update%203.8_final.pdf San Luis Obispo, City of. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010. www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144 San Luis Obispo, City of. Fire Department. 2016. Available at: www.slocity.org/fire/about.asp San Luis Obispo, City of. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010. San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Conservation and Open Space. Revised April 4, 2006. Available at: www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter6-COSE.pdf San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Circulation. December 2014. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637 References and Preparers Initial Study 75 San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Housing. 2015. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6639 San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Land Use. June 2014. Available at: www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter1- Land%20Use%20June2010.pdf San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Noise. 1996. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643 San Luis Obispo, City of. Waterway Management Plan. 2003. Available at: www.slocountywater.org/site/Flood%20Control%20and%20Water%20Conservation%20District %20Zones/ZONE%209/pdf/wmp.pdf San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Safety. March 2014. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645 San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Water and Wastewater. July 2010. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6649 San Luis Obispo, City of. Land Use and Circulation Element Update Program EIR. September 2014. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6719 San Luis Obispo, City of. Municipal Code. October 2016. Available at: www.codepublishing.com/ca/sanluisobispo/ San Luis Obispo, City of. Parks and Recreation Department. October 2016 Available at: www.slocity.org/parksandrecreation/index.asp San Luis Obispo, City of. Police Department. 2016. Available at: www.slocity.org/police/about.asp San Luis Obispo, City of. Water Resources Report. 2015. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6371 San Luis Obispo, County of. Land Use and Circulation Elements –The Area Plans (Inland). http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Area+Plans/The+Area+Plans+(Inland).pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide. Version 2016.3.1. September 2016. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Southern California Earthquake Center. Seismic Hazards in California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024. 1995. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 2, 2012. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. Last accessed on July 26, 2012. List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following. City of San Luis Obispo Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project 76 RINCON CONSULTANTS Richard Daulton, Principal Shauna Callery, Senior Environmental Planner Chris Bersbach, Senior Environmental Planner Nikolas Kilpelainen, Associate Environmental Planner Amanda Ross, Associate Environmental Planner Notice of Preparation To: EIR & Notice of Preparation Mailing List SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: (if applicable) Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo EIR to be prepared by: Department Name: Public Works Firm Name: Rincon Consultants, Inc. Street Address: 919 Palm Street Street Address: 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Tim Bochum, 805-781-7203 Contact: Richard Daulton The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information, which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for this project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are summarized in the attachment. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached, but is available upon request from the Lead Agency (see above contact). Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the attention of Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Transportation, in the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project Project Location: The site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412- 012. Project Description: The project involves the construction of an above-ground, five-story parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and a non-profit theater. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. The theater would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet and up to 255 theater seats. The project would include a General Plan amendment from Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). The PF-H zone allows for development of a multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits with Planning Commission approval. Commercial uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. The project would also require a variance for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Date: __May 1, 2017________________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________________________ Title: __Principal Planner_____________________________________ Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375 (Revised October 1989) Page 2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ATTACHMENT PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is requesting comments on the environmental impact report (EIR) scope of work for the proposed project, described below and in the Notice of Preparation, and commonly referred to as the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project. The Initial Study is currently posted on the City’s website through the following file path: Initial Study: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1903 Project Location and Setting The site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012. The site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments). The project site is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District. Project Description The project involves the removal of an existing 77 space surface parking lot and five existing residential structures and construction of an above-ground, five-story parking structure, non-profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space fronting Nipomo Street. The San Luis Obispo Little Theatre would also be relocated to the site, fronting Monterey Street adjacent to the parking structure. The Little Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet and up to 255 theater seats. The project would include a General Plan amendment from Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change from Office with a Historic Overlay (O- H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). The PF-H zone allows for development of a multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits with Planning Commission approval. Commercial uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. The project would also require a variance for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Discretionary Permits The following approvals would be required for the project: 1. General Plan Amendment 2. Zone Change 3. Planning Commission Use Permit 4. Maximum Coverage Variance 5. Floor to Area Ratio Variance 6. Architectural Review Page 3 Probable Environmental Effects/Issues Scoped for EIR Issue areas that may be determined to be potentially significant include: • Aesthetics • Cultural Resources • Noise • Transportation and Traffic Issues Determined Not to be Significant under CEQA Thresholds of Significance include: • Air Quality (with prescribed mitigation) • Agriculture and Forest Resources • Biological Resources (with prescribed mitigation) • Geology and Soils (with prescribed mitigation) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hydrology/Water Quality • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (with prescribed mitigation) • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities/Service Systems Development of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives Factors determining alternative project configurations include considerations of project objectives, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, and a proponent’s control over alternative sites. The EIR will discuss the rationale for selection of alternatives that are feasible and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible (e.g., failed to meet Project objectives or did not avoid significant environmental effects) and therefore rejected. Project alternatives include the following: • Alternative 1: Same as the preferred project described above, except the 5,000 square feet of commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four residential units would be included • Alternative 2: Same as the preferred project described above, except the Little Theatre would be replaced with 22 two-bedroom residential units • No Project Alternative These alternatives are general in nature since further environmental issue area analyses would be necessary before more specific project alternatives can be identified. The need for project redesign or unit reduction would be determined during the course of environmental review. Page 4 Public Scoping Meeting A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to allow for any interested persons to supply input on issues to be discussed in the EIR: Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: 990 Palm Street (City Council Chambers) The meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather information from the public regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It is not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the project. Therefore, members of the public should keep their comments focused on potential significant changes to the environment that may occur as a direct result of project development. 214 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:36 AM To:Michelle Wendler; dlrudd@rrmdesign.com; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim Subject:Planning Commission Draft Staff report - May 10th Attachments:Parking Garage Draft Staff Report.docx.doc; CAR 1-19-16 PalmNipomo.pdf Hello all- Attached is the Draft staff report for the Planning Commission conceptual review and scoping meeting (I am also attaching the Council Report that I will be attaching to the report as well). Please let me know if you have any comments. I will be giving the draft to Doug Davidson tomorrow for review. The final version will need to be ready for print by next Tuesday afternoon. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 216 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:22 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_2017-04-11_clean_rev.docx Hi Rachel, Please see tracked changes in the attachment. Also, please note the changes to the table in the GHG section. We had revised those based on the smaller Little Theater project, but ended up going to with the larger project, so while I rejected previous changes to AQ, I missed that on GHG. All fixed and consistent now. Regarding your question about maximum height of the parking structure, Debbie or Michelle, can you please provide that information. Thank you! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:11 PM To: Shauna Callery Cc: Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Shauna- I was reviewing the Initial Study and noticed a couple of minor errors and a couple omissions. Could you take a quick look at the highlighted sections at the beginning of the document? Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:44 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery 217 <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Which version of the site plan would you prefer – The rendered one or the technical one? Please see the attached for what we did for massing before. Does this match what you were thinking? From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:19 AM To: Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Shuana Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- Thank you Michelle for the powerpoint presentation for Planning Commission. I would like the following information in one package: 1. A project description – we can use the Initial Study description as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific questions that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. This information will inform the staff report and will be given to the Planning Commission as part of their packet for review. This can be submitted digitally or as 8 printed copies to me. For the Scoping portion of the meeting, I will need a copy of the Initial Study and the NOP – a digital copy would be preferred. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 5:30 PM To: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Please see attached for power point slides for presentation. From: Lee, Scott [mailto:SLee@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:37 PM 218 To: Cohen, Rachel; Michelle Wendler; Bochum, Tim; Shuana Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo All: After discussion with Rachel and Tim, we have decided to delay the Planning Commission Meeting until May 10th. This now will be a dual purpose presentation: Conceptual Review and Scoping Session. Therefore, the timeline is pushed back 1 week to allow Rachel to have extra time to prepare for this increased workload and to redraft the staff report. The LATEST REVISED timeline is as follows:  April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna (this should already have been done).  April 12th (Wednesday)- Information due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below).  April 26th (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission  May 10th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission Meeting (Rachel to provide time and location details. I understand that Debbie will be unavailable, but can send a representative if necessary. Scott From: Lee, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:29 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com>; Crisp, Matthew <mcrisp@slocity.org> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Importance: High Palm Nipomo Team: Want to make sure we are all on the same page given the tight timelines coming up. I have added Shauna (RINCON) to this email thread. Please include her on all future emails. I contacted Rachel and advised her to prepare and add the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 26th and include the scoping session as part of this meeting. She agreed with this. The REVISED timeline is as follows:  April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna so she can incorporate in the report and provide to Rachel by the 5 th.  April 5th (Wednesday)- Information due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below).  April 12 (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission  April 26th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission Meeting (Rachel to provide time and location details. I have confirmed these dates with both Rachel and Shauna, and appreciate everyone providing the information to them by the deadlines so we can stay on schedule. Matt- Tim advised me that you would be reviewing the draft EIR report for Jake, so please provide your comments to Shauna by this coming Monday. Thanks everyone for making this happen. Scott 219 Scott Lee Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E SLee@slocity.org T 805.781.7234 C 805-540-0408 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:25 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- In order to get preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission, we have scheduled for the project to be reviewed conceptually on April 26, 2017. I will need the following information: 1. A project description – we can use the Initial Study description as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific questions that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. The sooner I can get this information, the sooner I can put together the staff report. The report will be due two weeks before the hearing on April 12, 2017, which means I will need all of the above information no later than April 5, 2017. Please let me know if you have any questions or if we need to look at a different date for the conceptual review. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 220 From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 1:41 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, we have the colored conceptual site plan, elevations, and black and white parking garage floor plans that we can present. We can also outline the options the EIR is analyzing. thanks, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 12:51 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Debbie- Thank you for the reminder. A conceptual review is the route we want to go. I will talk to staff about potential dates to schedule that meeting. Where are we in the design process? Do we have something that we are ready – conceptually – to take to PC? Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:37 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, I was asking about the PC meeting because originally I was scoped to meet with the PC members two at time to make sure there was not going to be any surprises when we bring to them the EIR and final project (like adding uses or solar on the roof which were not covered in the EIR). The email below recommended a conceptual review meeting instead. Are you suggesting that we skip this conceptual step? I could simply touch base with the PC members via phone to get a read on how they are going to react to current project program. If there is any concern, then we can regroup. 221 Let me know what you prefer. Thanks, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:53 AM To: mwendler@watrydesign.com Cc: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; pr@rademakerdesign.com; Fuchs, Alexander <afuchs@slocity.org>; rdaulton@rinconconsultants.com Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Michelle- Below are some comments from Planning in response to questions that were raised at the last meeting. 1. Should we go to Planning Commission 1x2 or have a conceptual hearing? Planning recommends that we schedule a Conceptual Review hearing with PC for feedback. This will allow not only feedback from the PC, but also allow for public feedback as well. It should not take any more time than the 1x2 interviews since the staff report and the presentation should be brief and focus on spec ific questions that we want feedback on. The Conceptual Review would be platform the to discuss what uses the PC is expecting to be included in the Parking Garage, as well as other questions that we might want to ask them. 2. What is the process this project is going to go through? Once the design and the EIR are complete, staff has determined the best route through the planning process is as follows: a. CHC b. ARC c. PC d. City Council (Keep a placeholder for 2 meetings to CC just in case) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org 222 T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:01 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com Subject: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, thanks for the call yesterday about the process. I had another thought today for an alternative process. We could take the Initial Study to a scoping meeting with the PC and present the concept plan at the same meeting. That would give the PC a chance to give input on the alternatives considered before the EIR is kicked off. The team does not have that scoped in the current project but it is worth considering. Let me know what you and your team recommends, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com 223 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:11 PM To:Shuana Callery Cc:Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_2017-04-11_clean.docx Hi Shauna- I was reviewing the Initial Study and noticed a couple of minor errors and a couple omissions. Could you take a quick look at the highlighted sections at the beginning of the document? Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:44 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Which version of the site plan would you prefer – The rendered one or the technical one? Please see the attached for what we did for massing before. Does this match what you were thinking? From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:19 AM To: Michelle Wendler; Lee, Scott; Bochum, Tim; Shuana Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- Thank you Michelle for the powerpoint presentation for Planning Commission. I would like the following information in one package: 1. A project description – we can use the Initial Study description as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific questions that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. 224 This information will inform the staff report and will be given to the Planning Commission as part of their packet for review. This can be submitted digitally or as 8 printed copies to me. For the Scoping portion of the meeting, I will need a copy of the Initial Study and the NOP – a digital copy would be preferred. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 5:30 PM To: Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Please see attached for power point slides for presentation. From: Lee, Scott [mailto:SLee@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:37 PM To: Cohen, Rachel; Michelle Wendler; Bochum, Tim; Shuana Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo All: After discussion with Rachel and Tim, we have decided to delay the Planning Commission Meeting until May 10th. This now will be a dual purpose presentation: Conceptual Review and Scoping Session. Therefore, the timeline is pushed back 1 week to allow Rachel to have extra time to prepare for this increased workload and to redraft the staff report. The LATEST REVISED timeline is as follows:  April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna (this should already have been done).  April 12th (Wednesday)- Information due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below).  April 26th (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission  May 10th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission Meeting (Rachel to provide time and location details. I understand that Debbie will be unavailable, but can send a representative if necessary. Scott 225 From: Lee, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:29 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com>; Crisp, Matthew <mcrisp@slocity.org> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Importance: High Palm Nipomo Team: Want to make sure we are all on the same page given the tight timelines coming up. I have added Shauna (RINCON) to this email thread. Please include her on all future emails. I contacted Rachel and advised her to prepare and add the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 26th and include the scoping session as part of this meeting. She agreed with this. The REVISED timeline is as follows:  April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna so she can incorporate in the report and provide to Rachel by the 5 th.  April 5th (Wednesday)- Information due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below).  April 12 (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission  April 26th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission Meeting (Rachel to provide time and location details. I have confirmed these dates with both Rachel and Shauna, and appreciate everyone providing the information to them by the deadlines so we can stay on schedule. Matt- Tim advised me that you would be reviewing the draft EIR report for Jake, so please provide your comments to Shauna by this coming Monday. Thanks everyone for making this happen. Scott Scott Lee Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E SLee@slocity.org T 805.781.7234 C 805-540-0408 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:25 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug 226 <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- In order to get preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission, we have scheduled for the project to be reviewed conceptually on April 26, 2017. I will need the following information: 1. A project description – we can use the Initial Study description as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific questions that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. The sooner I can get this information, the sooner I can put together the staff report. The report will be due two weeks before the hearing on April 12, 2017, which means I will need all of the above information no later than April 5, 2017. Please let me know if you have any questions or if we need to look at a different date for the conceptual review. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 1:41 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, we have the colored conceptual site plan, elevations, and black and white parking garage floor plans that we can present. We can also outline the options the EIR is analyzing. thanks, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 12:51 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com> 227 Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Debbie- Thank you for the reminder. A conceptual review is the route we want to go. I will talk to staff about potential dates to schedule that meeting. Where are we in the design process? Do we have something that we are ready – conceptually – to take to PC? Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:37 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, I was asking about the PC meeting because originally I was scoped to meet with the PC members two at time to make sure there was not going to be any surprises when we bring to them the EIR and final project (like adding uses or solar on the roof which were not covered in the EIR). The email below recommended a conceptual review meeting instead. Are you suggesting that we skip this conceptual step? I could simply touch base with the PC members via phone to get a read on how they are going to react to current project program. If there is any concern, then we can regroup. Let me know what you prefer. Thanks, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:53 AM To: mwendler@watrydesign.com Cc: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; pr@rademakerdesign.com; Fuchs, Alexander <afuchs@slocity.org>; rdaulton@rinconconsultants.com Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Michelle- Below are some comments from Planning in response to questions that were raised at the last meeting. 228 1. Should we go to Planning Commission 1x2 or have a conceptual hearing? Planning recommends that we schedule a Conceptual Review hearing with PC for feedback. This will allow not only feedback from the PC, but also allow for public feedback as well. It should not take any more time than the 1x2 interviews since the staff report and the presentation should be brief and focus on speci fic questions that we want feedback on. The Conceptual Review would be platform the to discuss what uses the PC is expecting to be included in the Parking Garage, as well as other questions that we might want to ask them. 2. What is the process this project is going to go through? Once the design and the EIR are complete, staff has determined the best route through the planning process is as follows: a. CHC b. ARC c. PC d. City Council (Keep a placeholder for 2 meetings to CC just in case) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:01 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com Subject: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, thanks for the call yesterday about the process. I had another thought today for an alternative process. We could take the Initial Study to a scoping meeting with the PC and present the concept plan at the same meeting. That would give the PC a chance to give input on the alternatives considered before the EIR is kicked off. The team does not have that scoped in the current project but it is worth considering. Let me know what you and your team recommends, DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com 229 230 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:17 AM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_2017-04-11_clean.docx Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_2017-04-11_clean.docx; ATT00001..htm Here is the clean version of the IS. Let me know if you also want the one with tracked changes. 231 From:Shauna Callery <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:25 PM To:Lee, Scott Cc:Cohen, Rachel Subject:Fwd: Palm Nipomo Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo NOP_2017-04-11.doc; ATT00001.htm; Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_ 2017-04-11_clean.docx; ATT00002.htm; Draft Palm Nipomo Initial Study_2017-04-11_tracked changes.docx; ATT00003.htm Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi ScoƩ, AƩached are the two versions I sent earlier to Michelle. I presume she will be sending both, along with the dra Ō NOP, in the package to Rachel. Here they are in the meanƟme. Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Program Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. Direct: 805-250-8513 Mobile: 805-704-5860 Begin forwarded message: From: "Shauna Callery" <SCallery@rinconconsultants.com<mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com>> To: "Michelle Wendler" <MWendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Michelle, I never heard back from the City regarding whether or not they want to see the revisions, so I have a Ʃached both versions of the IniƟal Study. I also aƩached the DraŌ NOP. Below are two versions of the PD that vary in length: Version 1 The project involves the removal of an exisƟng 77 space surface parking lot and five exisƟng residenƟal structures and construcƟon of an above-ground, five-story parking structure, non-profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space fronƟng Nipomo Street. The San Luis Obispo LiƩle Theatre would also be relocated to the site, fronƟng Monterey Street adjacent to the parking structure. The LiƩle Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet and up to 250 theater seats. The project would include a General Plan amendment from Office and Medium-High Density ResidenƟal to Public and a Zone Change from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium- High Density ResidenƟal (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). The PF-H zone allows for development of a mulƟ- level parking structure and non-profit theater, and deviaƟons to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits with Planning Commission approval. Commercial uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater 232 faciliƟes. The project would also require a variance for the floor to area raƟo to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Version 2 The project would involve the construcƟon of an above-ground five-level parking structure, non-profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on Nipomo Street. There would be with one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each driveway. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street; however, a direct pedestrian connecƟon would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. Pedestrian access would also be provided to public sidewalks from each corner of the structure. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronƟng Nipomo Street. The parking structure’s height, excluding elevator towers, would be 34 feet from Monterey Street, 36 feet from Nipomo Street with a lower office building in front of it at 27 feet, and 44 feet from Palm Street with the LiƩle Theatre in front of it. In addiƟon, the San Luis Obispo LiƩle Theatre would be relocated to the site, fronƟng Monterey Street adjacent to the parking structure. The LiƩle Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet. The basement level would house a rehearsal area, workshop, and storage. The main level would be comprised of a main theater with 155 seats and a smaller theater with 100 reconfigurable seats, for a total of 255 seats. The third floor would include offices and a conference room. The project would include an entry plaza fronƟng Monterey Street, and improved landscaping near the sidewalks along Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street. The maximum height of the theater structure would be 43 feet. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan. The project would involve the removal of the exisƟng 77 space surface parking lot and demoliƟon or relocaƟon of the exisƟng five residenƟal structures and detached garage. The project would involve a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and Medium-High Density ResidenƟal to Public and a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density ResidenƟal (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the mulƟ-level parking structure and non- profit theater, as well as deviaƟon to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and residenƟal uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater faciliƟes. In addiƟon, the project would require variances for the floor to area raƟo to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager [hƩp://my.rinconconsultants.com/images/image002.png]<hƩp://www.rinconconsultants.com/>Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com<hƩp://www.rinconconsultants.com/> Environmental ScienƟsts Planners Engineers From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:51 PM To: Shauna Callery Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Shauna can you send me an excerpt of just the project descripƟon that I can put with the other informaƟon Rachel is asking for. From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:33 PM To: Cohen, Rachel; Michelle Wendler; Lee, Sco Ʃ; Bochum, Tim; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo 233 Hi Rachel and ScoƩ, Would you like to review the revised IniƟal Study (showing tracked changes) first, or would you like us to submit one tracked changes version and one clean version in the overall package requested? Thanks, Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Program Manager [hƩp://my.rinconconsultants.com/images/image002.png]<hƩp://www.rinconconsultants.com/>Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com<hƩp://www.rinconconsultants.com/> Environmental ScienƟsts Planners Engineers From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:19 AM To: Michelle Wendler; Lee, ScoƩ; Bochum, Tim; Shauna Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- Thank you Michelle for the powerpoint presentaƟon for Planning Commission. I would like the following informaƟon in one package: 1. A project descripƟon – we can use the IniƟal Study descripƟon as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific quesƟons that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. This informaƟon will inform the staff report and will be given to the Planning Commission as part of their packet for review. This can be submiƩed digitally or as 8 printed copies to me. For the Scoping porƟon of the meeƟng, I will need a copy of the IniƟal Study and the NOP – a digital copy would be preferred. Please let me know if you have any quesƟons. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner [City of San Luis Obispo] Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org> T 805.781.7574 slocity.org<hƩp://www.slocity.org> From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 5:30 PM 234 To: Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org>>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Shauna Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com<mailto:scallery@rinconconsultants.com>>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com<mailto:dlrudd@rrmdesign.com>> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org<mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Please see aƩached for power point slides for presentaƟon. From: Lee, ScoƩ [mailto:SLee@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:37 PM To: Cohen, Rachel; Michelle Wendler; Bochum, Tim; Shuana Callery; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo All: AŌer discussion with Rachel and Tim, we have decided to delay the Planning Commission MeeƟng unƟl May 10th. This now will be a dual purpose presentaƟon: Conceptual Review and Scoping Session. Therefore, the Ɵmeline is pushed back 1 week to allow Rachel to have extra Ɵme to prepare for this increased workload and to redraŌ the staff report. The LATEST REVISED Ɵmeline is as follows: • April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna (this should already have been done). • April 12th (Wednesday)- InformaƟon due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below). • April 26th (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission • May 10th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission MeeƟng (Rachel to provide Ɵme and locaƟon details. I understand that Debbie will be unavailable, but can send a representaƟve if necessary. ScoƩ From: Lee, ScoƩ Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:29 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org>>; mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Shuana Callery <scallery@rinconconsultants.com<mailto:scallery@rinconconsultants.com>>; Debbie Rudd - (RRM) <dlrudd@rrmdesign.com<mailto:dlrudd@rrmdesign.com>>; Crisp, MaƩhew <mcrisp@slocity.org<mailto:mcrisp@slocity.org>> Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org<mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Importance: High Palm Nipomo Team: Want to make sure we are all on the same page given the Ɵght Ɵmelines coming up. I have added Shauna (RINCON) to this email thread. Please include her on all future emails. 235 I contacted Rachel and advised her to prepare and add the NoƟce of PreparaƟon (NOP) to the Planning Commission meeƟng scheduled for April 26th and include the scoping session as part of this meeƟng. She agreed with this. The REVISED Ɵmeline is as follows: • April 3rd (Monday COB) - ALL comments/edits to the EIR need to be provided to Shauna so she can incorporate in the report and provide to Rachel by the 5th. • April 5th (Wednesday)- InformaƟon due to Rachel for inclusion in Staff report (see list below). • April 12 (Wednesday)- Rachel’s Staff Report due and routed to Planning Commission • April 26th (Wednesday)- Planning Commission MeeƟng (Rachel to provide Ɵme and locaƟon details. I have confirmed these dates with both Rachel and Shauna, and appreciate everyone providing the informa Ɵon to them by the deadlines so we can stay on schedule. MaƩ- Tim advised me that you would be reviewing the draŌ EIR report for Jake, so please provide your comments to Shauna by this coming Monday. Thanks everyone for making this happen. ScoƩ ScoƩ Lee Parking Manager [City of San Luis Obispo] Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org> T 805.781.7234 C 805-540-0408 slocity.org<hƩp://www.slocity.org> From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:25 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com<mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org<mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hello all- In order to get preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission, we have scheduled for the project to be reviewed conceptually on April 26, 2017. I will need the following informaƟon: 1. A project descripƟon – we can use the IniƟal Study descripƟon as the base and include the proposed uses; 2. Site plan; 236 3. Rough sketches of the massing of the project; and 4. Any specific quesƟons that you would like the Commission to give feedback on. The sooner I can get this informaƟon, the sooner I can put together the staff report. The report will be due two weeks before the hearing on April 12, 2017, which means I will need all of the above informaƟon no later than April 5, 2017. Please let me know if you have any quesƟons or if we need to look at a different date for the conceptual review. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner [City of San Luis Obispo] Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org> T 805.781.7574 slocity.org<hƩp://www.slocity.org> From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 1:41 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org>> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, we have the colored conceptual site plan, elevaƟons, and black and white parking garage floor plans that we can present. We can also outline the opƟons the EIR is analyzing. thanks, [cid:image011.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0] DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 12:51 PM To: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com<mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Debbie- Thank you for the reminder. A conceptual review is the route we want to go. I will talk to staff about potenƟal dates to schedule that meeƟng. Where are we in the design process? Do we have something that we are ready – conceptually – to take to PC? Thank you, Rachel Cohen 237 Associate Planner [City of San Luis Obispo] Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org> T 805.781.7574 slocity.org<hƩp://www.slocity.org> From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:37 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org>> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>> Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, I was asking about the PC meeƟng because originally I was scoped to meet with the PC members two at Ɵme to make sure there was not going to be any surprises when we bring to them the EIR and final project (like adding uses or solar on the roof which were not covered in the EIR). The email below recommended a conceptual review meeƟng instead. Are you suggesƟng that we skip this conceptual step? I could simply touch base with the PC members via phone to get a read on how they are going to react to current project program. If there is any concern, then we can regroup. Let me know what you prefer. Thanks, [cid:image011.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0] DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:53 AM To: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com> Cc: Rudd, Debbie L. <DLRudd@rrmdesign.com<mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com>>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org<mailto:tbochum@slocity.org>>; Lee, ScoƩ <SLee@slocity.org<mailto:SLee@slocity.org>>; pr@rademakerdesign.com<mailto:pr@rademakerdesign.com>; Fuchs, Alexander <afuchs@slocity.org<mailto:afuchs@slocity.org>>; rdaulton@rinconconsultants.com<mailto:rdaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Hi Michelle- Below are some comments from Planning in response to quesƟons that were raised at the last meeƟng. 1. Should we go to Planning Commission 1x2 or have a conceptual hearing? Planning recommends that we schedule a Conceptual Review hearing with PC for feedback. This will allow not only feedback from the PC, but also allow for public feedback as well. It should not take any more Ɵme than the 1x2 interviews since the staff report and the presentaƟon should be brief and focus on specific quesƟons that we want feedback on. The Conceptual Review would be plaƞorm the to discuss what uses the PC is expec Ɵng to be included in the Parking Garage, as well as other quesƟons that we might want to ask them. 238 1. What is the process this project is going to go through? Once the design and the EIR are complete, staff has determined the best route through the planning process is as follows: * CHC * ARC * PC * City Council (Keep a placeholder for 2 meeƟngs to CC just in case) Please let me know if you have any quesƟons. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner [City of San Luis Obispo] Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org> T 805.781.7574 slocity.org<hƩp://www.slocity.org> From: Rudd, Debbie L. [mailto:DLRudd@rrmdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:01 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org<mailto:rcohen@slocity.org>> Cc: mwendler@watrydesign.com<mailto:mwendler@watrydesign.com> Subject: Palm Nipomo Hi Rachel, thanks for the call yesterday about the process. I had another thought today for an alternaƟve process. We could take the IniƟal Study to a scoping meeƟng with the PC and present the concept plan at the same meeƟng. That would give the PC a chance to give input on the alternaƟves considered before the EIR is kicked off. The team does not have that scoped in the current project but it is worth considering. Let me know what you and your team recommends, [cid:image011.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0] DEBBIE LAGOMARCINO RUDD Principal 3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-1794 rrmdesign.com<hƩp://rrmdesign.com> [cid:image012.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0]<hƩp://www.facebook.com/rrmdesign>[cid:image013.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0]<hƩp ://www.linkedin.com/company/rrm-design-group> [cid:image014.jpg@01D007EE.0C07C0F0] <hƩps://twiƩer.com/rrmdesigngroup> 239 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:13 AM To:Shauna Callery Cc:Michelle Wendler; Bochum, Tim; Lee, Scott Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.docx Hi Shauna- Attached is the Initial Study with comments from Planning. After much discussion, we determined that the zoning of the site should be Public Facility (PF) and that residential and office/retail uses could be allowed in this zoning since they would be accessory to the parking garage and theater uses. As such, I have updated the project description to reflect the zone change. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 2:42 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Hi Rachel, I wanted to pass along the draft Initial Study for the Palm Nipomo project for your review. Have a wonderful weekend! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 240 From:Codron, Michael Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 10:48 AM To:Corey, Tyler; Davidson, Doug Cc:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.docx; Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.pdf fyi From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:29 AM To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study FYI, the draft IS for the Palm Nipomo Structure has been submitted. I have yet to review it. From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 2:42 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Hi Rachel, I wanted to pass along the draft Initial Study for the Palm Nipomo project for your review. Have a wonderful weekend! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 241 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:29 AM To:Grigsby, Daryl Cc:Codron, Michael Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.docx; Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.pdf FYI, the draft IS for the Palm Nipomo Structure has been submitted. I have yet to review it. From: Shauna Callery [mailto:SCallery@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 2:42 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org> Subject: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Hi Rachel, I wanted to pass along the draft Initial Study for the Palm Nipomo project for your review. Have a wonderful weekend! Shauna Callery, MCRP, MS Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 122 DIRECT 805 250 8513 MOBILE 805 704 5860 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 242 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:58 PM To:Bochum, Tim; Lee, Scott; Fuchs, Alexander Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo Draft Initial Study Attachments:Draft Palm Nipomo Parking Project Initial Study_2017-01-18.docx Hi Tim and Scott Here is the draft Initial Study in Word. The PDF is very large so will need to transmit separately. It has all the attachments to it. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 We’ve grown! Our new San Jose corporate headquarters is located at: 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550 San Jose, CA 95110 watrydesign.com 243 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:59 AM To:Kevin Harris (kevinharris@slolittletheatre.org) Cc:Bochum, Tim; Lee, Scott Subject:LittleTheatreExclusiveNegotiatingAgreement 12-20-16 Attachments:LittleTheatreExclusiveNegotiatingAgreement 12-20-16.docx Kevin, Attached please find the revised version. Based on discussions with the City Attorney we have revised the document to an exclusive negotiating agreement. Right now the idea is that this would go to Council the next time we go for Palm Nipomo. Please let me know if you have any questions. Happy Holidays! Lee 248 From:Richard Daulton <RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Sent:Friday, August 26, 2016 9:55 AM To:Bochum, Tim Subject:Palm Nipomo Focused EIR Attachments:Palm-Nipomo Project Focused EIR Scope.docx Hi Tim, Got your voice mail message. Our proposed schedule is hidden on pages 15-16 of the scope we submitted to Watry. They may not have passed it along previously. Take a look and let me know if you’d like to discuss. We are estimating 8 months to complete the CEQA process. Thanks, Rich Richard Daulton, MURP Principal and Vice President Rincon Consultants, Inc. 805 547 0900 EXT 128 MOBILE 805 235 9451 www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers Ranked “2015 Best Firm To Work For” – Zweig Group 249 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:41 PM To:Bochum, Tim Cc:Fuchs, Alexander; Lee, Scott Subject:RE: Scope of work and Fee Update Attachments:Palm-Nipomo Project Focused EIR Scope of Work and Fee Estimate 8-10-16.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Tim Here is an updated version from Richard. If this is good I will incorporate into the our format so it is all consistent. Michelle From: Bochum, Tim [mailto:tbochum@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:14 AM To: Michelle Wendler Cc: Fuchs, Alexander; Lee, Scott Subject: RE: Scope of work and Fee Update This is a good draft. I think Rich should also include a Traffic component for the EIR.. Not because it was identified as a potentially significant issue in the prior IS but more so because we are preparing a traffic study update that will be available at the same time and it may be strange if it’s not included/discussed in the EIR. Could you have him determine how much more it would be to include additional discussion on traffic in the document? thanks From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 4:38 PM To: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Scope of work and Fee Update Hi Tim To speed it up I am sending you the raw file from Richard on scope and fee. I am working this into my document as there is a lot of background listed here that may not need repeating there but this gives you the picture as quick as possible. I will get you my files updated tomorrow. Michelle From: Bochum, Tim [mailto:tbochum@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:45 AM To: Michelle Wendler Subject: RE: Scope of work and Fee Update Michele, can you take a look at my highlighted section. I may be confused? I think you may be discussing existing contract but I just need to clarify. 250 From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 11:52 AM To: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: Scope of work and Fee Update Hi Tim See attached for the updated scope and fee for the project. I put a placeholder in there for Rincon. They are going to get me a revised proposal on Tuesday. I really tried to simplify what we were describing for purposes of being able to include in the staff report. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660…We moved! watrydesign.com 251 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:39 AM To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:RE: 1/2 hour Available? Attachments:CAR 120109 MontereyParkingStructure RFP.pdf See page B7-15 for highlighted section. From: Ansolabehere, Jon Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 9:15 AM To: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 1/2 hour Available? Tim, I’m leaning towards yes. Can you e-mail me the RFP itself? Thanks, Jon From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 8:43 AM To: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Subject: 1/2 hour Available? Jon would you have a half hour (maybe even 15 minutes) to discuss an issue I’m looking into having to do with the EIR for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure. The project had a consultant team work on the environmental for the project that was hired in pursuant to an RFP process that satisfied City requirements. The proposal and RFP thought that the project might be able to be cleared via a negative declaration and the work was to perform an Initial Study leading to that review and the preparation of a final IS-MND by Rincon. The RFP and contract also included that verbiage that the project may need a full EIR to be prepared. (I’ve attached the Council Agenda report with highlighting that discussed this issue). When the draft IS was completed there were some areas that clearly needed EIR level of work and the Council has directed that an EIR be prepared. I’ve tried to highlight the section of the Watry proposal (attached) that shows that their final deliverable was an IS-MND that now needs to be a focused EIR. Tim Bochum Deputy Director Public Works 252 Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tbochum@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.431.5177 slocity.org counci lj aQEncla aepoat Meeting/Dat e JI T Item Numb// / of C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Jay Walter, Director of Public Work Prepared By : Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Pubk'c Work s Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT : MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE REQUEST FO R PROPOSAL S RECOMMENDATIO N Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for architectural design and environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if withi n the project budget . DISCUSSION The Monterey Street Parking Structure project (previously referred to as the "Palm-Nipomo") wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003-0 5 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets (see Attachment 1, Summar y of Council Actions). At its April 24, 2007 meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Optio n D3 (self-park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure (se e Attachment 2, Site Plan Option D3). The selected design was chosen over a mechanical o r automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure . It did include an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street . At its meeting of March 17, 2009 the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fun d prepared by a consultant and reviewed by a Council-appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Revie w Committee. The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings an d recommendations then directed staff to take the next steps of environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans an d specifications. The Council also directed that the Request for Proposals for these services b e returned to Council for consideration prior to its issuance . Subsequently a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been prepared and is ready for distribution (se e Attachment 3, Draft Request for Proposals). As requested by Council, the RFP includes a requirement for the consultant to take a final look into the issue of additional potential uses of the structure or surrounding site and the estimated cost/benefits of those uses . Scope of Work Summar y As discussed in previous project reviews, the Council has established the following project goal s which will shape the consultant's design that will return to Council for final approval : Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 2 •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not look like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e. Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater on a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifies cultura l uses in addition to parking on the site. •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure and provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make every effort to preserve the large oak tree and integrate into the site design . •Incorporate green/sustainable technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . The consultant selected will be responsible for performing the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City and consistent with the Preferred Site Plan (D3). In the course of the design work, the consultant will be required to present plans to various Cit y Commissions including the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commissio n and the Planning Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A final design will be approved by the City Council . The following tasks have been outlined in th e RFP : Project Task s A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with the site an d the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulation around the site, access patterns, utilit y locations, as well as previous reports, studies and documents related to the project . Consider an y findings and/or recommendations that may further develop, revise, or question any previou s decisions by the City on the design of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the City project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous City Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . The proposal shoul d reflect meetings with the project team prior to each meeting with the City Council and Cit y Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost of thos e uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize the use of the site b y exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum of options for thei r consideration . Some options have been previously studied and discarded . They are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 3 D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), in accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the application requirement s for architectural review, environmental review and the Planning Commission use permit . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the City. Th e IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts in compliance with the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IES will present mitigation measure s needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them to insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that the consultant will, at a minimum, be required t o prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusing on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impacts of building a structure 16 feet below grade and th e impacts on both the parking structure and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study includin g shading impacts on adjacent properties and a study of archeological and historical issues .A Phase II Hazardous Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need furthe r investigation . The anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determines that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort an d cost of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritage Commission , Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction and operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, ARC and the PC into the project plans as directed . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make changes as directed . Although not included in the scope of work for this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retained to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . RFP Schedule Task Date Monterey Street Parking Structure 1 .Issue RFP.12/2/0 9 2 .Receive Proposals.1/8/1 0 3 .Evaluate Proposals .1/15/1 0 4 .Conduct Finalist Interviews .1/22/1 0 5 .Check References and Award the Contract 1/29/1 0 6 .Complete work for Council Approval 3/11 Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 4 FISCAL IMPAC T To date approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis . Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget fo r design services and environmental review . Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likel y increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions . ALTERNATIV E Deny or defer design RFP.The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in th e area increases . It is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could b e available for use, therefore staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase . Rather, staff recommends this time could be devoted to researching innovative ways to increase th e initial demand for and subsequent use of the Monterey Street parking structure . ATTACHMENT S 1.Summary of City Council Actions, Monterey Street Parking Structure 2.Site Plan Options D 3 3.Draft Request for Proposals, Description of Wor k T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2009\Parking\Monterey St . Parking Structure\CAR Draft Revision 20091103 .DOC ATTACHMENT I SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION S MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTUR E The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near th e corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential us e as a multi-level parking structure . The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owne d surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Stree t and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site ; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site . They were directed to incorporate uses intended by th e Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center .They were also asked to be mindful of the City's heigh t regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval ma y include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking i s the principal use . Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures : a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures ; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in th e structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay . May 25, 2004 City Council Directio n Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eigh t schematic design options . Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, th e consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parkin g proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space . At that meeting, Council directed staff to procee d with refinements to two designs : Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as th e "baseline" design options for further study . Council also directed staff to consider the following in th e refinements of the two options : 1.Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land are a on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some are a along Palm Street for offices and/or housing . 2.Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built . 3.Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street . 4.Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project . 5.Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground . 6.Proposing other possible uses (ie . senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for th e roof of the structure . 7.Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line . July 5, 2005 City Council Directio n On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roo f of the structure . At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3 , mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of th e structure . Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, ATTACHMENT I added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use . Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components : 1.Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . 2.Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer - Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3.Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St . and 645 Palm St.) on project plans . 4.Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design . 5.Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adob e detached "Dwelling over Garage"). 6.Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations and not e where exceptions are needed . 7.Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-se t the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings . 8.Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site . 9.Identify location of access/servicing area for "Future Use by Others"- if office use is developed o n Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street . 10.Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons fo r the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass . In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additiona l refinements to Self Park Option D3 : a.Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible . b.Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access . c.Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey . To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographi c survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine buildin g heights . In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other use s on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing . The Council dismissed this idea afte r receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs o f construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements . These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related . Additionally, building height exceptions would come int o play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the ne t amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure . The Council agreed that it would b e more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an alread y expensive parking structure . April 24, 2007 City Council Directio n In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options . All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), ATTACHMENT I maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by "others " when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place . The three options were compare d from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost . Table 1- Summary of Key Site Plan Option Feature s Design Comparisons D3 H2 H 3 Summary of Key Features Self par k structure wit h portions of upper level s removed t o reduc e building heigh t impact . Mechanica l structure wit h portions of upper level s removed to reduce buildin g height impact . Mechanica l structure oriented to reduce buildin g height impact . Building Footprint 34,350 s .f.20,500 s .f .20,500 s .f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s .f.118,750 s .f.121,500 s .f. No . of Levels 4 %5 %6 Building Height (35 ft .)* Height exception needed? 39 ft . Yes 41 ft . Yes 37 ft . Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft .) Street yard exception needed ? Other yard (10 ft .) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft . Yes 10 ft . No Oft . Yes 10 ft . No 0-10 ft . Ye s 25 ft . N o Total Parking Spaces 445 491 56 5 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Futur e Use by Others 11,400 s .f.8,700 s .f. 12,700 s .f . 19,800 s .f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s .f.4,500 s .f .3,000 s .f. 7,000 s .f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, an d the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design . Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving roo m for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the stree t from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a publi c use area and a pedestrian paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design unti l the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast , including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation syste m ATTACHMENT I is not required . Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs fo r ventilating and waterproofing the structure . Site Diagram for Option D 3 The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not include elevator towers . Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 fee t March 17, 2009 City Council Directio n On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultan t and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Montere y Street Parking Structure. The questions were : 1.Can we afford it? 2.And if we build it, will they come? Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committe e provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration : 1.The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financia l condition through fiscal year 2016-17 . 2.Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure ." 3.Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process . ATTACHMENT 4.The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and th e General Plan . 5.The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street space s combined with increases in parking demand . Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure . However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking . Projects such as Chinatow n and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce publi c parking surface lots . In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/o r converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown . Based on past consultant reports, parkin g demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years . Further, because the City is in the earl y phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantl y upon creation of the district . To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure wil l be needed in the next 5 to 10 years . A / PALM ST Entry/see STATISTIC S Ground: 93 Parking Space s Typical: 109 Parking Space s Top:25 Parking Space s Auxiliary Entry/Exll U. n 0S ROOF LEVEL /. .-uo:Y_- 'euumuc. it uha euucr Parking Count Estimate s 4%2 Levels :445 Parking Net Gain 445 - 79 = 36 6 Building Height Estimate s North Sout h 44'-6"33'-6" Building Height per Zoning 39'4" Building Square Footage Parking 150,850 sq.ft. Efficiency 4%2 Levels: 150,850 / 445 = 339 sf/ca r pe c ee Public Jae 88C.10KOR 2Future use bo Others '(Cultural and cr Feslbentlal l 11,a0C si 2 5 _9' ~~~~ 7 ///%u` mgom~'o.qa NIPOMO Option D 3 cM ww's IG°Aq888 SECTION B-B ------------------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- wo°»or Adobe .2881 0 0 ~5re'7 a DAN A PALM SECTION A-A September 27, 2006 Palm / Nipomo Parking `tructure City of San Luis Obisp o o zP 40'60'80 100'120' I I I I I I I 11 .120 WRN S 600'8..12 2;SAN ORANCIS CO RLIG nR0.1A A 0 2 at S .4G0.222F AXp1R.666 .0100 FAX city o~ san lu g s oBlspo ATTACHMENT 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo • CA • 9340 1 Notice Requesting Proposals fo r Architectural Design and Environmental Review : Monterey Street Parking Structure Specification No . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California will receiv e sealed proposals for the design and environmental review of the Monterey Street Parkin g Structure pursuant to Specification No ..The Department of Public Works must receiv e all proposals by 3 :00 P .M . on January 8, 2010 . Proposals received after said time will not b e considered . To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to th e Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title , specification number, consultant name and address, and time and date of the proposal opening . Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package . Obtaining a Specification Packag e ■Download from the City's Web site www .slocity .org - Bids & Proposals pag e ■Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above addres s ■Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the above addres s ■Fax a request to the City of San Luis Obispo at 805-781-7537 – include company name , street address, phone, fax, email and the name of the contact person . Requests must include the RFP title and specification number . General Work Description :Prepare plans and architectural elevations for an approximately 40 0 space "self-park" parking structure on a City-owned site in downtown San Luis Obispo ; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance wit h the California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guidelines that identify potential project impacts ; prepare preliminary construction cost estimates ; prepare a report that presents plans , environmental findings and cost estimates for presentation to the Cultural Heritage Commission , the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council . For additional information, contact Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner b y telephone at (805) 781-7590 or by e-mail at pmandeville(a~slocity .org . Additional information is also available by downloading the following City Council Agend a Reports from the City's website : May 25, 2004 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e July 5, 2005 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e April 24, 2007 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e March 17, 2009 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations ATTACHMENT 3 Specification No . TABLE OF CONTENT S DESCRIPTION OF WORK 3 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 7 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 8 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS 9 PROPOSAL CONTENT 9 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION 9 FORM OF AGREEMENT 1 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS 1 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1 8 INSURANCE CERTIFICATE 1 8 SUBCONSULTANT LISTING 1 8 REFERENCES 2 0 STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS 2 2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS : Consultant Services 2 3 APPENDICES 2 4 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 2 of 24 ATTACHMENT 3J Section A DESCRIPTION OF WOR K Background : The Monterey Parking Structure project was established by the City Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Council has met on severa l occasions to discuss the location of the structure on the City-owned Palm-Nipomo site an d consider designs for a parking structure at this location . At its last Monterey Parking structur e meeting held in April 2007, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual design options an d selected a preferred site plan design for the proposed structure . At their March 2009 meeting the City Council unanimously approved moving forward with th e next steps of environmental review, completion of design and preparation of plans an d specifications . The Preferred Site Plan (Option D3 ) 9ECI;ONA.A Important considerations of the site plan include locating the parking structure main entry o n Palm Street, maintaining the large oak tree on Monterey and allowing portions of the site to b e developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be buil t first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding i s in place . The preferred site plan locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipom o Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Montere y Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Montere y Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, includin g two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestria n paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the propert y along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 3 of 248Z-/3 ATTACHMENT devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has bee n removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center o f the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoinin g residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion o f the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to th e adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required . Additional parkin g levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofin g the structure . The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not includ e elevator towers . Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =36 feet Palm Street =44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" =21 feet The City Council directed that the proposed final design for the parking structure also look a t added uses on the site and the cost of those uses . Proiect Goal s •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not loo k like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e . Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater o n a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifie s cultural uses in addition to parking on the site . •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make an effort to preserve the large oak tree . •Incorporate green technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . Scope of Work : The consultant selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City Council and consistent with the Preferre d Site Plan (D3). The final design will include a biddable set of plans and specifications fo r construction, consistent with current policies and procedures . In the course of the design wor k the consultant will be required to present plans to various City Commissions including th e Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commission and the Plannin g Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A fina l design will be approved by the City Council . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 4 of 24 ATTACHMENT The Deputy Director of Public Works will establish a Project Team that will work with th e selected consultant and provide information, direction and advice . The Project Team wil l include civil and traffic engineering, parking services and planning . In completing the design fo r this project, the City anticipates that the selected consultant will perform the following tasks : A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with th e Palm-Nipomo Street site and the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulatio n around the site, access patterns, utility locations, as well as previous reports, studies an d documents related to the project . Consider any findings and/or recommendations tha t may further develop, revise, or question any previous decisions by the City on the desig n of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous Cit y Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . Th e proposal should reflect meetings with the Project Team prior to each meeting with th e City Council and City Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost o f those uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize th e use of the site by exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum o f options for their consideration . Some options have been previously studied and are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), i n accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the requirements o f the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the Cit y (attached as Appendix 1). The IES shall identify all potentially significant project impact s in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IE S will present mitigation measures needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them t o insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that th e consultant will at a minimum, be required to prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusin g on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impact s of building a structure 16 feet below grade and the impacts on both the parking structur e and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study including shading impacts on adjacen t properties and a study of archeological and historical issues . A Phase II Hazardou s Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need further investigation . Th e anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negativ e Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determine s that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and cos t of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritag e Commission (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Plannin g Commission (PC)for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction an d operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, AR C and the PC into the project plans as directed . Refer to the checklists attached a s Appendix 2 . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make change s as directed . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 5 of 24 ATTACHMENT Although not included in this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retaine d to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . Deliverable s •Analysis of potential additional uses on the site . •Architectural site plans and elevations . •Architectural Review application including submittal requirements . •Cost estimates for construction and maintenance of design submitted for City Counci l approval . •Environmental Initial Stud y Agreement Management : The selected consultant will be expected to assign a single point person who understands th e overall agreement and can manage paperwork associated with it . This person does not need t o be assigned to any of the individual projects, but should be available to listen and follow up o n concerns regarding performance . Cost proposals will be received after scoping meetings, an d may include the cost of the scoping meeting . The City will evaluate the proposal upon receip t and negotiate workscope further as needed . The consultant will receive a Purchase Order afte r the proposal scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the project work . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 6 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITION S PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Requirement to Meet All Provisions .Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet al l of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package . By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RF P specifications . 2 . Proposal Submittal .Each proposal must include the form(s) provided in the specifications, accompanied b y any other required submittals or supplemental materials . Proposal documents shall be enclosed in a n envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 91 9 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 . In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal shoul d be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time o f proposal opening . No FAX submittals will be accepted . 3 . Insurance Certificate .Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing : a.The insurance carrier and its A .M . Best rating . b.Scope of coverage and limits . c.Deductibles and self-insured retention . The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant's insurance coverag e during proposal evaluation ; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required unti l contract award . The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section F . 4. Submittal of References .Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the for m provided in the RFP package . 5 . Statement of Contract Disqualifications .Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any pas t government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package . 6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening .A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to th e time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal , in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened . No proposal received after the tim e specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered . Al l proposals will be opened and declared publicly . Consultants or their representatives are invited to be presen t at the opening of the proposals . 7 .Submittal of One Proposal Only .No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file , or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested ; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submittin g a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals . 8 . Communications .All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response fro m the City . Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted . However, an y such oral communication shall not be binding on the City . 9 . Alternative Proposals .The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes wil l also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way . In this case, the proposer must provide a n analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under wha t circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 7 of 24 ATTACHMENT CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTIO N 10.Proposal Retention and Award .The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days fo r examination and comparison . The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in an y proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except t o the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations . 11.Competency and Responsibility of Consultant .The City reserves full discretion to determine th e competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants . Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision . 12.Contract Requirement .The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the Cit y within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in it s proposal . The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications . 13.Insurance Requirements .The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d amounts specified in these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution . 14.Business License &Tax .The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and ta x certificate before execution of the contract . Additional information regarding the City's business license and ta x program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134 . 15.Failure to Accept Contract .The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is mad e (Consultant) fails to enter into the contract : the award will be annulled ; any bid security will be forfeited i n accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required ; and an awar d may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, wh o shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made . —/O Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 8 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section C PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCES S PROPOSAL CONTEN T 1 . Submittal Form s a.Acknowledgement b.Certificate of Insuranc e c.Subconsultant Listing d.Reference s e.Statement of Past Disqualification s 2 . Evaluation and Selection Criteri a a.Understanding of the work required by the City . b.Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal . c.Proposed approach for completing the work . d.Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the wor k required by the City . e.Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of wor k f.Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub-consultant s g.Recent experience in successfully performing similar services . h.Demonstrated ability of assigned staff to communicate effectively with elected and appointed City officials . i.Reference s j.Proposed compensation . k.Estimated cost to prepare construction plans and specifications . 3 . Work Program a.Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigne d Capital Improvement Plan work . b.Services or data anticipated to be provided by the Cit y c.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decisio n 4 . Proposal Length and Copie s a.Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information . Charts and other short for m approaches to convey information are encouraged . b.Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted . PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTIO N Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows : 5 . Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selectio n Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the responsiveness , qualifications and understanding of the Consultant relative to these specification requirements . A group o f finalist candidates will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations, or requests for additiona l clarifying information, before a final top ranked consultant is determined . e F--/7 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 9 of 24 ATTACHMENT 6.Oral Presentations/Interview s Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about thei r proposal, or respond to a written request for additional information within an allotted time . The purpose of this second phase to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal, to evaluate th e proposer's ability to clearly and concisely present information orally, and to expand on the approach to workin g integrally with City staff . 7.Consultant Selectio n After evaluating the proposals and discussing them with the finalists, a ranking of the consultants based o n these items will be generated . Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the bes t overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including : the written proposal criteri a described above ; results of background and reference checks ; results from the interviews and presentation s phase ; and proposed compensation rates . 8.Proposal Review and Award Schedul e The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award : Issue RFP 12/3/200 9 Conduct pre proposal conference 12/17/200 9 Receive proposals 1 /8/201 0 Complete proposal evaluation 1/15/201 0 Conduct finalist interviews 1/21/201 0 Finalize staff recommendation 1/29/201 0 Award contract 2/2/201 0 Execute contract 2/5/201 0 Start work 2/8/201 0 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 10 of 24 253 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Friday, July 15, 2016 2:26 PM To:Richard Daulton Subject:Palm-Nipomo Attachments:Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work - Rev 6-8-16.docx; Fig 3 ProposedSitePlan.pdf Importance:High Can we set a Ɵme next week to chat about the Project DescripƟon for Palm-Nipomo? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Daulton [mailto:RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:05 PM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: AutomaƟc reply: San Luis Ranch Schedule Thank you for contacƟng me. I am out of the office through Friday July 1st. If you require immediate assistance, please contact John Larson or Chris Bersbach at (805) 547-0900. 254 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:15 AM To:Bochum, Tim Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work - RC edit 6-23-16.docx Hi Tim- I did a very brief review of the RFP for context and only had one comment which I added to the attached version. Please let me know if you want me to provide more grammatical comments. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:59 PM To: Cohen, Rachel; Davidson, Doug Cc: Hudson, Jake; Crisp, Matthew; Lee, Scott; Fuchs, Alexander Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Importance: High Doug, I think Rachel may be in Federal Jury duty still. This is a draft of the Project description for the Palm – Nipomo EIR. Could you have someone take a look at it and offer any CDD comments at this point? If Rachel is back next week it could wait for her. Thanks ahead of time. Let me know if you have any questions. From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:04 AM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Tim Please see updated Description of Work from Richard based on your comments and some that I had. I am getting the few detail filled in the table with him but let me know if this addresses your comments. Any chance we can schedule a kickoff discussion with the Debbie and Peter and myself along with yourself, the new parking manager and traffic. I would love to do in person but I could be on the phone if we can’t find a good day. I am on vacation from June 23-July 11 so want to see if we can get things moving forward more quickly for you. 255 I think getting the RFP out is the most critical thing so if we agree on this description of work I can finalize that document. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 . . . We moved! watrydesign.com 256 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:22 AM To:Bochum, Tim Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:Watry Palm St Pkg Gar IS.PDF Hi Tim Note that this is the administrative draft. We don’t think if this made it to the public draft stage, Rincon doesn’t have that version in their files. Richard is on vacation but his office got me this. Michelle From: Bochum, Tim [mailto:tbochum@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:12 PM To: Michelle Wendler Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Importance: High Michelle, I forwarded the draft on to CDD for review and comment. Do I now have your final estimate for your group’s costs that I can use to forecast contract needs? Our new Parking manager has started so I think our work is going to start accelerating. I need to get a revised contract going with you and your team as well as get the EIR and potential design contracts ready form processing. Also, I apologize if I’ve already asked this and you sent me a copy. I’m having difficulty in Peggy’s files locating a copy of the final Initial Study. I think I have excerpts but not a final copy. Do you have a clean copy of the initial study you could send me? From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:04 AM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Tim Please see updated Description of Work from Richard based on your comments and some that I had. I am getting the few detail filled in the table with him but let me know if this addresses your comments. Any chance we can schedule a kickoff discussion with the Debbie and Peter and myself along with yourself, the new parking manager and traffic. I would love to do in person but I could be on the phone if we can’t find a good day. I am on vacation from June 23-July 11 so want to see if we can get things moving forward more quickly for you. I think getting the RFP out is the most critical thing so if we agree on this description of work I can finalize that document. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 . . . We moved! watrydesign.com 257 258 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:59 PM To:Cohen, Rachel; Davidson, Doug Cc:Hudson, Jake; Crisp, Matthew; Lee, Scott; Fuchs, Alexander Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:Fig 3 ProposedSitePlan.pdf; Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work - Rev 6-8-16.docx Importance:High Doug, I think Rachel may be in Federal Jury duty still. This is a draft of the Project description for the Palm – Nipomo EIR. Could you have someone take a look at it and offer any CDD comments at this point? If Rachel is back next week it could wait for her. Thanks ahead of time. Let me know if you have any questions. From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:04 AM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Tim Please see updated Description of Work from Richard based on your comments and some that I had. I am getting the few detail filled in the table with him but let me know if this addresses your comments. Any chance we can schedule a kickoff discussion with the Debbie and Peter and myself along with yourself, the new parking manager and traffic. I would love to do in person but I could be on the phone if we can’t find a good day. I am on vacation from June 23-July 11 so want to see if we can get things moving forward more quickly for you. I think getting the RFP out is the most critical thing so if we agree on this description of work I can finalize that document. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 . . . We moved! watrydesign.com 259 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:04 AM To:Bochum, Tim Subject:FW: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:Fig 3 ProposedSitePlan.pdf; Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work - Rev 6-8-16.docx Hi Tim Please see updated Description of Work from Richard based on your comments and some that I had. I am getting the few detail filled in the table with him but let me know if this addresses your comments. Any chance we can schedule a kickoff discussion with the Debbie and Peter and myself along with yourself, the new parking manager and traffic. I would love to do in person but I could be on the phone if we can’t find a good day. I am on vacation from June 23-July 11 so want to see if we can get things moving forward more quickly for you. I think getting the RFP out is the most critical thing so if we agree on this description of work I can finalize that document. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660 . . . We moved! watrydesign.com Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure ProjectInitial StudyFigure 3City of San Luis ObispoProposed Site PlanBase drawing source: Watry Design, Inc., 2010./ 260 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Friday, June 3, 2016 4:56 PM To:Michelle Wendler Cc:'drudd@rrmdesign. com'; Fuchs, Alexander; Lee, Scott Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work.docx Sorry Michelle, your email got piled on in my in basket. I’ve gone through Rich’s description. I think there is some confusion in the write up. I believe all of the resentences need to be analyzed for removal since the Little Theater project has a City agreement (a new one is being negotiated) and we need to analyze 610-614 for both the structure, and the structure with Little Theater. Can you can Rich take a look at my comments and get back to me. Thanks. My new parking manager started yesterday so he will be taking over soon. From: Michelle Wendler [mailto:MWendler@watrydesign.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 8:38 AM To: Bochum, Tim Cc: 'drudd@rrmdesign. com' Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Tim I was just checking in with you on the project description and the traffic engineering contract. It would also be good to schedule an in person meeting with Debbie and Pierre to review the options etc. Let me know what works for you. Michelle From: Michelle Wendler Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:57 PM To: Tim Bochum Cc: 'drudd@rrmdesign. com' Subject: Fwd: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Tim Here is a draft of a project description for the RFP from Richard. I have a few comments but wanted to get this to you. I have let Fehr and Peers know we are going a different way. Let me know next steps on that. I am getting final proposals from RRM and Peter as well. I think it would be good to have a kickoff meeting in person to go through the site plan and revisit assumptions. We should schedule soon. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660...We moved! 261 watrydesign.com Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Daulton <RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Date: May 20, 2016 at 9:16:22 AM PDT To: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Subject: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Michelle, A draft of the Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work is attached for your review. Note that we highlighted in green a few project description details we didn’t have readily available. We’re hoping you can fill those in, but if not, we can simply remove them. Let me know if there is any other detail we can add. Thanks, Rich Richard Daulton, MURP Principal / Vice President 262 From:Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Sent:Friday, May 20, 2016 4:57 PM To:Bochum, Tim Cc:'drudd@rrmdesign. com' Subject:Fwd: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Attachments:image001.png; ATT00001.htm; Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work.docx; ATT00002.htm Hi Tim Here is a draft of a project description for the RFP from Richard. I have a few comments but wanted to get this to you. I have let Fehr and Peers know we are going a different way. Let me know next steps on that. I am getting final proposals from RRM and Peter as well. I think it would be good to have a kickoff meeting in person to go through the site plan and revisit assumptions. We should schedule soon. Michelle Wendler, AIA | Principal WATRY DESIGN, INC. | IT’S NOT THE JOURNEY, IT’S THE PARKING! San Jose, CA 408.392.7900 | Irvine, CA 949.429.4800 | Dallas, TX 469.565.1660...We moved! watrydesign.com Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Daulton <RDaulton@rinconconsultants.com> Date: May 20, 2016 at 9:16:22 AM PDT To: Michelle Wendler <MWendler@watrydesign.com> Subject: Palm Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work Hi Michelle, A draft of the Palm-Nipomo EIR RFP Description of Work is attached for your review. Note that we highlighted in green a few project description details we didn’t have readily available. We’re hoping you can fill those in, but if not, we can simply remove them. Let me know if there is any other detail we can add. Thanks, Rich Richard Daulton, MURP Principal / Vice President 263 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:09 AM To:Kevin Harris (kevinharris@slolittletheatre.org) Cc:Bochum, Tim; Leveille, Brian Subject:Key Terms Draft Attachments:SLOLT Key Terms 05-10-16.docx Kevin, Attached please find the latest draft of the key terms. We will have to line up some of the timing issues with your plans. Once we are on the same page we can talk about when we go to Council. Thanks, Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org 264 From:Leveille, Brian Sent:Wednesday, May 4, 2016 5:05 PM To:Johnson, Lee; Bochum, Tim Subject:RE: Little Theatre MOA I think the Statement of Overriding Considerations could be more broad in terms of spelling out the community benefits along with the parking, and would not need to specifically mention the SLOLT, but cultural, entertainment, arts, etc. Thanks Brian Leveille Senior Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bleveille@slocity.org T 805.781.7166 slocity.org From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 4:15 PM To: Bochum, Tim; Leveille, Brian Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Tim, Thanks! Brian, I think Tim meant to copy you on this as well… Lee From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:49 PM To: Johnson, Lee Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Sorry about the lack in response….. The SLOLT can only go to construction after the EIR for Palm Nipomo has been completed due to the Class 1 issue for the 614 Monterey house needed to come down for the SLOLT project. I’d therefore say that the SLOLT is pretty much tied to the structure project both in design and definitely environmental determination. 265 If, for some reason the parking structure gets delayed (after environmental determination is completed) the SLOLT could still move forward as long as the Class 1 override findings include them as a reason for the override and it’s not just based upon the parking structure being built. Is that clear enough Brian or do we need to be more detailed? From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:41 PM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Little Theatre MOA To see link scroll down. Thanks From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:58 AM To: Bochum, Tim Cc: Leveille, Brian Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Tim, Can you get a quick look at this? Thanks, Lee From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:25 PM To: Bochum, Tim Cc: Leveille, Brian Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Tim, Can I get your comments? Thanks, Lee From: Leveille, Brian Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:41 AM To: Johnson, Lee; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Lee, Just a couple questions. Should the design review of the Little Theatre go along with the Parking structure as a cohesive project? Also, on timing, the draft key terms say that 2/3 of the required funding needs to be raised within three years of the agreement; but if the Parking structure is a ways off from the agreement, would it be difficult to raise that much funding without donors knowing the parking structure will happen. Other than that it looks like you have it well covered. Thanks 266 Brian Leveille Senior Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bleveille@slocity.org T 805.781.7166 slocity.org From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:08 AM To: Leveille, Brian; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Have you guys had a chance to look at this? From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:30 PM To: Leveille, Brian; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Little Theatre MOA Here is the link to the updated version: T:\CommunityPartners\Little Theatre\SLOLT Key Terms 02-26-16.docx From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:09 AM To: Leveille, Brian; Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Little Theatre MOA Looks like it is the 3 of us on this to start with. I sent the meeting invite. Let me know if you think we need anyone else or if you have any questions. Lee From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:24 AM To: Bochum, Tim; Fowler, Xzandrea; Corey, Tyler Cc: Russell, Anne Subject: Little Theatre MOA Team, Based on Council direction during the Palm Nipomo discussion we need to move ahead with an MOA for the LT. Right now I want to make sure we have the right people at the table to ensure we cover the key items. The below links are to the current terms (w/LT Comments) and the MOA from 6//6/2000. T:\CommunityPartners\Little Theatre\SLOLT Key Terms 11-18-15 LITTLE THEATRE NOTES.pdf T:\CommunityPartners\Little Theatre\littletheatreagreement 06-06-00.pdf 267 If you could take a quick look at let me know if you or someone on your team should be involved with the group that will move this forward. If I can get a response by early next week I will arrange a meeting once we have the participants nailed down. Any questions please let me know. Thanks, Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org 268 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Monday, May 2, 2016 5:15 PM To:Orozco, Steve Subject:Palm nipomo Attachments:01-03-2012 b2 palm nipomo pkg structure.pdf; Council Agenda Report - Monterey Parking Structure RFP 12.01.2009.pdf; Council Agenda Report - Review of Design Option 04.24.2007.pdf Tim Bochum Deputy Director Public Works Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tbochum@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.431.5177 slocity.org c((o cunciL» C f C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the Palm Nipomo parking structure project and authorize the City Manager to award if the contract is within the project budget. REPORT -IN -BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking Lot 14 located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey Street. On December 1, 2009, the City Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review. Since that time the consultant team has been hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary design developed. The preliminary design includes the removal of the City owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future development of a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown. Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the design's potential impact on the environment. Through these studies it has been determined that the removal of the existing residential structures would be considered a significant adverse impact to historical resources and therefore an EIR needs to be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts. DISCUSSION The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project was established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003 -05 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and Nipomo Street. A summary of past Council actions is available for review on the City's website and in the Council Reading File. At its April 24, 2007, meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Option D3 (self -park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The selected design was chosen over a mechanical or automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure. It did include an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street. At its meeting of March 17, 2009, the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fund prepared by a consultant, and received recommendations by a Council - appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee (Attachment 1). The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings and recommendations. On a 4:0 vote (Mayor Romero absent), Council directed staff to RX31 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 2 take the next steps of environmental review for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans and specifications (Attachment 2). During FY 2009 -11, a consultant team was hired to develop the design and conduct the necessary environmental analysis. To date, two public workshops have been held to gain community input on the proposed garage and urban design plan for the site and its surroundings. Details regarding these workshops can be viewed on the City's website at www slocity or publicworks /palmnipomo asp . These efforts have culminated in a preliminary design (Attachment 3). The design currently assumes the removal of the City owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey to allow for the future development of a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown. The redevelopment of these two properties will also allow the single story structures to be replaced with taller structures that will aid in screening the four to five story parking structure and reducing the appearance of its mass. Additionally, public plazas will replace the existing private front yards. Feedback from workshop participants on these design concepts has been positive. The following graphic depicts how the parking structure will be partially screened from Monterey Street by a separate structure (shaded) in front of it. i 1/T fFri ?- li / ' i" ->... .g7 -------- This strategy is also proposed for the Nipomo Street frontage where a two story office /commercial structure (shaded) is proposed to front the parking structure. This screening/massing strategy "has been effectively utilized on the City's Marsh Street parking structure where office and retail space front the street and the majority of the structure is located behind these uses. B2 -2 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 3 Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate the preliminary design's potential impact to the environment. Through these studies, it was determined by the environmental sub - consultant that the level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review will need to be greater if the project removes the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey as envisioned by the preliminary design shown in Attachment 3. Specifically, the sub - consultant concluded that demolition of the two City - owned residences at 610 and 614 Monterey Street would cause a substantial diminishment of the integrity of the Downtown Historic District and would be considered a significant adverse impact. Development under this scenario would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report EIR) and Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Relocation was considered, but dismissed as infeasible for the 614 Monterey Depression -era Adobe. Staff recommends that the City proceed with the preparation of an EIR to address the cultural resources issue. While an EIR would focus on the specific issue of concern, other potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, and traffic volume would be addressed. The EIR would also include an alternatives analysis and formal response to comments. Because the EIR would be focused and utilize studies and analysis developed to date, the Palm Nipomo environmental consultant estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at potentially less than 75,000. Condition/Status of Monterey Street Residences 610 Monterey Street, photographed on the following page, is owned by the City's Parking Fund, is in fair condition, and currently rented to residential tenants through a contract with the Housing Authority. B2 -3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 4 610 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1938. The adjacent residence at 614 Monterey, photographed on the following page, was purchased by the Parking Fund in 2006. The renters that lived in the residence when the City purchased it remained until 2011 when they notified the City they were moving out. After vacating, the property management company inspected the property and identified a significant list of repairs needed before renting the structure to a new tenant including a new roof, windows, furnace, stove, oven, paint, removal of bathroom mold, and retaining wall reconstruction. Upon further inspection by City staff and a structural engineer, it was determined that the dwelling's structural integrity should also be examined before being reoccupied. Staff estimates a structure evaluation would cost approximately $5,000. Such an examination would include a physical inspection of the structure including attic, sub -floor, roof, structural assembly, as well as the electrical, gas and plumbing services), material testing of the structure for structural integrity, and the preparation of a report. Once this examination is complete, the City will have a better understanding of the work that needs to be undertaken if the structure is retained. Without a structural evaluation, repair costs are difficult to estimate given the age and historic status of the structure. For example, re- roofing the structure could cost four times more than a typical dwelling because the existing roof most likely does not comply with current codes. Additionally, a new roof for this structure is required to comply with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines. For now the Council should assume that the repairs could exceed $100,000 and once repaired the dwelling could rent for approximately $1700 per month. If the structural evaluation confirms these estimates, staff recommends against the alternative of retaining/repairing the structure due to the significant cost and impact to the overall Palm Nipomo project. The residence would remain vacant until demolition lite Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction 614 Monterey Street dwelling constructed in the 1930's 5 Update on the Palm Nipomo Project Need In 2009, the City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee for the Palm Nipomo parking structure project to answer two questions: A. Can we afford it? B. If we built it, will they come? The Committee met four times and developed the following findings which remain valid today: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure. The consultant's analysis of the Parking Fund in 2009 included the assumption that parking demand will increase 1% annually and that modest rate increases will occur every three years beginning in 2012 -13. While demand has not increased as expected because of the economy, the project has also not moved forward as quickly for the same reason, therefore the impact of the demand not increasing is not significant at this time. With Council approval of Sunday parking, new "Super Core" rates, and planned future rate increases, the Parking Fund remains in good financial condition today. 2. The structure is consistent with current City plans. The City's Downtown Concept Plan and General Plan promote public parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access and recommend this area of downtown for cultural facilities. No changes have been made to these documents to invalidate this finding. i RI Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 6 3. The structure will be needed at this location in the near future. Although the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been delayed, they continue to move forward and will remove approximately 225 existing public parking spaces. The Chinatown project will eliminate the public parking lots along Palm Street no later than 2019. The Garden Street Terraces agreement calls for construction to begin on Lot 2 no later than September 2015. Other planned or approved redevelopment projects that will create parking demand in walking distance to the project include: A. San Luis Obispo Museum of Art B. Vaquero mixed use project at the corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets C. Parsons House D. Foster Freeze mixed use project E. Leitcher House mixed use project. Construction of the parking structure will be timed with downtown development projects to have the structure available when the need is there as envisioned by the Ad Hoc Committee. Factors such as changes in the economy, parking demand, and the construction of redevelopment projects downtown area are all variable and impact when the parking structure will be needed. Staff can update Council regarding downtown parking demand as part of the annual Parking Fund review. Should Council seek additional input, staff can request funding for an update of the consultant's report when the construction plans are being developed or when significant changes in parking demand appear on the horizon. 4. There are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. In 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee identified a list of ten "carrot and stick" parking pricing strategies to encourage parking at this location for future consideration if and when needed. To date, only the addition of the "Super Core" rate increase has been enacted leaving the majority of the strategies available for implementation in the future. Many of these ideas are parking management strategies that are not tied to the Palm Nipomo parking structure. Accordingly, Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund review. Because these findings remain valid today, staff recommends that the project continue to proceed through the design and environmental review process. Moving forward now will give the City the ability to time the construction of the project to coincide with the parking need, rather than trying to catch up once the parking need is evident. FISCAL IMPACT To date, approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis. Existing studies will be utilized in the EIR so the expenditures to date have been appropriate. Staff estimates the cost to prepare a focused EIR at less than $75,000. Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget for design services and environmental review. Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likely increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions. i Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Direction Page 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Revise preliminary design to retain 610 and 614 Monterey residences The preliminary design could be revised to retain the two residences as part of the project. Such a redesign could also require the preparation of an EIR if visual impacts (resulting from reduced screening potential from the existing single story structures) cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Should Council wish to proceed with this alternative, staff recommends that Council approve up to $5000 in consultant services to fund the structural evaluation and cost estimates on structure repairs that will be presented to Council before a final decision is made. 2. Revise preliminary design to mitigate any project impacts to a less than significant level: If visual impacts of the parking structure cannot be mitigated with the retention of the two residences, this alternative may necessitate a redesign to a shorter and smaller scale structure that would be less efficient (and more expensive per space to construct/maintain) and would not meet the City's 400 parking space goal. 3. Defer project. The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in the area increases. Deferring the project will increase costs because the environmental documents prepared to date will need to be updated. Additionally if the economy improves during the time the project is on hold, design and construction fees are likely to increase. Since it is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could be available for use, staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase. Rather, staff recommends using this time to complete the design under the current consultant contract and complete the construction plans so the City can time the construction to meet the demand. ATTACHMENTS 1. March 17, 2009 Council Agenda Report: Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations 2. March 17, 2009 City Council Meeting Update 3. Preliminary Design Plan COUNCIL READING FILE Summary of Past Council Actions T: \Council Agenda Reports\2012- 01- 03 \SS3 -Palm Nipomo Parking (Walter- Mandeville) \CAR Palm Nipomo Direction.doc B2 -7 ATTACHMENT _I Council AQCnbA WPORt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Ad Hoe Parking Fund Review Committee, move forward with advance development of the Monterey Street parking structure (previously referred to as the Palm Nipomo parking structure) by taking the next steps of environmental review, completion of design, and preparation of plans and specifications. REPORT -IN-BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking lot 14 which is located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey. Streets. During the consideration of this project the Council has had concerns about whether the Parking Fund could afford this parking structure and whether it would be used at this location. At the 2008 Parking Fund Review, the Council approved the hiring of a consultant and the appointment of an Ad Hoc committee to address these concerns. Consequently, consultants were hired and committee members were appointed including Council Member Carter as` the. Council's representative. The consultants worked with staff on the financial analysis of the Parking Fund, methodologies on projecting revenues and expenses, parking supply and demand, pending development projects, and later with six detailed financial forecast scenarios presented to the Committee (Attachment 1). The Committee, the consultants, and staff met four times over four months to develop the findings and recommendations for this report. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee are: the Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure; the next structure should be renamed to the Monterey Street structure to better identify and market its location; the Council should move forward with full design and EIR review; the structure is consistent with current City plans; the structure will be needed at this location in the near future; and there are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. B2 -8 ATTACHMENT. Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The former Palm/Nipomo (Monterey Street) parking structure project was established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003 -05 Financial Plan. A Capital improvement Project (CIP) for the initial design ($1,350,000), environmental review 300,000), and construction ($12,000,000) was approved the same year. The Council has reviewed conceptual structure designs, approved property acquisitions, and approved revenue increases at nine separate Council meetings to date. On April 24, 2007, the Council identified Design Option D3, a 445 space "self- park" parking structure design as the preferred site design over a mechanical or automated parking structure without any mixed. use added as part of the structure. The self - parking design is how our current structures operate. Drivers park their vehicle and pay at the exit. (This report is provided in Attachment 2.) During the review of design options for the structure, two questions kept surfacing: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? The affordability issue was partially addressed in 2006 when the Council accepted recommended revenue enhancements that were phased in over a couple of years. However, a concern remained that we were replacing "low cost — higher revenue producing" parking assets like metered spaces in lots and on streets with "higher cost -lower revenue producing" parking in the form of parking structures. Downtown projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will eliminate existing surface parking and at the same time increase parking demand. This led to additional legitimate concerns about whether we could afford the parking structure with the current revenues we have in place. The location of the structure was yet another issue. The City owns Parking Lot 14 at the corner of Palm and Nipomo streets as well as residential properties at 610 Monterey, 614 Monterey and 633 Palm. Together these properties provide an ideal location to build a parking structure, but Would the public use it? The site is not in a highly developed area of the downtown and it was perceived by some as being too remote from the downtown core. The current parking lot at this location is not well utilized. So, other locations were considered (including Wells Fargo), but these locations proved to be unattainable. In short, the Palm - Nipomo site has the distinct advantage of being owned by the City and is therefore readily available. On the other hand, the Council and others have expressed concern about its location in supporting its use and cost for a parking structure. With these two issues in mind, on May 20, 2008 during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant -and put together an Ad Hoc Parking Review rim ATTACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 3 Committee (Committee) to answer these questions. The end result of this direction was to prepare a report for Council consideration that included: a. The financial analysis of the Parking Fund to verify its present fiscal condition and project its future conditions with and without the Palm - Nipomo parking structure. b. Options and strategies for: 1) correcting any identified imbalances under a "no added structure scenario," if any such imbalances are projected; 2) promoting use of a new parking structure at Palm - Nipomo (should one be built); and 3). generating sufficient revenues to meet projected construction and operating costs of a new structure at Palm - Nipomo. Committee and Consultants The six - member Committee consisted of. Councilmember Andrew Carter (Council appointee); Cydney Holcomb (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods); Mike Multari (Planning Commissioner); Pierre Rademaker (Chamber of Commerce Appointee); Susan Rains (Mass Transportation); and Tom Swem (Downtown Association Appointee). Fieldman Rolapp was hired as our primary consultant because of their past work with many City projects and familiarity with the City's financial operations. To handle parking demand analysis, Fieldman Rolapp hired Walker Parking Consultants. The consultants reviewed all financial documents and the methodologies of projecting revenues and expenses for the Parking Fund. They were instrumental in providing detailed analysis and projections for six different scenarios that used different base assumptions as the Committee requested. They also validated the majority of staff s prior assumptions and methods for projecting revenues and expenditures. Walker provided analysis based on our current and future parking supply when compared to our current and future. parking demand. Walker was provided with information on current parking supply on streets, in parking lots and in structures. Staff provided occupancy counts for our streets, lots and structures as well. Staff then.provided information on all pending projects. in the downtown with information on the uses, how much public parking they will eliminate, and how much parking is privately supplied. Actual parking demand was calculated using the Urban Land Institutes calculations. The Committee and consultants were joined by staff members Jay Walter, Tim Bochum, Debbie Malicoat, Bill Statler, Madelyn Paasch, Jessica Rhoadarmer and Robert Horch providing information and analysis. Committee Meetings 1. Meeting One (11/6/08) — The first meeting covered basic introductions, background, fiscal policies, financial information, the structure site plan, and the scope of the project. Staff went over a proposed schedule of the meetings and dates and promised to email the group two financial scenarios of the Parking Fund before the next meeting: "Without Palm- Nipomo" and "With Palm Nipomo." These two scenarios were sent out the week before the next meeting after considerable work by the consultants. B2 -10 AI TACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 4 2. Meeting Two (12/9/08) — The consultants and staff presented the two parking forecasts, base revenue and expenditure assumptions, with modest projected increases in parking demand. After much discussion, direction was given to staff to adjust three assumptions and add four more scenarios. Staff and the consultants agreed to make revisions and provide final information to Committee prior to next meeting. The six updated scenarios were emailed to the Committee just before the next meeting. 3. Meeting Three (1/9/09) — Staff and the consultants provided the adjustments that were requested concerning parking in -lieu revenues, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) expenses, and the cost of living (CPI) adjustments for operating expenses. Each of these line items were adjusted in all scenarios provided to the group. Six different financial forecasts were presented. Two forecast scenarios assumed no new parking structure, keeping things as "status quo." One scenario included the normal 1% parking demand increase and one forecast did not. The other four forecasts assumed the new parking structure being built with various additions and subtractions for demand increases from the Chinatown and the Garden Street Terraces GST) projects, as these would have significant impacts on the Parking Fund. After much discussion, Committee members were satisfied with the financial and parking demand information provided by staff and the consultants. Some "carrot" and "stick" methods of ensuring the structure would be used were presented but the group did not think they needed to get into this much detail at this time because parking demand can change significantly by the time the structure is built. The Committee thought it was best to explore these when the new structure was closer to being built. The Committee requested a draft of this report for their review at the next meeting. 4. Meeting Four (2112109) — Staff presented the draft staff report with the group's recommendations for review and comment, which the Committee unanimously approved with modifications that are reflected in this report. B2 -11 AITACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 5 Parking Scenarios with Different Assumptions The following is the summary of all of the six forecast scenarios. More detail is provided in Attachment 1. In millions First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20) In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures. Committee Findings and Recommendations Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff, mmtheCoittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:" a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243. 2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets. B2 -12 Working Capital By 2016 17 ** Lowest Forecast Year Debt Working Revenues Scenario Amount * Op Up Capital * Over Ex No Pa)m-Nipomo Project 1. Status Quo Revenue 7.5 321 % N/A 733,600 2. No Demand Increase 7.4 317% I N/A 1 10.4 321,600 With . Project 3. With GST and Chinatown 1.1 377- - 10.0 2.7 634,300 4. With GST/Without Chinatown 2.0 70% 13.0 3.3 446,10.0 5. Without GSTMith Chinatown 3.0 106% 10.0 4.7 630,500 6. Without GST or Chinatown 1.1 39% 10.0 2.8 624,300 In millions First "stabilized" year for "With Palm - Nipomo" scenarios; working capital and revenues over expenses improve in all "With Palm- Nipomo" scenarios at end of forecast period (2019 -20) In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures. Committee Findings and Recommendations Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by.the consultants and staff, mmtheCoittee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016 -17. The consultants verified that in all six scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:" a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 201243. 2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is promoted. . Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets. B2 -12 ATTACHMENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 6 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. Due to the favorable forecast of the scenarios presented to the Committee, there is sufficient funding to move forward with the architectural design and environmental review process. The revenue enhancements approved by the Council in 2006 combined with retirement of the bonds for the original Palm and Marsh Street parking structures provide a sufficient basis for the affordability of the new structure. Working capital can be used to lower the amount financed with the bond issuance. This will lower on -going debt service payments in the future. Waiting' to move forward is not recommended because of the number of development projects in process in the downtown. They will increase parking demand and eliminate parking on the street and in several City parking lots. Parking will be needed in the next 5- 10 years. Even if we begin the design and environmental review process now, it will be Eve to seven years before construction of a parking structure on this site is completed. Deferring this project beyond that is not recommended. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. The location of this structure is consistent with the City's Downtown Concept Plan_ and General Plan's Land Use Policy. These documents promote public parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access. This area of downtown is identified as the cultural center. Building a parking structure may increase cultural development and/or other commercial development in the area. Land.Use Element policy 4.10 says: "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the foFm of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The location of the parking structure is consistent with this policy as the Concept Plan placed the area for off -site parking just outside the edge of the core.. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. _ Although we have sufficient public parking today, by the time the structure is built we probably will not. There are 12 projects in various stages of development review in the downtown that will impact parking. Two of these projects, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, are substantial because they eliminate public parking and increase parking demand. The other ten projects propose to meet their parking requirements on site or pay parking in -lieu fees. Even without these projects the parking consultant conservatively projected added. parking demand downtown to justify building this structure in the near future. Generally, parking structures are not Elled to capacity when they first open.. When new parking supply is added at a structure, parking habits adjust and over time more cars will park in a structure. The Committee concluded that the structure itself would stimulate growth in the area, creating more parking demand. Downtown developments will contribute to the demand and. the two larger projects eliminate parking supply with the loss of City- owned parking lots. This combination justiEes that the structure will be used at this location. B2 -13 ATTA°,ICTIMENT _ Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 7 There are a number of strategies for encouraging parking at this location once the structure is built. - The Council can assess the best ones at that time. Staff provided several ideas that would encourage the public to use the Monterey Street structure using different "carrot" and stick" approaches. The Committee believed that there would be enough eventual parking demand to justify the building of the structure by itself. They also recognized that the Council and staff had a good understanding on how to adjust rates during annual Parking Fund reviews to encourage more use if it is required when the structure opens. If not, this analysis should be done looking at the parking needs in the future, not now. This will allow staff to better analyze the changes in public parking after Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces are under construction. or built. These concepts include: a. Modify all parking pricing strategies so the Monterey structure is the most affordable structure downtown. b. Offer more "free" time in the Monterey structure. c. Reduce or eliminate free parking. time at the other three structures d. Offer a "low" flat rate at the Monterey structure and use progressive rates in the all other structures. e. Allow over -night and residential parking at. the Monterey structure. f. Add parking meters on the 600 Block of Palm. g. Offer reserved parking at the Monterey structure. h. Only allow monthly passcards at the Monterey structure i. Add another meter rate zone with the highest amount in the central commercial core j. Use multi -space meters without attendants in the Monterey structure. Again the Committee does not recommend that the Council act on any of these at this . time. They are simply "in the pantry" and available for future consideration if and when needed. On the .other hand, many of these ideas are management strategies that are not tied to the Monterey Street parking structure. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund reviews (or any other appropriate times) as ways of improving downtown parking management and/or adjusting revenues. Next Steps If the Council accepts the Committee's recommendations, the next steps are: 1. Prepare request for proposals (RFP) for architectural review plans, select consultant 5/09 2. Submit application for architectural and environmental review 2 /10 3. Prepare RFP for environmental review, select consultant 5110 4. Complete draft environmental document 1/11 5. Review by Cultural Heritage Committee 3/11 6. Review by Architectural Review Commission 8/11 7. Review by Planning Commission 1 /12 8. Review by the Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications 4/12 9. Complete plans and specifications 10/12 10. Bid Construction Project TBD by Council B2 -14 ATTACHMENT Ad, Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations. Page 8 The above schedule does not reflect potential time increases to process appeals of certain milestones for the project (such as ARC or PC approvals) that may occur as part of the project development process. Even with the recommended action to move forward with this project, it will be 2014 before this project goes out to bid; and likely 2016 before it is open for operations. CONCURRENCES All members of the Committee were in agreement with the findings and the recommendations. Staff agrees with the Committee's finds and recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the Committee's recommendations: funds have already been appropriated for the next steps of environmental review and design. However, the total cost of building the Monterey Street Parking Structure is estimated at $20 million. As reflected in the attached scenarios, the Parking Fund has the fiscal capacity to build and operate the Monterey Street Parking structure. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do nothing and accumulate funds. Downtown parking demand will continue to increase while our parking supply in parking lots and streets deceases due to redevelopment: It will take a minimum of 3 years to design the project and obtain approvals. This alternative is not recommended because this report shows there will be parking demand and funding to move forward someday with the Monterey Street parking structure. 2. Use the funding to promote "green," parking alternatives rather than accommodate more parking in structures and lots. The Parking Fund will continue to work to promote a combination of "green" parking alternatives by adding bicycle parking and funding alternative transportation programs. However, it is unrealistic to think -that we can eliminate parking cars at this time. Parking structures can be used to accommodate hybrids, electric vehicles, bicycles, shared car programs and other "green" concepts as they develop in the City. 3. Fund more transit ,services. The Parking Fund contributes revenue to the Gold Pass program and maintains bus parking on city streets and in the Railroad Square parking lot: The Parking Fund will continue to work in combination with local transit and assist in promoting and funding transit services. This will lessen parking demand but not enough to eliminate the need for another parking structure. 4. Add more parking on existing downtown streets. One idea coming from the Committee was maximizing parking on downtown streets with the use of angled parking on Higuera and Marsh. This would add more parking supply but it would increase traffic in the core and it is not consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Conceptual Plan. Both plans enhance pedestrian access in the core and place parking in the form of structures on the perimeter of the downtown. This alternative is not consistent with these plans. B2 -15 I,'FVWIIM ENT Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 9 5. Purchase more parking lots. This would generate revenues, be less costly .and would accommodate parking demand. However, like the alternative above, it is not consistent to approved City plans that promote higher density of uses in downtown. This may be a viable option for areas outside of the immediate downtown, because they can be used for future structure locations. ATTACHMENT 1. Scenarios 1 -6 with assumptions 2. Council agenda report where the Council approved Palm = Nipomo concept plan and approved moving forward. n r` ? r!}- '§k " 8a r`L ''qz i' . `. • t .r3,,, ar` cz Ss, -t'`t.,,;'^2' 2* i'", . t t t f <i^iv r.3 ,.. Y °^c S , . z k 4''r -m 4' . }, a lr. ., V;;; sai?e,s s., d .n. `z,.. mil, t _>'!. {_t,, .3 ak ;S'.. z. " !ye jS `7 i 3•,.s Ric;t{z''L`c` TAAd Hoc Parking review Committee, !1: 1' Mtg\CAR do B2 -16 i N I M-+ J 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h 4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. h l SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING'CAPITAL Attachment 1,A Scenario #1: "No Palm- Nipotno Project : Status Quo Revenues" Actual Budgeti) Projected 2005-06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008.09 2009 -10 201041 201142 2012 -13 201344 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017 -18 2018.18 2019 -2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots 298,000 387,700 379,600 380,310 $ 481,942 $ 261,661 $ 134,375 135,719 $ 221,513 S '223,728 225,965 228,225 230,507 232,812 S 235,140 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,340,247 1,353,650 1,367,186 1,380,858 1,394,667 1,408,613 1,422,699 1,436,926 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,961 1,097,506 1,221,033 1,298,195 1,311,177 1,282,070 1,294,891 1,307.840 1,320,918 1,334,127 1,347,469 1,380,943 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 412,267 416,390 420,554 424,760 429,007 433,297 437,630 442,006 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358,014 360,564 363,139 365,741 368,368 371,022 Pae4ngln4JeuFear 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75.013 78,013 81,134 Other Service Charges 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 2,909,600 2,868,800 2,874,984 $3,577,449 $ 6,102,844 -$ 4,132,630 $ 3,509,154 $ 3,693,332 3,731,158 S 3,769,440 3,808,184 $ 3,847,398 3,887,092 3,927,272 Investment and Property Revenues 253,600 524,900 384,00 141,156 138,240 150,019 314,019 345,059 355,328 297,496 322,914 346,647 368,654 388,746 406,722 Flnes and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891,974 846,340 818,811 827,000 883,769 892,607 901.533 910,548 919,654 928,850 938,139 Otter Revenues 8 900' 8 600 Total Revenues 3,921,800 4,265,500 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $4,607,664 $ 7,099,203 $ 5,265,461 4,681,212 $ 4,932,429 4,921,261 4,993,886 $ 5,065,379 $ 5,135,706 5,204,688 5,272,133 Expenditures Operating Programs t" 1,871,700 1,997,200 2,004,400 2,201,900 $2,333,624 $ 2,436255 $ 2,525,713 2,626,638 $ 2,736,076 2,845,383 2,959,047 3,077,241 3,200146 S 3,327,952 3,460,854 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (4) 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 682,000 1,481,500 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473,600 1,471,500 1,473,700 968,200 972,900 972,900 972,900 972,900 972,900 Total Expenditures 10,915,000 4,891,600 3,634,500 83,996,000 $4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171 4,073,994 4,202,774 4,331,801 4,465,973 S 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 7,930,900 Total Other Sources (Uses) 7,930,900 Revenues and 00W Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 937,700 826,100) 393,000 145,781) $ 588,940 $ 2,966,348 $ 1,034,643 342;310 $ (1,927,742) 847,267 791,112 733,578 669,733 599,192 521,549 Working Capital, Beginning of Year 4 6,353,200 7,29.0,900 $ 6,664,800 7,057,800 $6,912,019. $ 7,500,959 $10.467.307 11,501,950 $ 11,944,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785 11,554,897 $ 12,288,475 $ 12,956,208 $13,557601 Working Capital; End of Year 7,290,900 $6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 6,912,019 $ 7,500,959 $10p67,307 $11,501,950 $ 11,844,260 $ 9,916,518 $10,763,785 $11,554,897 $12,288,475 $12,958,208 19557,401 146078,950 Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures 01 390% 334% 352% 314% 321% 430% 455% 451% 3620% 378% 390% 399% 4115% 407% 407% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. h 4) CIP for 2008-09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800);, and reduction of $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. h l Revenues Service MeterCdkections Parking Meter Collections Lots Streets Parking Garage Co6ections Long -Term Revenues Leese Revenues Parking In -Lieu Fees Other Service Charges Total Service'Charges Investment and Property Revenues Fines and Forfeitures Other Revenues Total Revenues Expenditures Operating Programs 0 Capital Improvement Plan Projects i`) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing Total other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, Beginning of Year Working Capital, End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures 's) SAN LUIS OBISPO PARIGNG FUND.CNANGES IN WORICING CAPITAL Attachment 1-8 Scenario #2: "No Palmi4pomo Project: Status Quo Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase" Actual"' Budget") Projoetedm 2005-08 2008-07 2007 -08 2008-09 2009 -10 2010-11 2011 -12 2012.13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2018-17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -2020 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 376,544.. S 472,446 $ 253,965 $ 129,132 $ 129,132 3 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 $ 210,274 S 210,274 S 210,274 868200 9$6,600 1,039,800.' 1,017,713 1,275,199 1275,199 1,275,199 1275,199 1275,199 1275,199 1,275,199 1,275,199 1,275,199 1275,199 1275,199 672,800 802,400 796,200 806,912 1,075,882 1,188!133 1,254,510 1,256296 1215,882 1217282 1218,696 1,220,124 1221,566 1223.023 1,224,495 408,000 404,000 391,800 384,860 392,258 392258 392258 392258 392,258 392.258 392,258 392,258 392.258 392.258 392,256 219,400 244,300 243,100 237,856 237,856 237,856 235,856 235, 856 340,866 340, 856 340, 856 340,856 340,856 340,856 340,856 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 81,134 147,300 73,300 1 800 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2,946,400 2,909,600. 2,868,800 2,846,745 3,508,031 6,004,815 $ 4,006,338 3,350,496 $ 3,498,690 $ 3,502,655 3,506,736 3,510,938 3,515,266 3,519,723 $ 3,524,315 253,600 524,900 384,600 141,156 137,676 147,878 307,302 333,629 337,827 272,344 288,601 301A04 311,252 317,295 319467 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 83,143 829;664 794,730 794,730 840,876 840, 676 840, 876 840,876 840,876 840,876 840,876 8,900 8,600 3,921,800 $4,265,500' $4,027,500 $ 3,821,981 $4,528,849 $ 6,982,357 $ 5,106,371 $ 4,478,855 $ 4,677,393 $ 4,615,875 $ 4,636,213 $ 4,653,418 $ 4,667,394 $ 4,677,894 $ 4,684,658 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2.004.400, $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,525,713 $ 2,626,638 S 2,736,076 $ 2,845,383 $ 2,959,047 $ 3,077,241 $ 3,200,146 $ 3,327,952 $ 3,460,854 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 319,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1.481,500 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474.000 1°473,600 1,471,500 1,473,700 968,200 972,900 972.900 972,900 972.900 972,900 10,915,000 $4,891,600 $3,634,500 $3,996,000 $4,018,724 .g 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6,860,171 $ 4,073,994 $ 4,202,774 $ 4,331;801 $ 4,465,973,, $ 4,605,496 $ 4,750,583 7,930,900 7,930,900 937,700 6,353,200 626,100) $ 393,000 7,290,900 $ 6,664,800 174,019) $ 510,125 7,057,800 $ 6;883,781 2,849,502 7,393,906 877,553 $ 139,953 10,243,408 $ 11,126,961 2,182,778) $ 541,881 11,280,914 $ 9.078,136 433,439 $ 321,617 9,620.017. L10,053,456 S 201,421 10,375,073 72.398 $ (65,925) 10,576,495 $10,648.893 7,290,900 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 8,883`781 $ 7,393,906 .$10,243,408 11,120,961 $ 11260,914 9,078,136 $ 9,820,017 10 053,456 $10,375,073 10,576,495 10.64$893 S 10.582,968 390% 334% ' 352% 313% 317 %: 420 °% 440% 429% 332°% 338% 340% 337% 331% 320% 306% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008 -09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOA Adjustments. 4) CIP for 200&09 reflects: carryover from 2007 -08 ($319,000); deletion of wayfinding signs ($339,800); and reduction of $1,647,000 for Palm - Nipomo design and environmental review costs under "no Palm - Nipomo project" scenario. 5) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according'to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. N OC y F3•d y n L N O A 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment 14- Scenario #3: "With Palm - Nipomo Project with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects)" Acual 01 Budget") Proiectedm 2005-06 2006 -07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 2010.11 201142 201213 201314 2014 -15 201546 2019.17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019.2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots $ 298,000 $ 387,700 $ '379,600 $ 380,310 $ 481,942 S 261,661 S 134,375 $ 149,291 $ 243,664 $ 232,308 S 258,094 $ 260,675 $ 263,282 S 292,506 S 295,431 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,478,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,866,104 1,682,765 1,859,136 1,877,728 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796200 814,981 1,097,508 1,221,033 1,298,195 1,442,294 1,416,277 1,424,380 1,582,486 1,598,311 1,614,294 1,793,481 1,811,410 Long -Tenn Revenues 408,000 404,000 -391.800 388,709 400.143 404,144 408,186 .453,494 458,029 476,402 643213 562,715 582,553 661,569 682,661 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358.014 360, 564 363,139 365,741 368,368 371,022 Parking In -Lieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54289 2,657,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 81,134 Other Service Charges 147,300 73,300 - 900. 100 100 100 100 100 100 . 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges $ 2,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 $ 2,874,984 S 3,577.449 $ 6,102,844 $ 4,132.630 $ 3,81 ,283 $ 4,016,784 $ 4,051,785 4,463,419 $ 4,523,172 $ 4,583,747 $ 5,053,173 $ 5,119,511 Investment and Property Revenues 253,600 624,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 271,460 306,232 334,220 296.713 31,612 81,898 80,927 98,225 130,742 Fines and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 $34,079 891,974 846,340 818,811 909,700 972,146 981.867 1,090,855 1,101,763 1,112,781 1,236,300 1,248,663 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 - - Net New Revenues Pr New Development ar Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 202,451 252,426 332,642 387,614 387,614 426,376 426,376 Monthly 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 65,688 71,775 85,759 92,565 92,565 101,822 104,622 Residential Zone Displacement rn 22,500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24,750 24,750 27.225 27,225 27225 30,000 30000 Total Revenues $ 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 7,187,864 $ 5,389,883 $ 5,271,840 $ 5,609,939 1. 5,679,316 6,031,510 $ 6,194238 $ 6,284,860 $ 6,94$,895 S 7,057,113 Expenditures - Operating Programs t4i $ 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,525,713• $ 2,626.638 $ 2,736,076 $ 2,840.183 2,953,639 $ 3,417,441 $ 3,553,955 S 3,695,913 S 3.843,533 Capital Improvement Plan Projects lst 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,564 240,764 2.650395 20260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 882,000 1,481,500 1 512 400 1,475,100 1.473.100 1,474.000 1473 600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,918 _ Total Expenditures $ 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 S 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $ 4,016,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,230,817 $ 4,338,902 $ 6.860,171 $ 24,516,031 5,021,958 $ 5,559,943 $ 5,708,273 S 5,881,974 S 6,016,280 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 10I $ 7,930 900 10,000,000 Total Other Sources (Uses) $ 7,930,900 10,000,000 Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ 626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 3,055,009 $ 1,159,045 $ 932,938 $'(1,250,232) 8,836,715) S 1,009,552 $ 634,295 $ 76,586 $ 1,083,921 S 1,040,833 Working Capital, Beginning of Year $ 6A63,200 $ 7,290.900 $ 6.664,800 $ 7.057.800 $ 6,365,019 $ 5.993,673 $ 9,048 682 $ 10,207,727 $ 11,140,685 $ 9,890,433 1,053,718 $ 2,083,270 $ 2,897,564 $ 3,274,150 $ 4,358,071 Working Capitol, End of Year $ 7,290,900 $ 6,684,800 $ . 7,057,800 .$ 5,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $ 9,048,682 $ 10207,727 $ 11,140,665 $ 9,890433_ $ _ 1,053,7iS _ $ 2,063270 $ 2197564 $ 3,274,150 S 4,358,071 S 5,398,904 Working Capltat as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures FI 390% 334% 352% 2441A 257% 371% 404% 424% 361% 37% 70% 79% 92% 118% 1401A 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieidman. Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3), Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs includes Transportation Expenses, General Goliemment Expenses, and MOA Adjustments, 5) CIP for 2008 -M includes. $319,000. carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm•Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,80D for waylinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the construction of Palm- Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the structure Is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $10,000,000 In net proceeds from the Palm• Nipomo Bond Issuance. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 201/6 of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poors rating criteria. ti 11 Revenues. Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lots Streets Parking Garage Collections. forg Tenn Revenues Lease Revenues ' Parking In-Ueu Fees Other Service Charges Total Service Charges. Investment: and Property Revenues Fines and Forfeinrces Other Revenues Net New Revenues(* New Development (* . Transient Monthly Residential Zone Displacement nr Total Revenues Expenditures Operating Programs l Capital Improvement Plan Projects(" Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sourcas (uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing <o Total Other Sources (Uses) 7,930,900 13,000,000 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - - Revenues and Other Sources over - Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534 Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442 Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5 975 Working Capital as a Percentage of . Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis. 5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction ofPalm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria. N i N O liJ H SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment t-0Scenario114: With Palm- Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project" Actualill' Budget(* 2005 -06 2006-07 2007 -0e 2008-09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011.12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 2017.18 2018 -19 2019.2020 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 S 380,310 $ 481,942 $ 486762 $ 361,727 '$ 401,879 S 498,778 $ 469,973 $ 544,360 $ 549,803 $ 556,301 S 616,940 S 623,109868,200 956,600 1,039800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,478,104 1,493,695 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,765 1,859,136 1,877,728572,800 802,400 796200 814,981 1,097,508 1,106,483 1,184,519 1,316,000 1,282,720 1,295,547 1,439,353. 1,453,747 1,466,284 1,631,264 1,647,576408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 476, 402 543,213 562,715 582,553 661,569 Meet219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242,637 245,063 245,514 247,989 355,489 358,014 360,564 363,139 365,741 W8,388 371,022332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 57,003 719,284 61,655 64,121 66,886 69,353 72,127 75,013 78,013 61,134 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1002,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 $ 2,874,964 $ 3,577,449 $ 3,615,394 $ 4,246,306 $ 3,945,577 $ 4,138,341 $ 4,180,617 $ 4,606,552 $ 4,667,737 $ 4,729,757 $ 5,215,390 $ 5,2e3,350 253,600 524,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 199,559 238,188 270,648 236,906 60,111 86,985 10D,368 111,987 138,853 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891,974 , 950,944 920,013 1,022,134 1,092,299 1,103,222 1,225,679 1,237,936 1,250,316 1,389,101 1,402,9928,900 8,600 34,654 69,307 1.03,961 152,476 156,784 161,093 181,941 186,681 186,681 205,349 205,349 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 61,380 63,360 71,874 74,052 74,052 81,457 81,457 22,500 22,500 22.600 24,750 24,750 24.750 27.725 27,225 27,2?5 301)00 30 000 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 S 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 4,805,019 $ 5,532,839 $ 5,442,524 $ 5,744,401 $ 5,769,948 $ 6,173,383 $ 6,2B0,615 $ 6,368,398 $ 7,033,284 $ 7,142,001 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,540,128 $ 2,641,629 $ 2,751,667 $ 2,856,398 $ 2,970,502 $ 3,434,978 $ 3,572,193 3,714,881 S 3,863,260 8,161,300 1,412;900 117,700' 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 2,650,395 . 20,260,411 270,827 261,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500. 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471.500 1473700 1.546.285 2,036,278 2,117,878 2115978 Z118,203 2119378 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,643,000 $ 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 $ 4,245,232 $ 4,353,893. $ 6,875,762 $ 24,663,093 $ 5,277,606 $ 5,834,516 $ 5,981,097 $ 6,137,727 $ 6,299,487 7,930,900 13,000,000 7,930,900 - - - - 13,000,000 - - - Revenues and Other Sources over - Undsh Expenditures and Other Uses $ 937,700 $ (626,100) $ 393,000 $ (1,692,781) $ 628,653 $ 658,303 $ 1,287,607 $ 1,088,631 $ (1,131,381) $ (5,893,145) $ 895,777 S 446,099 $ 387,301 $ 895,556 $ 842,534 Working Capital, Begirming of Year $ '6,353,200 $ 7,296,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5:365,019 $ 5,993 673 $ 6.651.976 $ 7,939,583 $ 9,028,215 $ 7,896,854 $ 2,003 708 $ Z899,485 $ 3,346.W $ 3 732.885 S 4628442 Worldling Capital, End of Year $ 7:290,900 $ 6,664,800. $ 7,057,600 $ 5,385,019 S 5.993,673 "651,976 S 7,939,583 $ 9,028 215 $ 7 898,854 $ 2 003 708 S 2,899485 $ 3.346.584 $ 3.732.M S .4,628,442 $ 5 975 Working Capital as a Percentage of . Operating Programs Expenditures pl 390% 334% 352% 244% 257% 271% 313% 342% 287 %. 70% 98% 97% 104% 125% 142% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MOAAdjustmenis. 5) CIP for 200849 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 forPalm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note mat $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of 510,000,000 for the construction ofPalm - Nipomo. The assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014 -15 and the structure Is completed and operational In Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 6) In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm- Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poces rating criteria. N i N O liJ H N I N 1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. - 5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. . 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl pie SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL Attachment 1-E Scenario #5: "With Palm - Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project" Actual (1) Rudget") Proleowm 2005-06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2009.10 2010.11 2011.12 2012 -13 2013.14 201415 2075 -16 2016.17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019,2020 Revenues Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lob 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 380,310 $ 481.942 E 261,661 $ 264,278. $ 293.612 $ 296,548 S 285,721 317,436 $ 320,611 S 323,817 $ 359,780 S 363,858 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 '1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1,464,460 1,479,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,785 1.859,136 1,877,728 Parking Garage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,981 1,097,508 1,221,033 1,233,244 1,370,134 1,383,835 1,397,673 1,552,815 1,568,343 1,584,027 1,759,853 1.777,452 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404.000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 476, 402 543,213 562,715 582,553 661,569 882,881 Lease Revenues 219,400 244,300 243,100 240,234 242.637 245,063 247,514 249,989 252AN 265A14 257,564 260,139 262,741 265,36s 266,022 Panting in4..ieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 2,657,003 59,284 61,655 84,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75.013 78,013 81,134OtherServiceCharges147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 $ 2,909,600 $ 2,868,800 S 2,874,984 $ 3,577,449 E 6,102,844 $ 3,539,581 $ 3,893,444 $ 3,934,227 . S 3,975,492 $ 4,390,090 S 4,450,140 $ 4,511,015 $ 41963,801 S 5.050.474 Investment and Property Revenues 263 ,600 624,900 384,600 141,156 107,300 119,873 271,460 290,633 322,830 955,500 90,506 120,869 139,785 158,982 189,551 Fines and Forfiftres 712,900 822,400 774,100 834.079 891,974 846,340 899.793 99SA70 1,009,666 1,019,763 1,132,957. 1,144,286 1,155,729 1284,015 1296,855 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 Net New Revenues (3) New Development r31 Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 198,143 243,809 318,424 368,657 368,657 405,523 405,523 Monthly 13,500 27.000 40,500 59,+00 63,608 67,815 79,225 83,853 83,853 92,238 92,238 Residential Zone Displacement 22.500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24,750 24,750 27,225 27,225 27,225 30,000 30 000 Total Revenues 3,921,800 S 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,2.19 $ 4,647,377 $ 7,1.87,864 $ 4,877,795 $ 5,420,372 $' 5,553,223 $ 5,687,129 $ 6,038,426 $ 6,195,031 6,286,264 $ 6,952,559 S 7,064,642 Expenditures Operating Programs 141 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 $ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,436,255 $ 2,533,617 S 2,634,858 S 2,740,132 $ 2,844,402 2,958,026 $ 3,422,003 3,558,700 $ 3,700,848 3.848,665 Capital improvement Plan Projects 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,866,000 212,000 222,600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20,260,411 270,827 281,660 2921926 304,643 316,829 Debt Service 882,000 1,481,500 1,512 400 1,475.100 1,473,100 1 474 000 1,473,600 1 471500 1,473,700 1 415 437 1,797,493 1 860 843 1,861 393 1,861,418 1 855 918 Total Expenditures 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $ 4,018,724 $ 4,132,855 $ 4,238,721 $ 4,347,122 $ 4,464,227 $24,520250 $ 5,026,345 $ 5,564,506 $ 5,713,018 $ 5,866,908 $ 6,021,412 Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing to 7,930 900. 10 000 000 Total Other Sources (Uses) E 7,930,900 10,000,000 Revenues and Other Sources Over Under) ExpenditurasLand Other Uses 937,700 $ 626,100) It 393,000 $ 1,692,781) '$ 628,653 $ 3,055,009 $ 639,074 $ 1,073,250 $ 1,088,996 $-(8,833,121) 1,012,081 $ 630,525 573,245 $ 1,085,650 1,043,230 Working Capital, Beginning of Year 6,353,200 $ 7,290,960 $ 6,664,800 S. 7,057.800 $ 5,365,019 E Sigg3 673 $ 9.048,682 $ 9,687,756 $ 10,761,006 S 11.850,002 3,018,881 $ 4,028,962 4,859,487 $ 5.232,732 S 6,318,383 Working Capital, End of Year 7,290,900 $ 6,664,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 15,365,019 $ 5,993,673 S 9,048;682 "&87,756 10;781.006 $ 11,850,002 S 3,011,881 4,028,962 $ 4.659,487 $ 5232.732 $ 6.318,383 $ 7.361.613 Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures pt 390% 334% 352% 244% 257°/ 371% 382% 408% 432% 106% 136% 136% 147% 171% 191% 1) Actual resuh and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Heldman, Rolapp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. 4) Operathg Programs includes Transportation Expenses, Generat Government Expanses, and MOA Adjustments. - 5) CIP for 2006-09 Includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007 -08 and $1,547,000 for Palm- Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that $339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Working Capital contribution of $10,000,000 for the constntchan otPalm.Niponto. The assurnplion is that Palm - Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 201415 and the structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year2016.17. 6) Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $1 D,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond issuance. . 7) Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according to the city's fiscal policy and Standard and Pores rating criteria. hl pie LWIM N N Expenditures Operating Programs 141 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 161 Total Other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other sources Over Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, beginning of Year Working Capital,. End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures m 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139 7,930,900 10 000 000 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000 937,700 $ (628,106) $ 393,000 $ 1492,781) $ 620,653 $ SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING FUND CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL 777,645 $ 1240,363 $ 1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $ 6,864,800 $ Attachment 7.F 5,385,019 $ 5,993,673 $ Scenario *6: "With Palm- Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects" 8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $ 7,067,800. $ 6,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $' 6,651,976 $ 7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $ Actual (1) Budgetnl i Prokct dM 200546 2006-07 2007 -08 2008-09 200940 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 201344 2014 -15 2015 -16 201617 2017-18 2018 -19. 2019$020 Revenues - Service Meter Collections Parking Meter Collections Lob 298,000 $ 387,700 $ 379,600 $ 380,310 S 481,942 S 486,762 S 491,629 $ 546,200 $ 551,662 $ 543,386 $ 603,702 $ 609,739 615.837 68-1,194 S 891,036 Streets 868,200 956,600 1,039,800 1,027,890 1,300,831 1,313,839 1,326,977 1.464,460 1,479,104 1,493,895 1,649,608 1,666,104 1,682,765 1,859,138 1,877,728 Parking {usage Collections 672,800 802,400 796,200 814,981 1,097,508 1,108,483 1,119,568 1.243,840 1,256,278 1268,841 1.,409,682 1,423,779 1,438,017 1,5971636 1A13.813 Long -Term Revenues 408,000 404,000 391,800 388,709 400,143 404,144 408,186 453,494 458,029 47BA02 543,213 562,715 58ZS53 661,589 Ba2,681 Lease Revenues 219A00 244,300 243,100 240,234 242.637 245,063 247,514 249,989 252,489 255,014 257,564 260,139 262,741 285,368 288,022 Parking In -Lieu Fees 332,700 41,300 17,400 22,760 54,289 57,003 59,284 61,655 64,121 66,686 69,353 72,127 75,_013 78,013 81,134 OtherSerAce Charges 147,300 73,300 900 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 M 100 Total Service Charges 2,946,400 S 2,909,600 $ 2,868,600 $ 2,874,984 $ 3,577,449 $ 3,615,394 S 3,653,257 $ 4,019,738 S 4,061,784 S 4,104,324 $ 4,533,223 $ 4,594,704 $ 4.057,025 S 5,146,018 $ 5,214,313 Investment and Property Revenues 253,800 524:900 384.800 141,156 107,300 119,873 199,559 222,889 260 ,100 296,494 33,897 65,613 84,341 101,410 134,129 Fines and Forfeitures 712,900 822,400 774,100 834,079 891.974 950,944 1,011,003 1,123,224 1,134,457 1,145,801 1,272,985 1285,715 1,298472 1,442,714 1,457,141 Other Revenues 8,900 8,600 Net New Revenues rn New Development rn Transient 34,654 69,307 103,961 152,476 152,476 152,476 167,723 167,723 167,723 184,496 184AN Monthly 13,500 27,000 40,500 59,400 59,400 59,400 65,340 5,340 65,340 71,874 71.874 Residential Zone Displacement r3r 22,500 22,500 22,500 24,750 24.750 24,750 27.225 27.225 27,225 30,000 30,000 Total Revenues 3,921,800 $ 4,265,500 $ 4,027,500 $ 3,850,219 $ 4,647,377 $ 4,805,019 $ 5,030,781 $ 5,602,476 $ 5.692,966 $ 5,783,245 $ 6,100,394 S 6,206,321 6,300,227 $ 6,976,512 $ 7,091,953 LWIM N N Expenditures Operating Programs 141 Capital Improvement Plan Projects (5) Debt Service Total Expenditures Other Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Debt Financing 161 Total Other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other sources Over Under)' Expenditures and Other Uses Working Capital, beginning of Year Working Capital,. End of Year Working Capital as a Percentage of Operating Programs Expenditures m 1,871,700 $ 1,997,200 $ 2,004,400 ,$ 2,201,900 $ 2,333,624 $ 2,450,115 $ 2,548,032 $ 2,649,849 S 2,755,723 $ 2,860,616 $ 2,974,889 $ 3,439,541 $ 3,576,938 S 3,719,816 S 3,8611,393 8,161,300 1,412,900 117,700 1,868,000, 212,000 222.600 231,504 240,764 250,395 20.260,411 270,827 281,660 292,926 304,643 316,829 882,000 1,481,500 , 1,512,400 1,475,100 1,473,100 1,474,000 1,473600 1,471,500 1,473,700 1,415,437 1,797,493 1,860,843 1,861,393 1,861,418 1,855,91a 10,915,000 $ 4,891,600 $ 3,634,500 $ 5,543,000 $. 4,018,724 $ 4,146,715 4,253,136 '$ 4,362,113 $ 4,479,818 $24,536,464 $ 5,043,208 $ 5,582,043 $ 5,731,257 $ 5,885,877 $ 6,041,139 7,930,900 10 000 000 7,930,900 - - 10,000,000 937,700 $ (628,106) $ 393,000 $ 1492,781) $ 620,653 $ 858,303 $ 777,645 $ 1240,363 $ 1,213,148 $ (8,753219) $ 1,057,186 $ 624,278 $ 5641,970 $ 1,090,635 S 1,050,814 6,353200 $ 7,290,900 $ 6,864,800 $ 7,057,800 $ 5,385,019 $ 5,993,673 $ 6,651,978 $ 7,429,621 S 8,669,984 $'9,883,132 $ 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 S 2,811377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470,981 7 .290,900 $ 6,684.800 $ 7,067,800. $ 6,365,019 $ 5,993,673 $' 6,651,976 $ 7A29,621 '$ 8,669,984 $ 9,883,132':5 1,129,913 $ 2,187,099 $ 2.811.377 S 3,380,347 S 4,470.981 S 5.521,798 390% 334% 352% ' 244% 2570% 271% 292% 327% 359% 39% ' 74% 82% 95% 120% ' 143% 1) Actual results and adopted 2008-09 budget provided by.the City of San Luis Obispo Finance Division. 2) Projected by Fkidman, Rolepp 8 Associates based on Parking Fund information obtained from the City. San Luis Obispo. 3). Provided by Walker Parking Consultants. , 4) Operating Programs Includes Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and MCA Adjustments. 5) C(P for 2008 -09 includes: $319,000 carryover from 2007-08 and $1,547,000 for Palm-Nipomo design and environmental review costs (note that 3339,800 for wayfinding signs has been deleted). CIP for 2014 -15 includes a Woddng Capital contribution of $10,000,000 forthe T constniction of Palen ipomo. Tile assumption is that Palm- Nipomo construction starts in Fiscal Year 2014.15 and the'structure is completed and operational in Fiscal Year 2016.17. Fiscal Year 2014-16 wry 6) Includes 510,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm- Nipomo Bond Issuance. 7) Minimum.worldng capital (reserve) should equal at feast 20% of the total Operating Program expenditures according for the Citys fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria. 1 i ATTACHMENT Attachment 1-G Assumptions for Parking Fund six scenarios: 1. The Parking In -Lieu Revenues have been updated to reflect the assumption that, beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 -10, three parking spaces are being paid for annually. The parking in -lieu fee is based on the Fiscal Year 2008 -09 fee of $17,072 per space and is adjusted by CPI each year 2. The projected annual change in CPI for Parking In -Lieu Fees, Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and Capital Improvement Plan Projects has been updated as discussed, i.e. in Fiscal Years 2009 -10 and 2010 -11; it is assumed to be 6% and 5 %, respectively. For Fiscal Years 2011 -12 onward, a CPI increase of 4% per year is assumed, based on a 20 -year historic CPI average of 3% plus an additional cushion of 1%. 3. The Capital Improvement Plan Projects tabs have been updated to include a base expense of at least $200,000 per year. These general updates apply to all six scenarios. Other specific updates have been made to the various scenarios. The following is a brief summary of the six scenarios and their specific updates, where applicable: 1. Without Palm - Nipomo Project: Status Quo Revenues 2. Without Palm- Niponio Project: Status Quo.Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase a. The 1% demand increases, affecting various revenue streams, have been taken out. 3. With Palm - Nipomo Project (with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects) a. Major impact on balance of working capital experienced in Fiscal Years 2013 -14 and 2014 -15. 4. With Palm - Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project a. Lot 3 and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the "without Chinatown" scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 3 and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 3 and 11 in the absence of the Chinatown project. . c. The $2.6 Million Parking In-.Lieu Fee from the Chinatown. proje ct has been deleted. d. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. e. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown have been taken out of the New Developments tab. f. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and .11 has been deleted. B2 -23 ATEACTIMENT Attachment 1 -G g. Major impact on balance of working capital starts in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and is especially prevalent in Fiscal Years 2014 -15 and 2015 -16. h. In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year, the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm - Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 -15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm - Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 5. With Palm- Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project a. Lot 2 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lot 2. This is due to the continued existence of lot 2 in the absence of the Garden Street Terraces project. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with the Garden Street Terraces- Project have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $7,600 and .$3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted. h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. 6. With Palm - Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects a. Lot 2, 3, and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Chinatown and without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 2, 3, and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 2, 3, and 11 in the absence of the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $2.6 Million Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Chinatown project has been deleted. The $660,000 Parking In -Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. B2 -24 Tir' ACT - _J_ Attachment 1 -G f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The $7,600 and $3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted: h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden. Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. L Major impact on working capital balance in Fiscal Year 2013 -14 and 2014 -15 B2 -25 1 1 City Council Meeting Tuesday, March 17, 2009 CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to approve the Consent Age C1 MEETINGS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3 ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to waive oral motion carried 4:0 (Romero absent). C2. TRIATHLON. ATTACHMENT ? Page 3 as indicated below. SPECIAL AND RE( g and approve as presented; ACTION: Moved by Carter /Marx to, s recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City, enter into an agreement with Heritage Oaks Bank for spons ship of the San Luis Obispo Triathlon in exchange for a 5,000 monetary contributio nd other in -kind services of approximately $2,000; motion carried 4:0 (Romer absent). C3. FINAL ACCEP ANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS F A 16 UNIT ESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION DA PROPERTIES. L.P ACTION: Mo ed by Carter /Marx to adopt Resolution No. 10065 (2009 Series) accepting the public i provements, certifying completion of the required private improvements, and relea ing /reducing the outstanding sureties for Tract 2865; motion carried 4:0 Romer absent). BUSINESS ITEM 1.AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Director of Public Works Walter and Parking Services Manager Horch presented the agenda report. They, Finance & Information Technology Director Statler, and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum responded to questions. Public Comments Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo resident and member of Save Our Downtown, spoke in opposition to the parking structure. Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, supported the proposal with two exceptions: 1) He objected to calling it the "Monterey Street' parking structure. 2) He thought that the structure should not be limited to parking only, but that a design - oriented architect should be employed to develop a creative urban design space on the structure. s i ATTACHMENT ?- City Council Meeting page 4 Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Pierre Rademaker, representing the Chamber of Commerce on the Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee, concurred with both of Mr. Schwartz's concerns. He added that it should not be called the "Palm - Nipomo" parking structure either. Tom Swen, representing the Downtown Association on the Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee, spoke in support of the recommendations. In response to Council Member Ashbaugh, he indicated that while he may be in favor of having a mixed use, he had concerns related to how it would be funded and whether it would be City -owned and operated. end of public comments - -- Discussion followed during which staff responded to questions. Council Member Manx suggested using "Monterey - Nipomo Street" as the name for the structure. She suggested that it could be designed so as to leave options open for other uses or additional parking space. She said her concerns about the project are financial as she wants the City to be able to work with SLOCOG, the County or Court System, or Greyhound Bus to build a multi -modal facility in the vicinity of Marsh and Higuera or Santa Rosa Avenue should the opportunity arise. Council Member Carter spoke in support of moving ahead with the project. Council Member Ashbaugh expressed some concern regarding the distance of the site from the projected parking demand, suggested that the structure should include some multi -use options, and suggested that the environmental review should address whether there are other feasible alternate sites. Vice Mayor Settle spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Additional discussion ensued regarding the RFP process and whether there are other practical alternatives to the Palm - Nipomo site. Parking Manager Horch discussed the new law that passed early this year which will require the City to pay, retroactively from January 2009, County and State surcharges on parking citations. He provided an analysis of the costs the City will incur and said this matter will be brought before Council in the near future. ACTION: Moved by Ashbaugh /Marc to approve the staff recommendation with added direction that the Request for Proposals (RFP) be returned to Council for consideration before it's issued (4:0, Romero absent). Staff indicated that an option will be built into the RFP that would ask the architect to look at added uses on the project site. While the report may comment on whether there are other practical alternatives to the Palm- Nipomo site, it will not be staff's intent to do further investigation on alternative sites. The Special Meeting adiourned to the Regular Meeting at 7.40 p.m. B2 -2f RwsFAAnLY IMOR`I'E ARY A4i, +g cstt'.itS'Cc Sid;itk Enhwictd llaYin fnrir xlf c Calming Assn ,&m SODA WATER MISSION COLLEGE LX 5Am Lars O spo CHILDREN'S MUSEUM ATTACHMENT_ x SAN l like Radv EXISE7n i'Y t'S," FAt LUi E4ES i3Yi{Cri y LX 5Am Lars O spo CHILDREN'S MUSEUM ATTACHMENT_ a tk Y.'kssa3town —+ e # B2 -28 x I.E1'SHi it Future Project) a tk Y.'kssa3town —+ e # B2 -28 counci lj aQEncla aepoat Meeting/Dat e JI T Item Numb// / of C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Jay Walter, Director of Public Work Prepared By : Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Pubk'c Work s Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT : MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTURE REQUEST FO R PROPOSAL S RECOMMENDATIO N Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for architectural design and environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if withi n the project budget . DISCUSSION The Monterey Street Parking Structure project (previously referred to as the "Palm-Nipomo") wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the FY 2003-0 5 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the site and designs for a parking structure at the southeast corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets (see Attachment 1, Summar y of Council Actions). At its April 24, 2007 meeting the Council identified Site Plan Design Optio n D3 (self-park design) as the preferred site plan for the Monterey Street Parking Structure (se e Attachment 2, Site Plan Option D3). The selected design was chosen over a mechanical o r automated parking structure and did not include any other uses within the structure . It did include an area for other uses fronting the structure on Monterey Street . At its meeting of March 17, 2009 the Council received a financial analysis of the Parking Fun d prepared by a consultant and reviewed by a Council-appointed Ad Hoc Parking Fund Revie w Committee. The Council accepted the Ad Hoc Committee's positive findings an d recommendations then directed staff to take the next steps of environmental review for th e Monterey Street Parking Structure including completion of design and the preparation of plans an d specifications. The Council also directed that the Request for Proposals for these services b e returned to Council for consideration prior to its issuance . Subsequently a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been prepared and is ready for distribution (se e Attachment 3, Draft Request for Proposals). As requested by Council, the RFP includes a requirement for the consultant to take a final look into the issue of additional potential uses of the structure or surrounding site and the estimated cost/benefits of those uses . Scope of Work Summar y As discussed in previous project reviews, the Council has established the following project goal s which will shape the consultant's design that will return to Council for final approval : Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 2 •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not look like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e. Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater on a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifies cultura l uses in addition to parking on the site. •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure and provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make every effort to preserve the large oak tree and integrate into the site design . •Incorporate green/sustainable technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . The consultant selected will be responsible for performing the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City and consistent with the Preferred Site Plan (D3). In the course of the design work, the consultant will be required to present plans to various Cit y Commissions including the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commissio n and the Planning Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A final design will be approved by the City Council . The following tasks have been outlined in th e RFP : Project Task s A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with the site an d the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulation around the site, access patterns, utilit y locations, as well as previous reports, studies and documents related to the project . Consider an y findings and/or recommendations that may further develop, revise, or question any previou s decisions by the City on the design of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the City project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous City Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . The proposal shoul d reflect meetings with the project team prior to each meeting with the City Council and Cit y Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost of thos e uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize the use of the site b y exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum of options for thei r consideration . Some options have been previously studied and discarded . They are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 3 D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), in accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the application requirement s for architectural review, environmental review and the Planning Commission use permit . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the City. Th e IES shall identify all potentially significant project impacts in compliance with the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IES will present mitigation measure s needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them to insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that the consultant will, at a minimum, be required t o prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusing on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impacts of building a structure 16 feet below grade and th e impacts on both the parking structure and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study includin g shading impacts on adjacent properties and a study of archeological and historical issues .A Phase II Hazardous Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need furthe r investigation . The anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determines that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort an d cost of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritage Commission , Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction and operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, ARC and the PC into the project plans as directed . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make changes as directed . Although not included in the scope of work for this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retained to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . RFP Schedule Task Date Monterey Street Parking Structure 1 .Issue RFP.12/2/0 9 2 .Receive Proposals.1/8/1 0 3 .Evaluate Proposals .1/15/1 0 4 .Conduct Finalist Interviews .1/22/1 0 5 .Check References and Award the Contract 1/29/1 0 6 .Complete work for Council Approval 3/11 Monterey Street Parking Structure Page 4 FISCAL IMPAC T To date approximately $157,000 has been spent on the initial design and financial analysis . Approximately $1,193,000 remains available in the Parking Enterprise Fund Capital Budget fo r design services and environmental review . Construction is estimated at $12,000,000 but will likel y increase depending on final project design and environmental conditions . ALTERNATIV E Deny or defer design RFP.The Council could defer a decision until after parking demand in th e area increases . It is anticipated to take a minimum of five years before a parking structure could b e available for use, therefore staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase . Rather, staff recommends this time could be devoted to researching innovative ways to increase th e initial demand for and subsequent use of the Monterey Street parking structure . ATTACHMENT S 1.Summary of City Council Actions, Monterey Street Parking Structure 2.Site Plan Options D 3 3.Draft Request for Proposals, Description of Wor k T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2009\Parking\Monterey St . Parking Structure\CAR Draft Revision 20091103 .DOC ATTACHMENT I SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION S MONTEREY STREET PARKING STRUCTUR E The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) wa s established by the Council as an "other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near th e corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential us e as a multi-level parking structure . The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owne d surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Stree t and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site ; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site . They were directed to incorporate uses intended by th e Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center .They were also asked to be mindful of the City's heigh t regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval ma y include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking i s the principal use . Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures : a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures ; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in th e structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay . May 25, 2004 City Council Directio n Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eigh t schematic design options . Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, th e consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parkin g proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space . At that meeting, Council directed staff to procee d with refinements to two designs : Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as th e "baseline" design options for further study . Council also directed staff to consider the following in th e refinements of the two options : 1.Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land are a on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some are a along Palm Street for offices and/or housing . 2.Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built . 3.Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street . 4.Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project . 5.Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground . 6.Proposing other possible uses (ie . senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for th e roof of the structure . 7.Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line . July 5, 2005 City Council Directio n On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roo f of the structure . At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3 , mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of th e structure . Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, ATTACHMENT I added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use . Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components : 1.Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . 2.Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer - Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3.Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St . and 645 Palm St.) on project plans . 4.Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design . 5.Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adob e detached "Dwelling over Garage"). 6.Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations and not e where exceptions are needed . 7.Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-se t the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings . 8.Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site . 9.Identify location of access/servicing area for "Future Use by Others"- if office use is developed o n Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street . 10.Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons fo r the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass . In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additiona l refinements to Self Park Option D3 : a.Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible . b.Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access . c.Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey . To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographi c survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine buildin g heights . In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other use s on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing . The Council dismissed this idea afte r receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs o f construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements . These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related . Additionally, building height exceptions would come int o play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the ne t amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure . The Council agreed that it would b e more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an alread y expensive parking structure . April 24, 2007 City Council Directio n In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options . All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), ATTACHMENT I maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by "others " when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place . The three options were compare d from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost . Table 1- Summary of Key Site Plan Option Feature s Design Comparisons D3 H2 H 3 Summary of Key Features Self par k structure wit h portions of upper level s removed t o reduc e building heigh t impact . Mechanica l structure wit h portions of upper level s removed to reduce buildin g height impact . Mechanica l structure oriented to reduce buildin g height impact . Building Footprint 34,350 s .f.20,500 s .f .20,500 s .f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s .f.118,750 s .f.121,500 s .f. No . of Levels 4 %5 %6 Building Height (35 ft .)* Height exception needed? 39 ft . Yes 41 ft . Yes 37 ft . Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft .) Street yard exception needed ? Other yard (10 ft .) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft . Yes 10 ft . No Oft . Yes 10 ft . No 0-10 ft . Ye s 25 ft . N o Total Parking Spaces 445 491 56 5 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Futur e Use by Others 11,400 s .f.8,700 s .f. 12,700 s .f . 19,800 s .f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s .f.4,500 s .f .3,000 s .f. 7,000 s .f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, an d the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design . Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving roo m for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the stree t from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a publi c use area and a pedestrian paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design unti l the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast , including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation syste m ATTACHMENT I is not required . Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs fo r ventilating and waterproofing the structure . Site Diagram for Option D 3 The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not include elevator towers . Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 fee t March 17, 2009 City Council Directio n On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultan t and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Montere y Street Parking Structure. The questions were : 1.Can we afford it? 2.And if we build it, will they come? Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committe e provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration : 1.The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financia l condition through fiscal year 2016-17 . 2.Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure ." 3.Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process . ATTACHMENT 4.The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and th e General Plan . 5.The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street space s combined with increases in parking demand . Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure . However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking . Projects such as Chinatow n and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce publi c parking surface lots . In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/o r converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown . Based on past consultant reports, parkin g demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years . Further, because the City is in the earl y phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantl y upon creation of the district . To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure wil l be needed in the next 5 to 10 years . A / PALM ST Entry/see STATISTIC S Ground: 93 Parking Space s Typical: 109 Parking Space s Top:25 Parking Space s Auxiliary Entry/Exll U. n 0S ROOF LEVEL /. .-uo:Y_- 'euumuc. it uha euucr Parking Count Estimate s 4%2 Levels :445 Parking Net Gain 445 - 79 = 36 6 Building Height Estimate s North Sout h 44'-6"33'-6" Building Height per Zoning 39'4" Building Square Footage Parking 150,850 sq.ft. Efficiency 4%2 Levels: 150,850 / 445 = 339 sf/ca r pe c ee Public Jae 88C.10KOR 2Future use bo Others '(Cultural and cr Feslbentlal l 11,a0C si 2 5 _9' ~~~~ 7 ///%u` mgom~'o.qa NIPOMO Option D 3 cM ww's IG°Aq888 SECTION B-B ------------------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- wo°»or Adobe .2881 0 0 ~5re'7 a DAN A PALM SECTION A-A September 27, 2006 Palm / Nipomo Parking `tructure City of San Luis Obisp o o zP 40'60'80 100'120' I I I I I I I 11 .120 WRN S 600'8..12 2;SAN ORANCIS CO RLIG nR0.1A A 0 2 at S .4G0.222F AXp1R.666 .0100 FAX city o~ san lu g s oBlspo ATTACHMENT 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo • CA • 9340 1 Notice Requesting Proposals fo r Architectural Design and Environmental Review : Monterey Street Parking Structure Specification No . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California will receiv e sealed proposals for the design and environmental review of the Monterey Street Parkin g Structure pursuant to Specification No ..The Department of Public Works must receiv e all proposals by 3 :00 P .M . on January 8, 2010 . Proposals received after said time will not b e considered . To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to th e Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title , specification number, consultant name and address, and time and date of the proposal opening . Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package . Obtaining a Specification Packag e ■Download from the City's Web site www .slocity .org - Bids & Proposals pag e ■Pick up a copy of the RFP at the above addres s ■Mail a request to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the above addres s ■Fax a request to the City of San Luis Obispo at 805-781-7537 – include company name , street address, phone, fax, email and the name of the contact person . Requests must include the RFP title and specification number . General Work Description :Prepare plans and architectural elevations for an approximately 40 0 space "self-park" parking structure on a City-owned site in downtown San Luis Obispo ; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Initial Environmental Study (IES) in compliance wit h the California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guidelines that identify potential project impacts ; prepare preliminary construction cost estimates ; prepare a report that presents plans , environmental findings and cost estimates for presentation to the Cultural Heritage Commission , the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council . For additional information, contact Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner b y telephone at (805) 781-7590 or by e-mail at pmandeville(a~slocity .org . Additional information is also available by downloading the following City Council Agend a Reports from the City's website : May 25, 2004 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e July 5, 2005 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e April 24, 2007 Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structur e March 17, 2009 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations ATTACHMENT 3 Specification No . TABLE OF CONTENT S DESCRIPTION OF WORK 3 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 7 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 8 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS 9 PROPOSAL CONTENT 9 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION 9 FORM OF AGREEMENT 1 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS 1 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1 8 INSURANCE CERTIFICATE 1 8 SUBCONSULTANT LISTING 1 8 REFERENCES 2 0 STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS 2 2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS : Consultant Services 2 3 APPENDICES 2 4 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 2 of 24 ATTACHMENT 3J Section A DESCRIPTION OF WOR K Background : The Monterey Parking Structure project was established by the City Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Council has met on severa l occasions to discuss the location of the structure on the City-owned Palm-Nipomo site an d consider designs for a parking structure at this location . At its last Monterey Parking structur e meeting held in April 2007, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual design options an d selected a preferred site plan design for the proposed structure . At their March 2009 meeting the City Council unanimously approved moving forward with th e next steps of environmental review, completion of design and preparation of plans an d specifications . The Preferred Site Plan (Option D3 ) 9ECI;ONA.A Important considerations of the site plan include locating the parking structure main entry o n Palm Street, maintaining the large oak tree on Monterey and allowing portions of the site to b e developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be buil t first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding i s in place . The preferred site plan locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipom o Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Montere y Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Montere y Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, includin g two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestria n paseo . The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the propert y along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would b e Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 3 of 248Z-/3 ATTACHMENT devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has bee n removed from the parking structure's roof top level to step the height back toward the center o f the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoinin g residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion o f the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to th e adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required . Additional parkin g levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofin g the structure . The parking structure's height is measured as follows . Heights do not includ e elevator towers . Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =36 feet Palm Street =44 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" =21 feet The City Council directed that the proposed final design for the parking structure also look a t added uses on the site and the cost of those uses . Proiect Goal s •Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces . •Be creative, but mindful of costs . •Design an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits into the downtown and does not loo k like a typical parking garage . •Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i .e . Lattimer-Hayes adobe). •Consider City codes such as setback and height . •Consider City's agreement with the SLO Little Theater to develop a community theater o n a portion of the site and the Physical Concept Plan for the Downtown that identifie s cultural uses in addition to parking on the site . •Orient the main entry on Palm Street and provide no vehicle access to Monterey Street . •Consider incorporating other appropriate uses on the site . •Design to accommodate other uses on Monterey Street in front of the structure an d provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . •Make an effort to preserve the large oak tree . •Incorporate green technologies into the structure . •Design and construct the project within budget . Scope of Work : The consultant selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to develop a fina l design within the guidelines established by the City Council and consistent with the Preferre d Site Plan (D3). The final design will include a biddable set of plans and specifications fo r construction, consistent with current policies and procedures . In the course of the design wor k the consultant will be required to present plans to various City Commissions including th e Cultural Heritage Commission, the Architectural Review Commission and the Plannin g Commission . Each of these Commissions may suggest modifications to the plans . A fina l design will be approved by the City Council . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 4 of 24 ATTACHMENT The Deputy Director of Public Works will establish a Project Team that will work with th e selected consultant and provide information, direction and advice . The Project Team wil l include civil and traffic engineering, parking services and planning . In completing the design fo r this project, the City anticipates that the selected consultant will perform the following tasks : A.Evaluate existing conditions and actions to date including becoming familiar with th e Palm-Nipomo Street site and the surrounding uses, vehicle and pedestrian circulatio n around the site, access patterns, utility locations, as well as previous reports, studies an d documents related to the project . Consider any findings and/or recommendations tha t may further develop, revise, or question any previous decisions by the City on the desig n of the project or the development of other uses on the site . B.Meet with the project team to verify project objectives, gain insight into the past an d current site conditions and discuss opportunities and constraints related to previous Cit y Council action and the observations observed or revealed after completing Task A . Th e proposal should reflect meetings with the Project Team prior to each meeting with th e City Council and City Commissions . C.Analyze potential additional uses of the structure or the site and the estimated cost o f those uses . The City Council has consistently emphasized the desire to maximize th e use of the site by exploring other creative options and will require a memorandum o f options for their consideration . Some options have been previously studied and are discussed in previous reports to the City Council . D.Prepare architectural site plans and elevations for the Preferred Site Plan (D3), i n accordance with project goals, and suitable for, and consistent with the requirements o f the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission . E.Prepare a draft Initial Environmental Study (IES)using forms provided by the Cit y (attached as Appendix 1). The IES shall identify all potentially significant project impact s in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines . The IE S will present mitigation measures needed to avoid significant impacts or reduce them t o insignificant levels . In order to fill out and complete the IES it is anticipated that th e consultant will at a minimum, be required to prepare a traffic circulation analysis focusin g on vehicle and pedestrian access, a hydrology and drainage study analyzing the impact s of building a structure 16 feet below grade and the impacts on both the parking structur e and adjacent structures, an aesthetics study including shading impacts on adjacen t properties and a study of archeological and historical issues . A Phase II Hazardou s Materials Survey was previously conducted, but may need further investigation . Th e anticipated environmental determination for this project is a Mitigated Negativ e Declaration (MND). However, if the City's Community Development Director determine s that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, the effort and cos t of producing the EIR is outside the scope of this project as described in this RFP and wil l require mutually agreed upon modification to this scope or the City's selection of a n independent consultant to do the work . F.Prepare applications and present the plans to the City's Cultural Heritag e Commission (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Plannin g Commission (PC)for approval . An estimate of project costs for construction an d operation will also be required at this time . Incorporate the conditions of the CHC, AR C and the PC into the project plans as directed . Refer to the checklists attached a s Appendix 2 . G.Present the recommended plans to the City Council for approval and make change s as directed . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 5 of 24 ATTACHMENT Although not included in this request for proposals, the selected consultant may be retaine d to prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the parking garage . Deliverable s •Analysis of potential additional uses on the site . •Architectural site plans and elevations . •Architectural Review application including submittal requirements . •Cost estimates for construction and maintenance of design submitted for City Counci l approval . •Environmental Initial Stud y Agreement Management : The selected consultant will be expected to assign a single point person who understands th e overall agreement and can manage paperwork associated with it . This person does not need t o be assigned to any of the individual projects, but should be available to listen and follow up o n concerns regarding performance . Cost proposals will be received after scoping meetings, an d may include the cost of the scoping meeting . The City will evaluate the proposal upon receip t and negotiate workscope further as needed . The consultant will receive a Purchase Order afte r the proposal scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the project work . Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 6 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITION S PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Requirement to Meet All Provisions .Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet al l of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package . By virtue of its proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RF P specifications . 2 . Proposal Submittal .Each proposal must include the form(s) provided in the specifications, accompanied b y any other required submittals or supplemental materials . Proposal documents shall be enclosed in a n envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 91 9 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 . In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal shoul d be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and date and time o f proposal opening . No FAX submittals will be accepted . 3 . Insurance Certificate .Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing : a.The insurance carrier and its A .M . Best rating . b.Scope of coverage and limits . c.Deductibles and self-insured retention . The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant's insurance coverag e during proposal evaluation ; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required unti l contract award . The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section F . 4. Submittal of References .Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the for m provided in the RFP package . 5 . Statement of Contract Disqualifications .Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any pas t government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package . 6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening .A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to th e time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal , in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened . No proposal received after the tim e specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered . Al l proposals will be opened and declared publicly . Consultants or their representatives are invited to be presen t at the opening of the proposals . 7 .Submittal of One Proposal Only .No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file , or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested ; however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submittin g a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals . 8 . Communications .All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response fro m the City . Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted . However, an y such oral communication shall not be binding on the City . 9 . Alternative Proposals .The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes wil l also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way . In this case, the proposer must provide a n analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under wha t circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 7 of 24 ATTACHMENT CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTIO N 10.Proposal Retention and Award .The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days fo r examination and comparison . The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in an y proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except t o the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations . 11.Competency and Responsibility of Consultant .The City reserves full discretion to determine th e competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants . Consultants will provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision . 12.Contract Requirement .The Consultant to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the Cit y within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in it s proposal . The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications . 13.Insurance Requirements .The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d amounts specified in these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution . 14.Business License &Tax .The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and ta x certificate before execution of the contract . Additional information regarding the City's business license and ta x program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134 . 15.Failure to Accept Contract .The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is mad e (Consultant) fails to enter into the contract : the award will be annulled ; any bid security will be forfeited i n accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required ; and an awar d may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, wh o shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made . —/O Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 8 of 24 ATTACHMENT Section C PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCES S PROPOSAL CONTEN T 1 . Submittal Form s a.Acknowledgement b.Certificate of Insuranc e c.Subconsultant Listing d.Reference s e.Statement of Past Disqualification s 2 . Evaluation and Selection Criteri a a.Understanding of the work required by the City . b.Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal . c.Proposed approach for completing the work . d.Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the wor k required by the City . e.Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of wor k f.Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub-consultant s g.Recent experience in successfully performing similar services . h.Demonstrated ability of assigned staff to communicate effectively with elected and appointed City officials . i.Reference s j.Proposed compensation . k.Estimated cost to prepare construction plans and specifications . 3 . Work Program a.Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigne d Capital Improvement Plan work . b.Services or data anticipated to be provided by the Cit y c.Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decisio n 4 . Proposal Length and Copie s a.Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information . Charts and other short for m approaches to convey information are encouraged . b.Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted . PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTIO N Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows : 5 . Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selectio n Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the responsiveness , qualifications and understanding of the Consultant relative to these specification requirements . A group o f finalist candidates will be selected for follow-up interviews and presentations, or requests for additiona l clarifying information, before a final top ranked consultant is determined . e F--/7 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 9 of 24 ATTACHMENT 6.Oral Presentations/Interview s Finalist candidates will make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer questions about thei r proposal, or respond to a written request for additional information within an allotted time . The purpose of this second phase to clarify and resolve any outstanding questions or issues about the proposal, to evaluate th e proposer's ability to clearly and concisely present information orally, and to expand on the approach to workin g integrally with City staff . 7.Consultant Selectio n After evaluating the proposals and discussing them with the finalists, a ranking of the consultants based o n these items will be generated . Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the bes t overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City, including : the written proposal criteri a described above ; results of background and reference checks ; results from the interviews and presentation s phase ; and proposed compensation rates . 8.Proposal Review and Award Schedul e The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award : Issue RFP 12/3/200 9 Conduct pre proposal conference 12/17/200 9 Receive proposals 1 /8/201 0 Complete proposal evaluation 1/15/201 0 Conduct finalist interviews 1/21/201 0 Finalize staff recommendation 1/29/201 0 Award contract 2/2/201 0 Execute contract 2/5/201 0 Start work 2/8/201 0 Capital Improvement Plan Design Services Page 10 of 24 council.agenda nepont C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM :Jay Walter, Director of Public Work s Prepared By :Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Work s Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planne r SUBJECT :REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOM O PARKING STRUCTUR E CAO RECOMMENDATION : 1.Receive and consider information regarding potential design options for the Palm-Nipom o parking structure and identify Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park design) as the preferre d site plan design . 2.Provide direction regarding next steps in the development process for the project . REPORT-IN-BRIE F The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Council has met on severa l occasions to discuss the Palm-Nipomo site and designs for a parking structure at this location . At its last Palm-Nipomo meeting held in 2005, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual desig n options and directed staff to proceed with refinements to self park site plan Option D3, mechanica l Option 112, and mechanical Option H3 (an option submitted by Ken Schwartz) and provide a cos t comparison for the constructing and operation of the three different options . This report include s the information requested by Council and recommends that Council consider Site Plan Desig n Option D3 (self park) as the preferred design given the current significant cost differential betwee n mechanical and self park structures . However, the more fundamental underlying question before Council is :If we build it at this location, will they come?This is a reasonable question, given that it is very likely that the nex t parking structure will be the last one the City builds for a very long time . Staff believes tha t circumstances have evolved such that it is appropriate to complete this project . Given tha t completion will take at least five more years, factors supporting this conclusion include : (1) major planned development/redevelopment projects in the overall downtown ; (2) present and futur e cultural facility development in the immediate site vicinity ; (3) added development that may b e sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo (e .g . Creamery redevelopment?); and (4) the likelihood of a downtown parking district in the coming years that will shift parkers out of neighborhoods and int o structures . Meeting Date h//Fl /at S5/N®N.D.M. Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 2 DISCUSSIO N Backgroun d The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Financial Plan calls for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipom o Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-leve l parking structure . The proposed parking structure site (see Attachment 1) is currently occupied b y City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and on e duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street). With the purchase of property at 614 Monterey Street last year, all of these properties are now owned by the City . The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site ; 79 surface parking spaces cur rently exist on the site . They were directed to incorporate uses intende d by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (see Attachment 2,"Conceptual Physica l Plan"). They were also asked to be mindful of the City's height regulations which limit buildin g height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations t o otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principa l use . Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures : a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures ; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in th e structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay . May 25, 2004 City Council Directio n Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25,2004 with their review of eight schematic design options . Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures (se e Attachment 3 and previous staff reports for designs and information regarding mechanical parkin g structures). In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structur e design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site , providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use o f space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs : Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the "baseline" design options for further study . Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options : 1.Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility an d leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing . 2.Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built . 3.Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street . 4.Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project . 5.Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground . 6.Proposing other possible uses (ie . senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) fo r the roof of the structure . 7.Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 3 July 5, 2005 City Council Directio n On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses o n the roof of the structure . At the meeting, Council directed staff (see Attachment 4, Excerpt fro m Council meeting minutes) to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2 , and mechanical Option H3 (see Attachment 5, a concept submitted by Ken Schwartz at the July 5 meeting) specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure . Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, added engineerin g requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use . Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components : 1.Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . 2.Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (histori c Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3.Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St .) on project plans . 4.Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design . 5.Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached "Dwelling over Garage"). 6.Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations an d note where exceptions are needed . 7.Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level , off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on - site dwellings . 8.Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site . 9.Identify location of access/servicing area for "Future Use by Others"- if office use i s developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street . 10.Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cos t comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such a s including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce it s mass . In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the followin g additional refinements to Self Park Option D3 : a.Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible . b.Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access . c.Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey . To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, an d topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 4 Other Rooftop Uses ? In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential fo r other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing . The Council dismissed thi s idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantl y increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements . Thes e added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related . Additionally, buildin g height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking fo r the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the ne w structure . The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties fo r other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure . Current Site Plan Option s In response to Council direction described earlier, staff and the consultants have refined the three site plan options (see Attachment 6, 2007 Site Plan Options). Each site plan option is describe d below and the consultants are prepared to discuss the pros and cons of each option at the meeting . All options locate the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintain the large oak tree on Monterey and allow portions of the site to b e developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be built firs t and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place . Structure size, positioning, and height all affect the gross number of deliverable parking spaces a s well as property available for other uses . It is not surprising that the mechanical parking option s provide the most net space available to other uses due to their compact design . Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Street s leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street i n front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points o f direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo . The residence a t 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street i s redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roo f top level (see Section B-B for details) to step the height back toward the center of the structure thu s reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to th e northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structur e is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanica l ventilation system is not required . Additional parking levels have not been located below grade du e to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure . The parking structure's height i s measured as follows . Heights do not include elevator towers . Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =36 feet Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 5 Palm Street =44 fee t Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 fee t Table 1-Summary of Key Site Plan Option Feature s Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure wit h portions of upper level s removed to reduce building heigh t impact . Mechanica l structure wit h portions o f upper level s removed t o reduce buildin g height impact . Mechanica l structure oriented to reduce buildin g height impact . Building Footprint 34,350 s .f .20,500 s .f .20,500 s .f . Gross Building Area 150,850 s .f .118,750 s .f .121,500 s .f . No . of Levels 4'h 5'/2 6 Building Height (35 ft .)* Height exception needed? 39 ft . Yes 41 ft . Yes 37 ft . Ye s Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft .) Street yard exception needed ? Other yard (10 ft .) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft . Ye s 10 ft . No Oft . Ye s 10 ft. No 0-10 ft . Ye s 25 ft . N o Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s .f .8,700 s .f . 12,700 s .f . 19,800 s .f . Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s .f .4,500 s .f .3,000 s .f . 7,000 s .f . Per the City's Zoning Regulations, building height is measured as the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roo f (structure). The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of th e lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building and dividing by two . The building heigh t does not include the elevator tower(s) which can extend ten (10) feet above the maximu m building height . In the Office zone, the maximum building height is 25 feet ; 35 feet with th e approval of an administrative use permit . ** Per the City's Zoning Regulations, a minimum street yard of 15 feet is required . Othe r yards range from a minimum offive feet to ten feet, depending on building height . Because a self park design is less space efficient than a mechanical design, this design provides th e least amount of new parking spaces (366) in 4'/2 levels and the smallest amount of remaining lan d area (approximately 11,400 s .f.) for a future use by others . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 6 ,th:i Maid MUTI Figure 1 - Site Diagram for Option D 3 Site Plan Option H2 locates the parking structure mid-block between Monterey and Palm Streets leaving room for other uses (residential, office and/or cultural) to be constructed on Monterey an d Palm Streets in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Montere y Streets . Because users do not enter the mechanical structure, direct access is provided to the neares t public right of way, but not directly through the site to Monterey Street as desired by Council .A total of 412 net new parking spaces are provided within 5 1/2 levels of parking, approximately tw o of which are located below grade . Additional parking levels have not been located beyond 20 fee t below grade due to added costs for waterproofing the structure . Council may recall that groundwater was encountered 30 feet below the surface in one boring taken a few years ago . With this design, the five residences are relocated or demolished . Parking spaces (totaling 7 0 spaces) have been removed from the upper levels to step the structure height back toward the cente r of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from Monterey Stree t and the adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . As an option, one less section of parking could be removed from Section B-B and Section A-A, whic h would add 39 spaces to the structure . The parking structure's height is measured as follows : Monterey Street =25 fee t Nipomo Street =43 fee t Palm Street =41 fee t Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 14 feet Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 7 ~~~f fllfff ifi ~iIIIiII] III II t i'ma IN . "I EMCEE; RINKIMIl l Itl t~l~~~~11i111~G ) 4Rm Figure 2 - Site Diagram for Option H 2 Site Plan Option H3 locates the parking structure diagonally on the site providing the wides t separation between the parking structure and adjoining residences . With a separation of a minimum of 40 feet between the parking structure and adjacent residences, the upper floors of th e structure do not need to be stepped back to reduce visual impacts . This design results in the mos t efficient mechanical design providing the largest number of new parking spaces (486)within 6 levels . Again, additional levels have not been located beyond 20 feet below grade due to adde d costs for waterproofing the structure . With this design, two public spaces (totaling 3,000 s .f. and 7,000 respectively) are created at the property corners of Palm/Nipomo and Monterey/Nipom o Streets and direct pedestrian access can be provided through the public space to Monterey Street . The single family residence at 633 Palm could remain until the 19,800 s .f. "Future Use by Others" area is redeveloped . The parking structure's height is measured as follows : Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =43 feet Palm Street =41 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage"=30 feet Considering only design features, Site Plan Option H3 best fulfills the City's goals for a parkin g structure at this location . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 8 Figure 3 - Site Diagram for Option H3 Mechanical vs . Self- Park Cost Comparisons As requested by Council, a cost comparison for the construction, maintenance, and operation of th e three site plan options was developed. Table 2 – Construction Cost Compariso n Construction Cost Comparison D3 H2 H 3 Initial Capital Cost/Net New Space Self par k structure Mechanica l structure Mechanica l structure wit h building orientatio n Construction (ti $24,800 $47,800 $46,50 0 Soft Cos t (Design/Constructio n Management/Inspection/Permits/Fees) $8,700 $16,700 $16,30 0 Total per net new spac e Number of space s Total Construction Cost $33,50 0 x 366 $64,50 0 x412 $62,80 0 x 48 6 $26,574,000 $30,520,80 0$12,261,000 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 9 Table 3 — Operational Cost Compariso n Operation Cost Comparison D3 H2 H 3 Annual Expenses/Gross New Space Self par k structure Mechanica l structure Mechanica l structure ( pe r Ken Schwartz ) Routine/Preventive Maintenance (2)$140 $500 $50 0 Operation tsl $425 $240 $23 5 Utilities $55 $180 $17 5 Security $67 $36 $3 5 Insurance $18 $18 $1 8 Miscellaneous $85 $85 $8 5 Total per space Number of space s Total Annual Operating Cost $79 0 x 445 $1,059 x 491 $1,03 8 x 565 $586,500$520,00 0$351,500 Notes : 1)Construction costs are in current dollars and derived from recently developed project s including the 919 Palm Street structure. 2)Maintenance costs assume mechanical systems will be maintained by a mechanical servic e provider adding additional cost to routine maintenance . 3)Assumes central cashiering for self-park and pay-on-foot revenue collection for mechanical . 4)Equipment/structure long-term repair and replacement costs are not included . 5)Soft costs computed @ 35% do not include land, financing, contingency, or escalation . 6)Initial software costs are included in construction cost . Software updates should not ad d costs to the annual expenses . Standard maintenance associated with software is a part of the Routine/Preventative Maintenance line item . Ownership of the software should be factore d into the initial contractual agreements between vendor and client . 7)At least one additional full time staff person will be needed for a new structure regardless o f its type . As expected, the mechanical structures are more costly to construct and maintain because of th e mechanical parking systems, however there are additional reasons for the cost difference . Other cost factors include : 1.Site Constraints .The Palm-Nipomo site offers ample space to build an efficient self-par k structure . If the size or dimensions of the site were substantially constrained, it would cos t more to build a self park design . Because a mechanical design can be accommodated in a much smaller footprint than a self-park design, the efficiencies of a mechanical desig n improve when size constraints limit a self-park design at the same location . 2.Construction Components .A short-term mechanical parking structure for public us e requires twice as many portals (entrances and exits) and associated mechanical equipmen t than a long-term private mechanical structure such as Hoboken, New Jersey (se e Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures). 3.Software .A software program to operate the structure is required and needs to be update d to operate the mechanical features . Ownership transition of the software needs to b e Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 0 considered during the contract development to avoid later disputes should the vendor go ou t of business or change business practices . 4.Preventive Maintenance .The mechanical design requires maintenance of numerou s mechanical components that are not included in a self-park design . A mechanical servic e provider is needed to maintain the mechanical components . 5.New Technology .Because the concept of mechanical parking is relatively new to th e United States, there is not a lot of competition and therefore companies selling and maintaining the mechanical systems can charge what the market will accept . The consultant researched existing and proposed mechanical structures throughout the world (se e Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures) to learn more about the pros an d cons of mechanical parking from other projects .All research shows that the mechanical parkin g sites were constrained in such a way that made the cost of mechanical parking more feasible . Additionally, the structures were designed to accommodate the demand for residential use (no t general public use) thus requiring fewer portals which reduced the cost to build and operate th e structures . All constructed and operational examples were also much smaller in scale with th e exception of the Hoboken structure that was designed to accommodate 320 vehicles . Finally, th e consultant learned that projects that included a partnership between the mechanical system provide r (vendor) and the mechanical service provider had fewer operational problems . Although land cost was not considered in the comparison, it is also a factor . If land cost o r availability was as constrained as it is in other countries, we would have fewer options to consider (such as purchasing neighboring properties) when developing a parking facility . Staff Recommendation in Light of Significant Cost Differentia l As of the date of this report, no public agency in the United States has opted to build a mechanica l structure . It is staff's hope that once the technology becomes more mainstream, the costs t o construct and operate a mechanical design will decrease, making it a feasible option for future Cit y parking facilities . Until then, it is difficult for staff to support a mechanical design because of cost s and the potential for other uncertainties . Given the current significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommends that Council consider Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park)as the preferred design at this time . Although the mechanical design (H3) i s a much more efficient use of space, has the least amount of visual impact to the adjoinin g residential uses, and provides the largest remaining land area for a cultural facility, the costs of a mechanical structure are far too high to pursue at this time . Palm-Nipomo : Where to From Here, or, "And if we build it, will the come?" There are several outstanding issues which remain unresolved at this point that could affect th e consideration of the next steps in the Palm-Nipomo project should be . Those questions are a s follows : Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 1 1.Will there be sufficient demand ? Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parkin g structure . However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking . Project s such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose t o eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots . In addition, parking spaces on the street are bein g eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown . Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years . Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district , structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district . To meet thes e new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years . 2.Will there be "new" demand sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo ? The uses surrounding the Palm-Nipomo parking area are changing and increasing cultural activit y opportunities . Many of the neighboring properties to the parking are not "developed" to their ful l potential . If past history is an indication in San Luis Obispo, parking structures can have a revitalizing effect on their "neighborhood ." After the Marsh Street Garage was constructed many enhancements occurred nearby, ranging from Dr . Morton's Dentist office to the Downtown Center . With the Children's Museum project, possible remodel of the Art Center and the Marpom o residential project all happening in next few years, uses are increasing in this general area . Fo r many years, it has also been thought that redevelopment would be encouraged at The Creamery , and possibly other nearby properties, if added parking were available . 3.Can the utilization of parking at Palm-Nipomo be enhanced ? Presently, the City does not have an incentive based program to encourage users to park at thi s location . Staff believes that as part of the next step in the process, strategies to attract users to th e Palm-Nipomo location as a long term parking location should be developed . One potential new user group could be County employees . There have already been initial conversations with th e County Administrative Officer indicating some County interest in participating in this project i n exchange for parking spaces for County employees . Staff will follow-up on this preliminary expression of interest if Council directs staff to proceed to the next step . Taking the Next Step s Based upon current Parking Fund revenues, expenses, and limits on funding sources, it is very likely that this parking structure will be the final parking structure the City will build for a very lon g time . The critical questions therefore are :Should Palm-Nipomo be that structure at this time? If we build it; will they come?At its July 5, 2005 meeting, Council answered "Yes" to Palm-Nipomo being the right location for a new structure . With Council identification of a preferred site plan design option for Palm-Nipomo, the next step i n the process will be to prepare plans and applications for environmental review, architectural review , and use permit review by the various advisory bodies (see general timeline below). This step follows the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan which calls for design to occur in 2006-07 an d construction to occur in 2008-09 . Before proceeding, staff would like confirmation from Council Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 2 on the timing of the next steps . Other timing alternatives are included in the Alternatives section o f this report . Task Date Palm Nipomo Parking Structure 1 .Prepare RFP for architectural review plans, select consultant .7/07 2 .Submit application for architectural and environmental review .12/07 3 .Prepare RIP for environmental review, select consultant .2/08 4 .Complete draft environmental document .2/09 5 .Project review by Architectural Review Commission .6/09 6 .Project review by Planning Commission .10/09 7 .Project review by City Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications .1/1 0 8 .Completion of plans and specifications .7/1 0 9 .Council review of construction bids .10/1 0 10. Construction commencement .1/1 1 11 . Construction completion .6/12 Public Input during this Most Recent Phase of Analysi s Public notice of the study session was sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the projec t boundary . Additionally, staff presented the design options to subcommittees of the San Lui s Obispo Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association . The Chamber's response was no t available at the time of this report but will be provided to City Council as a red file before th e Council meeting . The Parking Committee of the Downtown Association voted to support movin g forward with the staff recommendation (see Attachment 8, Public Input). Finally, authors of th e Downtown Plan have been notified of the study session and encouraged to comment . FISCAL IMPAC T Directing staff to proceed with a site plan option does not have a direct fiscal impact because th e Council has already budgeted $150,000 for study and design services ; and $300,000 fo r environmental review . Approximately $53,000 remains available for completion of conceptual design services ; and all of the funding for environmental review remains . Additionally, the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan appropriates $1 .2 million for design in 2006-07 . On February 21, 2006, Council approved several parking revenue enhancements that would fun d the debt service and operating costs of the Palm-Nipomo structure . These revenue enhancement s Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 3 were anticipated to provide adequate revenues to build a parking structure at an approximat e construction cost of $11,000,000 . It was assumed that the operating costs would be similar to th e City's present self park structures . The approved revenue enhancements are being implemented incrementally so it is too early to confirm whether they will generate enough revenue to build an d operate a self park structure . If Council decides to proceed with a mechanical structure, the Cit y will need to look at significant revenue increases or other funding to pay for it . As mentioned earlier, the County is one potential partner worthy of further exploration . ALTERNATIVE S The following alternative actions are available to Council : 1.Defer decision until after parking demand in the area increases . Because it will take a minimum of five years before a structure could be available for use, staff does no t recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase, rather, the time should be devote d to researching innovative ways to increase the initial demand for and subsequent use of th e structure . 2.Defer decision until after hearing from mechanical vendors regarding their interest i n building a mechanical structure that could be leased back to the City . Given the difficultie s Hoboken, New Jersey has had with their vendor, staff does not recommend that the Cit y "partner" with a private company to fund a mechanical structure . 3.Defer decision until mechanical costs become more feasible . It is unknown how long it wil l take for mechanical parking structures to become financially competitive with self park structures . The self park structure costs will continue to rise if we wait . ATTACHMENTS 1.Location/Property Ownership Map 2.Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Cente r 3.Article on Mechanical Parkin g 4.Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes of July 5, 200 5 5.Ken Schwartz's Design Comments to City Counci l 6.2007 Site Plan Options D3, H2, and H 3 7.Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structure s 8.Downtown Association Comment s PROVIDED TO COUNCIL :11x17 copy of Site Plan Options D3, H2, and H 3 AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL READING FILE :Previous Palm Nipomo staff report s T :\PW CAR\CAR PALM_Nipomo v2 .DOC SS-/3 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPERTY LOCATION/OWNERSHIP MAP Properties currentl y owned by City ATTACHMEN T 11I11,11111111,,~,1111 1111 11 lllll1111111111 It 11 Ol t Conceptual Uses : Cultural Facilit y Parking etail ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 Chapter 1 8 AUTOMATE D PARKIN G FACILITIE S Donald R. Monahan and Richard Beeb e Henry Ford has generally been credited wit h the development of the motor car as w e know it . He may also be credited wit h creating the parking space shortage . Th e history of 20'h century urban planning an d transportation management indicates tha t major parking problems began to emerg e even before World War I and grew rapidl y thereafter . The increasing volume of automobiles in the prosperous post-war year s created a demand for parking that soo n moved from the curbside to vacant lots o r structured parking of many types . I n particular, freight elevator systems designe d to accommodate parking inside larg e buildings gained popularity as a retrofi t approach . Even in new construction, the use of elevators in multi-level garages pre-date d sloping floor garages (ramp-acces s garages), which required larger footprint s and more ingenious structural systems . Early elevator systems (mechanical-acces s garages) employed an attendant who drov e the automobile onto an elevator, operate d the elevator from the driver's seat, and drov e the car into a parking space on an uppe r level floor . There was a surge in construction of thes e mechanical parking systems in the U .S . following World War II . Bowser constructed a mechanical garage in Des Moines i n 1951 and went on to build dozens of others , including three garages in Chicago : LaSalle Street consisting of 375 spaces erected i n 1954 ; Wacker Drive consiting of 71 8 spaces erected in 1955 ; and Rush Street consisting of 420 spaces erected in 1955 . Among some of the other more notabl e mechanical systems were the Park-O-Mat i n Washington, DC consisting of 72 spaces erected in 1951 ; Pigeon-Hole in Toront o consiting of 396 spaces erected in 195 7 and Speed-Park in New York City consistin g Page 1 of 9 Dimensions of Parkin g Figure 1 . Chicago 1937 ATTACHMENT 3 November 7, 200 6 parcels as small as the size of two parkin g spaces (20 by 20 feet). Technological advancements now allo w computer-controlled machines to operate th e lifts and horizontal transport devices withou t human assistance . The machines use integrated electro-mechanical components with programmable logic controller s operating in a solid-state/real tim e environment . These devices are much mor e reliable than the older mechanica l (hydraulic) parking systems . It is also muc h easier to incorporate redundant components , backup power and backup computer s resulting in a system that is virtually 99 .9 % reliable . Automated Parking Descriptio n The automated parking facility consists of a large vault with steel racks for storing cars o n either side of a transport aisle . The racks are often 4 to 10 or more levels high . Th e vehicle is transported on a steel pallet wit h rollers that slide into guide rails located i n the storage compartment . Because th e storage vault is unoccupied, fire exit stairs and elevators are not required . Also, the parking facility is more secure since th e public is not allowed inside the storage vault . Since the vehicles are not operated durin g transport, ventilation of vehicle emissions i s not required . Lighting requirements and HVAC system requirements are greatl y reduced or non-existent . Patrons access the automated parking facilit y by driving into a compartment the size of a single car garage stall . The patron the n turns off the vehicle, sets the parking brake , gathers all of their belongings including pets , children, etc . and exits the compartment . Page 2 of 9 of 270 spaces erected in 1961 . Most o f these facilities have since bee n demolished to make way for more modern and higher-use buildings . The older mechanical systems required a parking attendant . Ramp-access garage s gained popularity because they allowe d the patron to park their own vehicl e without the expense of an attendant. Th e self-park, ramp-access garages are als o less expensive to construct and operate , and were more reliable in terms o f retrieving the patrons vehicle on a timel y basis . Mechanical garages have been even more popular overseas where land i s particularly scarce in major urban areas . A self-park, ramp-access garage require s a minimum land area of approximatel y 150 feet by 125 feet . This size parcel i s not often available in downtown areas o f most major cities, particularly in Europ e and Asia . Mechanical systems ar e available that can be constructed on ATTACHMENT $..—a Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 of the system . This is the system used at th e Hoboken, NJ automated parking facility . Figure 3 . Horizontal Shuttle s Sensors measure the vehicle to determin e that it is not oversized for the system, an d that the vehicle has no protrudin g mirrors, racks or other attachments tha t could be damaged . The patron then Another automated system consists of aapproaches the activation station just stacker crane that moves horizontally on rail soutside the entry compartment and fixed to the ground floor in the transport aisl eutilizes an electronic key card, keypad of the storage vault. A vertical lift is built intowith security code or takes a n electronically-coded ticket, which the n closes the doors to the entry compartmen t and activates the storage process . Th e computer then records your identify , determines an empty storage location , and maintains that record for late r retrieval . The door to the storage vaul t opens and a motorized transport device slides under the pallet in the entr y compartment, lifts the pallet and remove s the pallet with the vehicle on top . The transport device then moves horizontall y to a vertical lift where the car i s transferred onto the lift and move d vertically to the storage . level . Anothe r horizontal transport device then remove s the pallet/vehicle from the lift an d transports the car horizontally to th e storage compartment. The pallet is the n pushed into the storage compartment. Because there are separate horizonta l shuttles and lifts, many vehicles can b e retrieved and stored simultaneously , which speeds the storage/retrieval rate Page 3 of 9 Figure 2. Entry/Exit Compartment Figure 4 . Stacker Crane system Dimensions of Parking this single transport device . It i s generally suited for smaller capacit y systems (less than 150 spaces), althoug h a second crane could be provided fo r larger systems . This system is used at th e Summit Grand Parc Condominiums i n Washington, D .C . Quad Graphics i n Milwaukee, WI also has two, ten stor y warehouses that use automated stacke r cranes to move pallets of magazines tha t are stored between printing an d shipping . Upon returning to the parking facility lobby, the patron presents their key car d or ticket at the parking activation station , pays a fee and the vehicle i s automatically retrieved withi n approximately 1 to 2 minutes . Figure S . Vehicle Retrieva l Automated parking facilities ca n accommodate two to three times th e number of parking spaces in the sam e volume as a self-park, ramp acces s garage . This occurs for two reasons . First, the height of the storage racks fo r each level is typically on the order of 7 feet. Therefore, one can get 3 parkin g levels in an automated garage compare d to two levels at a typical floor-to-floo r height of 10 feet in a ramp-acces s garage . ATTACHMENT 7 November 7, 200 6 Figure 6 . Vehicle Height Stud y Also, the design can include selected floor s at a higher clearance to accommodate SW's, while the remaining floors ar e designed for the height of the majority of th e automobile population (see Figure 6). Second, the vehicles are moved in and out o f the parking spaces under precisel y controlled equipment such that the width of the stall only needs to clear the side vie w mirrors or approximately 7 feet wid e compared to 8 .5 to 9 feet wide in a sel f park garage . Therefore, one can achiev e four parking spaces in a mechanical garag e in the same width of 3 spaces in a self-par k garage . Automated parking systems ca n also accommodate tandem parking stalls , which further increases the parkin g efficiency . One of the disadvantages of mechanica l garages is speed . The capacity in vehicle s per hour is a function of the number o f transport devices and number of entry/exi t compartments . A maximum retrieval time o f 2 minutes is a standard in the industry . Manufacturers must then provide enough lifts and transport devices to meet this standard . Page 4 of 9 Dimensions of Parkin g The service rate of the entry operation i s a function of the time it takes for th e parking patron to clear the entry compartment, plus the time to remove th e vehicle from the entry compartment, plu s the time for the system to then delive r another pallet to the entry compartmen t in order to receive the next vehicle . Th e previous vehicle may still be in transi t inside the storage vault while anothe r vehicle is able to access the entr y compartment . The time for the patron to exit th e compartment and activate the storag e process is called the dwell time . Th e dwell time averages approximately 4 5 seconds . The dwell time will be highe r for infrequent users than repeat users . The average inbound service rate of th e entrance operation is then on the orde r of 50 vehicles per hour . The service rate of the exit operatio n depends upon the vehicle retrieval tim e plus the time to rotate the vehicle on a turntable to exit plus the dwell time to exi t the compartment . If the average retrieva l time is 60 seconds, the time to rotate th e vehicle is 20 seconds, and the dwell tim e is 45 seconds ; then the averag e outbound service rate is 29 vehicles pe r hour . If more patrons arrive to retrieve thei r vehicles than there are transport device s or sufficient exit compartments available , then the time to retrieve their vehicle wil l be longer . Delays of up to 10 minute s may occur . However, if the patron ha d to wait for an elevator, walk to thei r parked vehicle, and drive to the exit, th e elapsed time would not be any differen t than the average retrieval time for an ATTACHMENT e3 November 7, 2006 automated parking facility . The delay time i s more noticeable when the patron is no t occupied by some other activity . If the peak hour arrival/departure volume i s known or can be accurately projected, th e designer can determine the proper numbe r of entry/exit compartments and transpor t devices that should be provided in a n automated parking facility to serve that volume without excessive delays o r congestion based upon the service rate s cited previously . However, automated parking facilities are not well-suited for hig h volume arrival/departures such as specia l event uses, cinemas, office employees o r other uses that generate a high volume o f inbound and/or outbound traffic because the number of entry/exit compartments become s excessive and the access design become s very complex . Automated parking facilities are well suited to hotels, condominiu m buildings or other uses with relatively low arrival/departure rates . Construction Cost There are two automated parking facilitie s that have been constructed in the Unite d States : one is in Hoboken, NJ and the othe r is in Washington, D .C . Figure 7. Hoboken, NJ Parking Facilit y Page 5of9 ssc.o Dimensions of Parking The Hoboken facility was constructed i n the year 2000 and cost approximatel y $6 .7 million for the entire 7-stor y building with automated parkin g equipment . The capacity of this facility i s 324 spaces for a cost per space o f approximately $20,679 . It has fou r entry/exit compartments, two vertical lift s and 14 horizontal shuttles (2 per floor). Figure 8 . Summit Grand Parc, Washington, D C The Washington, D .C . facility wa s constructed in 2002 . The project consists of a luxury residential towe r with 98 rental units and 24,000 sf of commercial/retail space in the adjacen t five-story historic building . The parkin g structure is provided under the residentia l tower in a footprint of 60ft by 106ft o n four levels within a total depth of 32 fee t at a cost of approximately $1 .5 millio n or approximately $20,000 per stall fo r the automated parking system only an d not the building shell space in which th e equipment is placed . An article in the Philadelphia Busines s Journal dated August 28, 2006, indicated an automated parking facility ATTACHMENT 3 r November 7,2006 consisting of 64 spaces was planned for the 31-story condominium project at Center Cit y at a cost of approximately $2 .5 million o r approximately $39,062 per space . Recent proposals for a 32-space automate d parking facility on four underground level s for a condominium project in Bellevue, WA indicated a cost of $48,950 per space fo r the automated parking system only . The optimum size of an automated parkin g facility is approximately 150 spaces per lift . The cost per space of smaller facilities is hig h because the cost of the machinery i s amortized over a limited number of spaces . The construction cost of an above ground , stand-alone, open parking structure currentl y (2006) averages approximately $15,00 0 per stall . This cost can easily double for a n underground, enclosed garage . It is difficult to compare the cost of a n automated parking facility to a ramp-acces s garage as automated parking facilities ma y be the only choice for providing parking fo r your project on a small site where it is not possible to do a ramp-access garage . Also , the higher land cost of the larger parcel for the ramp access garage must be taken into account when comparing the two systems . However, where the size of the developmen t parcel is adequate to accommodate a standard ramp-access garage, then it is likel y more economical to do a ramp-access garage . Operating Cost s Automated parking facilities use automati c pay stations for revenue collection so th e operating cost should be compared to a rampaccess, self-park garage that als o utilizes automatic pay stations . Therefore , Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 Dimensions of Parkin g both facilities do not have the expense o f cashier labor . The largest expense fo r either garage will then be for utilities an d maintenance . The utility cost for an automated parkin g facility is approximately $0 .10 pe r storage or retrieval operation . Accordin g to the Robotic Parking website, th e Hoboken garage has handled over hal f a million transactions in its 29,880 hour s of operation since its opening in Octobe r 2002 . That equates to approximatel y 150,000 transactions per year for a n electric utility cost of approximatel y $15,000 per year or approximately $4 6 per year per space . One must also add . the cost of other electric systems beside s the automated parking machinery whic h may double the electric utility cost . The scope of work and components tha t must be maintained for the automate d parking machinery is very similar to a n elevator maintenance contract . Th e maintenance contract for the automate d parking system in Washington, D .C . i s approximately $3600 per month o r approximately $584 per space per year . A survey of 156 ramp-access garages i n 2004 indicated a median utility cost o f $52 per space per year, and a media n maintenance cost of $74 per space pe r year . Other parking facility operational cost s for management, insurance, offic e supplies, and miscellaneous are likely to be very similar for an automated parkin g facility versus a ramp-access parkin g facility . Therefore, the annual operating cost o f an automated parking facility is November 7, 2006 approximately $760 per space per yea r compared to $317 per space per year for a cashier-less, ramp-access garage . Summar y The construction cost of an automate d parking facility is approximately double th e cost of an above-grade, stand-alone, ramp - access open parking garage . Th e construction cost difference may not be a s severe for an underground, enclosed parkin g garage . The operating cost of an automated parkin g garage, excluding cashier labor, i s approximately double the cost of a self-park , ramp-access garage . However, automate d garages are analogous to automated vale t parking . If one accounts for the labor cos t savings not to have valet attendants, then th e operating cost of the automated garage i s likely much less than a valet garage . Automated parking facilities may be the onl y viable option to provide parking on smal l sites in dense urban areas . For high en d condominium or hotel projects, the highe r cost may be justified . Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 200 6 References : 1.Guide to the Design &Operation o f Automated Parking Facilities,a join t publication of the Automated & Mechanical Parking Associatio n (www .ampapark .org) in associatio n with the National Parking Associatio n (www .npapark .org), Washington , DC, February, 2003 . 2.Safety of Machinery Equipment for Power-Driven Parking of Motor Vehicles,DIN EN 14010, Europea n Committee for Standardization , Technical Committee CEN/TC 98 , Brussels, October 2003 . 3.Storage/Retrieval Machines (S/R ) and Associated Equipment,ASME B30 .13-1996, American Society o f Mechanical Engineer s 4.Automated Parking : Two-Year Repor t Card,by Gerhard Haag & Larry Byrnes, Robotic Parkin g (www . roboticpark i ng .com), published in PARKING Magazine , September 2004 . 5.Double Your Capacity wit h Technology,by Rob Bailey , SpaceSaver Parking Company (www .spacesaverparking .com), presented at Parking Industry Exhibit , Chicago, IL, August 2006 . 6.PARKING STRUCTURES : PLANNING, DESIGN , CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANC E & REPAIR,Third Edition, 200 1 Chrest, A .P . et al, published b y Springer Science + Business Medi a (www .springer .com), New York, NY Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. Public Comments None. -end of public comments ACTION : Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to approve the public art piece entitled Strong Play Ethic for the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields ; motion carried 5 :0 . 5.APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S ENTR Y AREA NEAR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY . INCLUDING ALIGNMENT OFA SECTION OF THE BOB JONES CITY TO SEA BIKEWAY . Natural Resources Manager Havlik provided a summary of the Concept Plan . He displayed a map showing the area of the project, discussed the improvements that will be made to th e southern entrance to the City and Issues that will be resolved with the Implementation o f the Plan, displayed and discussed photographs of the site, and discussed the funding that Is available for portions of this project as well as additional possible funding sources . Public Comments None. —end of public comments ACTION : Moved by SettlelBrown to approve a concept plan for improvements to the City's entry area near the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), Including alignment of the Incorporated segment of the Bob Jones City to Sea Bikeway; motion carrie d 5 :0. STUDY SESSIO N 6.REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE . Public Works Director Walter Introduced this Item, following which Principal Transportatio n Planner Mandeville commenced the report . She displayed an aerial of the site, explaine d that this project was established by Council as an objective in the 2003-05 Financial Plan , and reviewed refinements to the options that Council previously directed staff to pursue . Parking Services Manager Horch and Deputy Director Public Works Bochum were present to answer questions. Sam Nunes.Chong Partners Architecture, displayed proposed site plans and discusse d their key features . He discussed how a mechanical garage works and responded t o Council's questions . Mayor Romero expressed concern about event parking at a mechanical structure . He also expressed concern that the options do not provide for pedestrian access on the easter n edge of the structure on Monterey Street Public Comments ATTACHMENT p City Council Meeting Page 6Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. Patricia Wilmore,Chamber of Commerce, referenced a letter from Bob Wacker (on file in th e City Clerk's office) explaining the Chamber's position that action should be deferred on thi smatter for nine months . Ken Schwartz .San Luis Obispo, supported the Palm-Nlpomo-Monterey site fora parkin g structure and discussed recommendations contained In his memo to Council (on file in th eCity Clerk's office). Those recommendations include, In part, building the structure as soon as possible, proceeding with mechanical parking, acquiring property at 614 Monterey Street so that the parcel can be considered as a whole, and redesigning the site plan for Optio n H2, thereby making it Option H3 . Brett Cross,San Luis Obispo, explained why he does not think there is a parking deman dfor the Palm-Nlpomo site . He suggested that, given the limited resources, sites such as th e Wells Fargo property should be pursued . Gary Fowler,San Luls Obispo, concurred that action on this proposal should be delayed , that consideration should be given to other sites, and that it might be feasible to construc tan EOC (emergency operations center) on top of the new structure . Dave Hanninas,San Luis Obispo, concurred that this area is currently underused fo rparking purposes. He expressed concern that the recommended options are too close t ohis property and too high . Tom Swem,Chairman of the Parking Committee for Downtown Association, explained tha t the Downtown Parking Committee hasn't had an opportunity to review the proposals yet . He suggested that a concurrent financial analysis should be provided for each proposal. He supported the location of the parking structure and the purchase of the 614 Montere y Street property, but expressed concern about a mechanical structure . He supporte dOptions D2 or D3 . Andrtw Carter,San Luls Obispo, supported Mr. Cross' and the Chamber's positions . H e suggested that a mechanical garage should be used for employee, not transient, parking . He explained why, if this site is used, the entrance and exit should be on Monterey Street. Chuck Crotser,San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed site and the automate dparking system . He supported, In general, Option H2 but concurred with comments by Mr . Schwartz . He also concurred that access on Monterey Street Is Important . Pierre Rademaker,San Luis Obispo, concurred with Mr. Schwartz's and Mr . Crotser'scomments. However, he did not believe the Palm Street entrance and exit would be aproblem. He expressed concern that contextual Issues have not been addressed (i .e., th e Latimer adobe, pedestrian access to Monterey Street and Downtown). He supported a n automated structure as well as the acquisition of 614 Monterey Street He suggested tha t adjacent property owners should be contacted regarding their plans for future growth an d development . Deborah Cash,Downtown Association Administrator, explained why the Association supports moving forward with this structure . She discussed the success of automate d garages. She said that the Parking Committee will meet this week and will need to consider the proposal, following which additional feedback will be provided to Council . Scott Greenaway,representing the owner of 614 Monterey Street, expressed concer n regarding Mr. Schwartz's recommendation to acquire the entire site . The family Is willing t o consider use of the back portion of the property. City Council Meetin g Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. ATTACHMENT V Page 7 —end of public comments Council discussion followed during which staff responded to Council's questions . Council Member Mulholland said the Wells Fargo site would be a better location, bu t supported pursuing the Palm-Nipomo structure since It is owned by the City . She also supported pursuing a mechanical structure . She said she thinks there needs to be a pedestrian connection to Monterey Street, that she would like to see financial implications , and that she supported delaying action on this proposal for three to six months or more because of the changes occurring in the Downtown . Vice Mayor Ewan expressed concern that with potential new projects on existing lots, parking will be needed sooner than later . He was also concerned with the increasing cost s that will result the longer the project waits. He supported moving forward with this project . Council Member Brown also supported moving forward . Council Member Settle supported proceeding in order to determine financing , methodologies, and costs . Mayor Romero explained why he thinks it is premature to move ahead with this project at this time . He also said, however, that a structure should be developed at some time in th e future, but should wait until further development has occurred In the area . He suggested delaying proceeding with this project for twelve months . Moved by Mulholland/Romero to defer for nine months a decision on whether to procee d with the parking structure at Palm-Nipomo ; motion failed 2:3 (Brown/Ewan/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Mulholland to direct staff to proceed with Palm-Nlpomo parking structur e site plan design Options D3 and H2/H3 (the concept submitted by Ken Schwartz) wit h adjustments to the layout for Option H3 ; motion carried 4:1 (Ewan opposed). Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to consider designs that will allow the house at 614 Montere y Street to remain . Following a brief discussion regarding the need to keep options open ; motion failed 2 :3 (Brown/Romero/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Brown to either include or exclude the houses at 610 and 614 Montere y Street as part of the study in order to keep design options open ; motion carried 3 :2 (Mulholland/Ewan opposed). During the prior discussion, Council directed staff to provide feedback on the followin g items : •property values •construction cost s urban design issues/pedestrian acces s •more community group response s In response to staff, Council confirmed that the oak tree is not a part of the design options; It is to remain . ACTION : 1 . Directed staff to pursue site plan options 03 and H2/H3 (a concep t submitted by Ken Schwartz) for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure, wit h adjustments to the layout for H3 ; motion carried 4 :1 (Ewan opposed). 2. Approved, ATTACHMENT 5" City Council Meeting Page 8Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p .m . to ensure flexibility, Including or excluding houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Stree tas part of the study In order to keep design options open ; motion carried 3 :2(Mulholland/Ewan opposed). 3 . Provided additional direction as indicated above tobe Included when this matter Is returned to Council . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT S Mayor Romero reported on his attendance at a meeting on June 23 rtl with Supervisor s Lenthali and Patterson and staff members of LAFCO, APCD, the County and SLOCOG o n the program called "Community 2050," the June 28 "'meeting of the Whale Rock Commission, the June 23r° meeting of the Nacimlento Project Commission, and the Jun e 30"'meeting of the Performing Arts Center Commission . Council Member Settle reported that the State will approve the budget on July 6th, and tha t cities will receive the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) refund early . COMMUNICATIONS None. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourne d the meeting at 10 :30 p.m . to Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo . APPROVED BY COUNCIL : 7/19/2005 ATTACHMENT _.} RECEIVED . I 'JUL 0 5 2005MEMOSLO C!TY COUNCI L July 3, 2005 Re:Proposed par c i g structure for Palm and Nipomo Street s Council Agen . Item SS6, July 5, 2005 I have studied your agenda materials with staff recommendations and offer the following recommendations with rationale for you consideration. 1.The Palm-Nipomo-Monterey site is the best and most appropriate site for the nex t parking structure and it should be constructed at the earliest time possible . Rationale :(a) This site conforms to the criteria established in the "Downtown Plan" fo r locating parking structures on the Palm, Nipomo, Marsh and Santa Rosa circumferentia l loop around the 'core'ofdowntown; (b) the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace project generates an absolutely essential need for the Downtown to accelerate development tha t will enhance its unique identity and at the same time expand the downtown 's potential fo r being a stronger center for commercial and cultural activities ; (c) competition from siste r cities as well as outlying shopping areas dictate that downtown must improve it's physical assets post-haste; and (d) adequate parking is an essential asset and a parking structure at this location can best achieve these essential objectives . 2.The City should opt for an automated mechanical parking garage such a s described on page 6-9 of the staff report and identified in schemes H-1 and 11-2 . Rationale:(a) the space saving aspects ofmechanized parking structures becom e increasingly important as future expansion ofcommercial-retail activities in th e downtown become more compressed — again due to an unwillingness ofvoters to expan d C-R zoning elsewhere ; and (b) the impressions ofCouncilmembers and staff to their visi t to the N.J. mechanized parking structure were uniformly positive. 3.The City should acquire 614 Monterey and integrate this property into the tota l site design for the parking structure and this quadrant of Mission Plaz a extended. Rationale :(a) The Palm/Nipomo/Monterey quadrant is too important in the long-ter m commercial-cultural future ofSLO to accept a design that has been constrained by a reluctance to acquire this entire parcel —especially so when certain ofthe design schemes show the acquisition of the rear of this property( (This time rant given the long-term potential ofthis entire quadrant . To:Mayor Dave Romero Christine Mulhol Copies : Ken Hampian , From : Ken Schwartz d Councihnembers Paul Brown, John Ewan , d Allen Settle alter, Tim Bochum, Peggy Manderville, Robert Horc h RED FIL EMEETING AGENDADATE7/9'DJITEM #.!'6 COUNCIL V CAO ACAO ip ATTORNEYV7CLERK/0R10kiD LEADS COD DI R FIN DI R FIRE CHIE F PW DI R POLICE CH F REC DI Rum.ni±1 f ELI ne ; J S5 -Zit ATTACHMENT ..5-- Page 2 of 3 4.The size and parking capacity of the garage delineated in Scheme 11-2 should b e accepted, but not the site development layout! I offer a modified design labele d "II-3" that I believe is more appropriate to the site . (See page 3 .) Rationale:(a) I agree that exceptions to height limits and street setbacks for parkin g structures should be granted where appropriate and I believe both are warranted fo r Scheme H-3 ; (b) I believe that the parking structure positioned in a traditional layou t with sides parallel to Palm and Nipomo Streets is insensitive to more desirable spatia l considerations of this neighborhood especially the tight relationship with the adjacen t Latimer historical adobe it abuts; (c) by positioning the garage on a diagonal as per H-3, the corners of the site are opened up visually and /fat a later date, a Little Theate r and a small commercial structure were to be added to this site, the architectura l character of these two buildings could be made much more in keeping with the scale of neighboring buildings . 5.Two opportunities to assist the project financially have not been discussed : One , the small parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo was initially acquired with th e thought that it would ultimately revert back to Commercial-Retail use. Thi s would be the appropriate time to sell or lease that site for CR uses – once agai n to generate more retail floor area at the Nipomo end of downtown and t o enhance sales tax revenues as well as outright construction revenues . The site i s an ideal site for lower level CR uses, a mid-level office use and even possible to p floor residential uses . The City should ask for proposals as part of its large r attempt to invigorate this end of downtown . No less than two floors should b e devoted to sales tax generating CR uses .Two,given the difficult financial time s the City finds itself in, the garage roof top should not be put to any use tha t requires General Fund financing . I suggest that the rooftop be developed in a fashion that will generate rental/lease income such as private offices or wha t could be a spectacular restaurant site . I would not support rooftop housing a t this location . Rationale :Once again, the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace calls for Downtown Development/redevelopment to occur vigorously utilizing the land areas within the CR District to generate shopping opportunities (supported by needed parking) and th e resultant sales tax revenues to support necessary public service & 6.Design critique: I believe that the design consultant could have been much mor e positive about the potential represented in the downtown Plan for a mor e cohesive overall design of this significant site and how this parking structure could be an integral part of that overall development . The plan as presente d does not show how the users of the parking structure are expected to flow a s pedestrians into the downtown either by enchanted sidewalks along Nipomo o r by access through the Mission Plaza Extended area (Monterey Street) which ATTACHMENT .- Page 3 of 3 could have directed them — especially those who were visitors to the city — to th e Art Center, the Historical Museum or to the Mission and Mission Plaza muc h less into the downtown commercial area itself: How do children and thei r parents get from the parking structure to the new Children's Museum? I thin k the designers fell short on opportunities to generate for the Council and ou r citizens any urban design excitement in their proposals . 7. Alternate site plan proposal, H-3 : / WRNS STUD I(~,.P .Wr,I ROOK 37E .eAN /RAN ..ureRNIA ...mT.I i .Tnee`oo rAx PALM ST STATISTICS ound : 93 Parking SpacesTGrypical: 109 Parking Spaces Top:25 Parking Spaces ®O'Y tlr,y y 1 4 Pa:Hm Count Estknates 4yR Levels:445 Parking Net Gain 445-79=386 eulldhg Height Estimates North Scut 44'-6'33'6' Buikln9 Height per Zoning 39'-0 - o- ,.+ro e ....+. BtaldIng Square Footag e Parking 150,850 si t Eilkknt1 4YR Levels: 150,8501 445 = 339 sfka r Lit ROOF LEVEL utak rydtnm {a ~mend Resta.nM)44A00 ...1 45 y .n wNrvm nir R _ 6.1ONT°66% SI,'V . NIPOt O SECTION 8-8 SECTION A-A March 26, 2007 REv Palm / Nipomo Parking Structure City of San Luis Obispo .......... PALM ST STATISTIC S Ground :6 1 Typical :10 0 5th Level:8 8 Top:4 2 Parking Count Estimate s 5Y2 Levels:49 1l Perking Net Gai n 491 -79=41 2 TOP PARKING LEVE L A Building Height Estimates North South 4T-0"25'-0" Bunning Height per Zonl q 41-0" Building Square Footag e Parking :108,750 s .f. Efficiency 5Y2 Levels: 108,750/ 491=222 sf/ca r 8 Portals n~IllIiIlllilllll lilll'lllllllllllf llllllllllIllllllll11 1 iron n o''i'II~.dllll'IlllllllllllllilllllllllIN r A TYPICAL PARKING LEVEL n.I SECTION B-B Option H2 March 26, 2007 ONTERE Y SECTION A-A Palm / Nipomo Parking Structur e City of San Luis Obisp o o ro 4v W 57 ,06 120 IIIIIIIIIII WRNSSTUDHQ,. 0014500X0 SNEERMN MOOR, STE 402 RAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIA 041 Or 4 Tel4I O .R00.0100 PAR STATISTIC S Ground :65 Typical:10D Top:100 Pasdno Count Estimates 6 Levels:565 Parkin,' Net Gai n 565-79=496 M TOP PARKING LEVEL BuF m North South 4V-0"33'-0" 13u9Elnp HeklM per Zonin g 37'-0" Bultllno &ware Footers Perking:121 .500 s.f. MONTEREY secnoNAA Palm / Nipomo Parking Structur e City of San Luis Obisp oMarch 26, 2007 TYPICAL PARKING LEVE L SECTION B-B w9:4u I=mo 1111111111111 WRNS STUi7tt7,..k SECONO9TRZTnt Noon sc w 3SAN NRANOI85 0'pALIFORNIA 410 7 24 TE LIIa404.400 rAx ------- ----- PALMINIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY ATTACHMENT 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O APRIL 2007 Mechanical Parkin g Structure Examples Location Use # of Spaces # of Portals Cost pe r Stal l Hoboken Parking Hoboken, NJ Neighborhoo d Residential 320 4 $37,50 0 Summit Grand Parc Washington, DC Condominiums 74 2 $30,000 Chinatown New York City Condominiums 6 7 Proposed Project Bellevue,WA Condominiums 32 1 $40,00 0 (estimate) WRNS Studio LLP /Walker Parking Consultants April 4,2007 S5 -3 4 { ATTACHMENT c~ A San Luis Obispo 24 March 200 7DowntownAssociationTo:Robert Horch, Parking Services Directo r P.O :Box 1402 San Luis Obispo Frobborah Cash, Administrator, SLO Downtown Associatio n California 93406 Phone: 805-541-0286 Re :Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Recommendation At the March 13 meeting of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Board of Directors, the Board voted unanimously to support the Downtown Associatio n Parking and Access Committee Recommendation to uphold the CA O recommendation (Option D3) as the most feasible choice of construction option s for the proposed site . The Board also expressed their satisfaction with the forward movement of thi s project and how it will serve an area of town that is certain to need more parkin g as cultural and commercial development occurs, including the new Children's Museum and remodeled Art Center along with Mar Porno and proposed change s in the Creamery . The (draft) minutes of the meeting are attached ; approved minutes will b e provided after April 10 . Cc : Tom Swem, Chair, Parking and Access Committe e Board of D irector s Peggy Mandevill e FAX: 805-781-264 7 wwwdowntownslo .corn 269 From:Brent <brent@downtownslo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:30 AM To:Aaron Gomez; Fuchs, Alexander; Rivoire Dan; Spangler Mike; Abrecht David; Matt Pearce; Shaffer Mark Shaffer; Stephanie Hicks; Rademaker Pierre; Amy K. Kardel; Rawson Mark; Lawson, Dee; Sara Sanders; Anguiano, Gamaliel; Tyler Jamieson; Patty Thayer Cc:Tartaglia Dominic Subject:Report really attached Attachments:CAR 1-19-16 PalmNipomo.pdf Palm Nipomo report really attached this time, sorry. Brent Vanderhoof Office Administrator SLO Downtown Association 1108 Garden Street, Suite 210 (805) 541-0286 brent@downtownslo.com www.DowntownSLO.com 270 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:56 PM To:brent@downtownslo.com Subject:Palm Nipom Staff report Attachments:CAR 1-19-16 PalmNipomo.pdf Brent if you’d like to send this report off to the committee members feel free so they don’t have to download it off of the internet. If I bring a powerpoint file with background information do you have a projector to show it? Tim Bochum Deputy Director Public Works Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tbochum@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.431.5177 slocity.org Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure: 1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project; and 2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained; and 3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply; and 4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses (including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and 5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final negotiations of the MOA. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update of analysis that staff has conducted concerning the demand for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Staff is seeking direction on several aspects of this project prior to moving into the environmental review and final design stage. In addition, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding entering into formal discussions with the SLO Little Theater for a long term lease and new Memorandum of Agreement for use of remnant area of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure site. 1 Packet Pg. 8 DISCUSSION Historical Summary of Structured Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo The availability of parking and access in Downtown is critical to the economic and cultural viability of the City of San Luis Obispo. Parking availability is critically important to the many stakeholders and visitors that come to the area. As a result, it has long been a City focus to pace production of our parking supply with existing and near term future demand. City parking structure construction has shown a pattern whereby construction occurs in association with existing and projected demand for parking. Historically, parking structures have a fairly long time period between project start up (land acquisition, design and environmental) and completed construction. The following summarizes when the City’s existing parking structures were completed: 1. 842 Palm (also known as Palm 1) 1988 2. Marsh Street Garage 1990 3. Marsh Street Garage Expansion 2002 4. 919 Palm 2006 Consistent with the City’s historic approach to provide parking in the Downtown core, the City Council discussed the need and timing for its next structure beginning with the 2003-05 Financial Plan. As part of the more recent 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council directed staff to return with a review of the City’s structured parking needs. The Potential Palm Nipomo Parking Structure The City has been moving forward with the pre-development of a fourth parking structure at Parking Lot 14 which is bounded by Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Street. Attachment E to this report includes a summary of previous Council actions on the project and additional background history. The project is referred to as the “Palm Nipomo” parking structure. Following the economic downturn in 2007, this project was put on hold until the economy improved. Over the past few years, the economy has improved immensely and is projected to continue to expand. Several major projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace have broken ground after many years of delay and will be generating new parking demand. The Palm Nipomo project represents a significant investment in parking supply for the City. The proposed project would include between 400 and 445 spaces at a construction cost estimate of $23,600,000. The spaces represent a net “new” parking supply of 323 to 368 spaces. The ‘net’ is a result of the displacement of 77 existing spaces at the lot at the location where the structure will be built. A final parking space count will depend upon the final design and building height. Previously approved funding commitments for the project include $1.65 million for project design and environmental review. The most recent Council action taken on the project was on January 3, 2012 when Council authorized moving forward with its environmental review and proceeding with final stages of 1 Packet Pg. 9 design. At that time it was believed the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects would occur the following year. As those projects were delayed, so too was beginning of the environmental and final design for Palm Nipomo. In 2014 the City completed an Organization Study of the Parking Services Division which was conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). As part of that work the consultant reviewed future parking supply/demand issues for the City to help determine potential operation and fiscal issues. Walker conducted a very high level review of the parking demand for Palm Nipomo. It was their determination that while the project could be built, occupancy of the project might be low (less than 60%). Consequently, Walker noted the City should carefully evaluate the timing, costs, project size, and alternatives to meeting parking demands prior to commencing with the project. During hearings on the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, staff informed Council that these issues would be explored in more depth and staff would return to Council for a direction on the next steps for the project. A related aspect of the project was that the Council had previously entered into an agreement with the SLO Little Theater (SLOLT) and had set aside a portion of the project site for the relocation of the Little Theatre on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street. That agreement is no longer valid because performance deadlines have passed and the site area for the Little Theater has changed at the Palm Nipomo location. Therefore if a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to be negotiated, staff needs to return to Council at a later date. Additional Parking Demand Data Walker Parking Consultants was hired to analyze parking demand and update its work from the 2014 Organizational study with greater accuracy for potential development that could use the Palm Nipomo project. Beginning in summer 2015, staff, in coordination with Walker, conducted parking occupancy counts of lots, streets, and the parking structures to determine capacity of the existing parking inventory. The geographical study (see Attachment A) area is larger than that analyzed in the Organization Assessment, covered more days (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday: three times each day), longer duration during the day (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and included peak factors such as a holiday weekend (Labor Day), dates when Cal Poly was in, and not in session, and special events in Mission Plaza. These counts were combined to get an average occupancy count by time of day for each weekday observed. This information was then forwarded to the consultant for use in tabulating a baseline for demand calculations for the project. As shown in the table below Walker found that the normal peak occupancy time observed was Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 67% of available public parking was utilized. 1 Packet Pg. 10 Thursday (Average) 12:00-2:00 p.m. Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus (+)/Deficit(1) 2582 parking Spaces 1,730 Vehicles 67% 645 spaces This means that for most times studied, over one-third of the public parking supply was available. We anticipate that this capacity can be used to absorb displaced parking associated with the closures of Lots 2 (Garden St. Terraces), 3 & 11 (Chinatown) as they occur. (Attachment B shows parking lot numbering and location of lots). Peak times for special events (such as Farmer’s Market) were also recorded however these peak times are not used for project “sizing” or design demand analysis since the result wou ld be we over build infrastructure (at a tremendous additional cost) for most other times when more normal demand occurs. In preparing the projections for Palm Nipomo, Walker considered three factors: 1. The likelihood that Palm Nipomo, when considering its proximity to new development, would attract parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 2. The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand and future development; 3. The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the closure of public lots. 1 Packet Pg. 11 1 Packet Pg. 12 Table 1 – Palm Nipomo Structure Demand Forecast (Walker, 2015) These three factors were then used to screen forecast demand scenarios at the Palm Nipomo location for the following three time frames: 1. Initial Phase: Displaced Vehicles due to relocation of existing demand for lot closures (Primarily loss of Lot 2 as a result of Garden Street Terraces) 2. Phase 1 - consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term (3-5 years). 3. Phase 2 - consists of projected parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments (longer term build-out) and closure of other public lots. The consultant forecasted that existing and potential demand for the Phase 1 scenario would be as high as 204 vehicles. This consists of 130 vehicles generated by new development and 74 generated by existing demand and displaced vehicles. This amount represents a need for less than half the capacity of the proposed structure of 400-445 spaces. Of the 130 spaces forecast by new development, two projects, Monterey Place (65 spaces required) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces required), contribute 80%. These projects have discretionary approvals, but neither of 48 48 48 26 52 130 264397 241 81 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2 Demand for Palm-Nipomo by Phase Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles Projected Demand Vacant Spaces them has yet to proceed to the construction phase and obtain building permits therefore they are a minimum of three years out for completion and likely more. Longer term, which accounts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the forecast shows the demand increases to approximately 364 vehicles. Using the lower end objective of 400 parking spaces for Palm Nipomo project, this results in an 87% occupancy factor for the project. This forecast is significantly higher than the previous calculations shown in the 2014 Parking Organizational Assessment which showed occupancy as low as 60%. This indicates that long term, daily need for the structure in this area of the Downtown may utilize much of the available capacity. However, the timing of private development will play an important role in how soon that need occurs. Many of these projects will be far in the future and it may be many years before they get underway. Some of these potential sites include redevelopment of the Reis Mortuary location, closure and redevelopment of Lot 10, the SLO Little Theater project and major remodel of the Creamery. The primary conclusions of Walker assessment were as follows: 1. Palm-Nipomo’s planned capacity of 400-445 spaces would have more spaces than necessary to accommodate projected demand of near term development (next 5 years). 2. Suggest caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. 3. However, when that development occurs the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly (since it centralizes space needs devoted to vehicles) and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. 4. Due to the delay in demand for the structure, when it is built a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary to attract the parking demand generated by longer term developments to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 5. If the City is willing to make a significant investment (or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared public parking. However it is critical to note that any exclusive private use of the parking structure will likely mean that any financing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase financing costs. Stakeholder Input In order to assist staff with the review of the Walker analysis, a group of stakeholders was created to discuss issues of the project location, timing and design. The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, The Little 1 Packet Pg. 13 Theatre, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA), Copeland Properties. Two meetings (September 22, and December 8, 2015) seeking their input to help the city identify relevant issues/concerns regarding this project. At the first meeting the group reviewed Walker study’ assumptions and provided feedback into topics such as the phasing assumptions and projects that should be included in each group. They also clarified timing of projects for the Little Theater and SLOMA. As a result of this feedback additional data collection was completed. The theory is that it would be helpful to have diversity in the days of the week and the time of year that the data was collected. The second meeting reviewed the draft conclusions of the Walker report. The consensus of the group was that the information going into the report was good and that the conclusions appeared appropriate based upon that information. Overall, most expressed desire for the Palm Nipomo project to move forward but recognized the project demand was not showing an immediate need for the structure. The issue of emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking dynamics were discussed with the suggestions that the City continue to consider these issues as decisions are made on parking supply and programs. As a result, under any scenario city staff will continually monitor and analyze any social trend that impacts parking supply, including Autonomous Vehicles (aka “self-driving cars”) and implementation of City mode split objectives and alternative transportation choices discussed in the General Plan. Other Issues - Little Theatre MOA At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council conceptually approved the relocation of the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) to a portion of parking lot 14 at 630 Monterey Street, located at the Palm Nipomo parking structure site. With direction from Council, the City entered into an agreement with the SLOLT, which has since expired. The Little Theater continues to be committed to relocating from its existing location (at the old Library site next to City Hall) and has been in discussion with staff regarding development of a new MOA. Attachment D to this report is the June 6th, 2000 agenda report and MOA as approved by Council. Staff is seeking Council direction on whether or not to pursue a new MOA with the Little Theater regarding a long term use of the remainder area of the properties and relocation from their existing use at the City owned, old library site. Major elements of a potential new MOA with SLOLT are: 1. Term of Lease 2. Annual Cost of Lease 3. Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre 4. City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan Amendment 5. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction and maintenance of front improvements 6. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction, operation and maintenance of the Theater 7. Little Theatre’s responsibilities as it relates to a Fund raising plan and fundraising key milestones 1 Packet Pg. 14 Figure 1– Conceptual Site Plan SLO Little Theater If Council directs staff to move forward with formal negotiations with SLOLT staff will return to Council with recommendations for consideration. Other than general direction whether to proceed with negotiations, no specific Council direction is being requested at this time on the seven items noted above. Public-Private-Partnership (P3) As part of prior project reviews the Council requested that the project include some area to incorporate other uses besides SLOLT and the parking structure. Because the design of the parking structure is fairly constrained in order to deliver the objective of a minimum of 400 spaces, the 2011 preferred site plan was only able to accomplish this via narrowing the street section along Nipomo Street and incorporating a narrow building area between the structure and the street. 1 Packet Pg. 15 Figure 2 – 2011 Preferred Site Plan Attachment C shows the 2011 preferred design for Palm Nipomo as well as the conceptual rendering of the SLO Little Theater location. The concept of this alternative was to provide a small footprint that a third party could utilize as part of a private development project for office space or other use. Incorporating these types of uses into the structure has historically added significant costs to the project and so having the area “independent” of the structure is critical to keeping project costs low. Additional area for potential private use could be created by increasing the depth of this area. That will, however, come at a cost of reduced parking supply and a less efficient structure. There have been some recent discussions of whether exploring a larger public-private- partnership (P3) for the project might yield a better financial scenario for the City and help offset the parking structure construction costs and provide opportunities for housing that is a Major City Goal. The City has reached out to Kosmont Companies, a firm specializing in financial issues associated with P3 projects, to do a review on this issue and determine if there is any significant benefit to revising the project with a larger P3 component. While it is doubtful that a larger footprint for private use would offset the parking space reduction and related design and operational challenges, an additional review on this issue is prudent to make sure staff has not overlooked any opportunities to maximize use of the property and/or whether there are any opportunity to provide new housing. This study is underway and will be completed by February. If substantial new information is discovered by this study staff will return to Council with that information prior to issuance of the final RFP for environmental services. 1 Packet Pg. 16 Next Steps Assuming no significant change by Council as part of this discussion item the next stage of the project is issuing the RFP for final design and environment review. The following is a tentative schedule of next steps and an estimate of work time to complete each task. Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Task Work Time 1) Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services and project design. Complete Kosmont study of P3 issues 5 months. 2) Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016 3) Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016 4) Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016 5) Complete work and present for Advisory body and Council review Fall 2016 – Summer 2017 It is intended that sufficient work be done on the project to coincide with developing the 2017-19 Financial Plan and that any major changes necessary to the project budget be included as part of the FY 2017-18 Parking Fund review. FISCAL IMPACT The 2015-17 Financial Plan includes cost estimates for the project based upon delivery of a 400- 445 space facility. The Financial Plan includes a construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 in FY 2017-18 with $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund, and $17,600,000 in proceeds from debt financing proceeds. Prior Financial Plan funding has been committed for environmental review and final project design with a current unspent balance of approximately $1,266,000. Financing of the Project In order to construct the project the City will need to use a mixture of available capital as well as borrowing to cover the costs of construction. Final construction cost will be dependent upon changes in design for the project including footprint modifications, mitigation measures necessary for construction, final parking space yield and aesthetic design. Since adoption of the Financial Plan staff has worked with the City’s financial consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to review issues associated with the borrowing of debt for the project. It appears that a General Fund Lease Revenue bond will be the most appropriate borrowing method for the project. Attachment F includes a memorandum from PFM outlining the significance of various debt strategies including General Fund Lease revenue bonds compared to Parking Revenue bonds. 1 Packet Pg. 17 PFM provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond based upon a project borrowing cost of $17,600,000 and a 30-year term for the bonds. PFM estimates annual costs at current rates would be approximately $1.3, an amount lower than the $1.45 Million estimated in the FY 2015-17 FP. This amount could change if rates increase prior to full financing of the debt so keeping the $1.45 Million estimate is prudent at this time. With the General Fund being used as a pledge on the lease revenue bond, there would be no annual debt service coverage covenant as there would with parking revenue bonds (debt service coverage requires a minimum ratio of parking revenue to debt service payments – PFM identifies that this could be as high as 2.0 times net revenue for the City if Parking Revenue bonds are used). Final decision on the financing plan (including but not limited to the use of General Fund assets to secure the Parking Structure) does not have to be made now. However, if the Council has any concerns regarding the concept of using General Funds Lease revenue bonds for the project it would be helpful to have those expressed so additional research can be conducted and brought back to the council at a future date. Upcoming Mid-Year Fund Review The Parking Fund continues to be healthy. Staff is completing Mid Year Budget discussion scheduled for February including consideration of FY 2014-15 year end results. As part of that item updates to the fund will be detailed. On a positive note, delays in the closures of Lot 2, 3 and 11 along with deferral of the Palm Nipomo project helped the fund end higher than anticipated with approximately $8,400,000 in working capital at year end. Payment of mitigation fees and parking in-lieu fees by the Garden Street and Chinatown Phase 2 projects will be received this fiscal year and those funds will assist in creating the working capital needed to help fund the project. On the downside, it was discovered that the mitigation fees associated with Phase I development of the Chinatown project were double programmed in the budget for this fiscal year. These funds were actually received as part of escrow closing in FY 2013-14. These funds were deposited in the Parking Fund in that year. While the amount is large ($972,000) the Parking Fund has significant year-end working capital forecast for future years, even with the construction of the Palm Nipomo project. The full effect of these adjustments will be shown in the Mid-Year update for Council review. The Parking Fund appears capable of funding the project if terms of the debt financing stay consistent with current estimates and the rate changes and other revenue enhancements that have been used as background assumptions for the forecast are implemented when needed. Finally, prior Council direction relative to adding Sunday parking fees and implementing periodic overall parking rate increases were done in part assuming low initial parking utilization 1 Packet Pg. 18 in the Palm-Nipomo structure. Therefore, staff recommends the city continue those programs and others previously identified to assure ongoing Parking Fund stability. While doable, other revenue enhancement strategies such as charging for parking past 6 p.m. or expanding residential districts around Downtown to drive demand into existing structures continues to be controversial without full support of potentially effected stakeholders. These options, as well as others can be brought forward if fund forecasts show that future revenues do not cover the costs for Palm Nipomo or Parking fund needs. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – Delay moving forward with the project. The Council could delay moving forward with the next stage of project development if significant concerns associated with cost, timing, financing or other issues of the project. Staff does not recommend this option since moving forward with the environmental review and design at this time does not commit the City to construct the project. Instead, additional information resulting from the next phase of project development should assist the City in making future and final decisions regarding the project and its timing and costs. Alternative 2 - Revise the Palm Nipomo Project design. The Council can direct staff to revise the project or add alternatives for consideration in the EIR for the project. This alternative is not recommended since this site plan has previously authorized for further design by the City Council. Alternative 3 – Put the project on hold and pursue other parking and access strategies. The Council can direct explore other ways of meeting the parking and access needs. This could include limiting new parking supply to purchasing new property for surface only parking lots, developing more aggressive pricing policies for employee parking and expanding transit subsidies or looking at other structure locations. Similar to response to Alternative 1 above, staff recommends moving forward with the environmental and design completion at this time even if Council directs staff to pursue a major shift how to increase our parking supply. Final project costs for Palm Nipomo and area impacts will only be know when the full environmental and designs are known for the project. If the Council chooses to increase the emphasis on other strategies, they can be pursued in a parallel path to Palm Nipomo development with a final decision to construct the project by Council when the EIR is brought forward. It is likely that some of these strategies may be identified as part of the EIR process to help mitigate the project. Attachments: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) b - Downtown Parking Lot Map c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 1 Packet Pg. 19 MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) is considering construction of a parking structure on the south eastern corner of Nipomo Street and Palm Street (the “structure”). The multi-level 445-space planned structure would replace the existing Parking Lot 14, which has an inventory of 77 parking spaces. In December 2014, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) completed an organizational assessment for the City’s Parking Services Division. The assessment, the focus of which was a staffing analysis for Parking Services, included a preliminary projection of the demand for the parking spaces in the proposed garage. In preparing the projections, Walker considered three factors: x The projected capture of parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in the future; 1 x The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand; x The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking structure and the approved developments. Based upon these three factors, in the 2014 Walker projected that on a typically busy weekday, the Palm/Nipomo structure would have a surplus of 263± parking spaces, more than half the planned supply of the parking structure. Now, the City has engaged Walker to project the parking demand that might be generated in the Palm/Nipomo structure based on a two-phase build out scenario. Phase I consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term. Phase II centers around potential parking demand projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments. In formulating its projections, Walker considered the same three factors that were used for the 2014 projections. After presenting a summary of Walker’s findings and recommendations based upon the findings, this memorandum discusses the assumptions and methodology used to project the parking demand of the two-phase build out scenario. 1 For the 2014 study those developments were Monterey Place, San Luis Square, and Marsh Commons. DATE: January 5, 2015 TO: Peggy Mandeville, Tim Bochum, Alex Fuchs COMPANY: Parking Services, City of San Luis Obispo ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: San Luis Obispo, CA CC: HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Steffen Turoff, Derek Adams PROJECT NAME: Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Demand Study PROJECT NUMBER: 33-1871.00 SUBJECT: Projected Parking Demand for Palm/Nipomo Structure 606 South Olive Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Office: 213.488.4911 Fax: 213.488.4983 www.walkerparking.com 1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR CURRENT ANALYSIS Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445- space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I. Table 1, below, summarizes the Phase I demand projections. Table 1: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase I Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects a demand for 364± parking spaces for the design day peak. Assuming an effective supply of 0.92 (409 spaces for a 445-space parking facility) we project a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2, below, summarizes the demand and surplus projections at the completion of Phase II. Table 2: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase II Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 205 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 3. Includes all approved developments under design day conditions. 409 parking spaces 1 Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2 Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3 Phase II Displaced Vehicles 26 vehicles 4 Phase II Projected Demand 134 vehicles 5 45 parking spaces Notes: Less (-) Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply 3. Includes all approved developments. 4. Total includes 2015 observed demand for Lot 10. 5. Total reflects design day conditions with no special events. Projected Surplus/Deficit 1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces 2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2. 1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown. The structure could accommodate the projected parking demand for some of the Phase I approved development if parking policies necessary to encourage use of the structure are implemented and enforced. Even then, the structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces would be significantly more than necessary to accommodate the projected demand for those spaces. The assumptions contained in the Phase II of development suggest significant development A) occurring within a reasonable walking distance of the structure site and B) built with little or no parking on site. This kind of development suggests a need for a significant supply of new parking spaces to accommodate the parking demand Phase II would generate. However, we suggest that caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet been approved. Further, we note that a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary for a new parking structure to capture the parking demand generated by the Phase II developments. For the Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a shared manner, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. In such a scenario, the City would likely want to consider using its parking in lieu fee program to have developers of proximate sites assist in the funding of the structure, although we point out that such funds tend to flow slowly, often presenting a challenge for funding the parking structure. Nonetheless, given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to invest or partner with developers to provide funding, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. ASSUMPTIONS In developing the parking demand projections for the approved developments in Phase I and the potential parking demand projections for Phase II, Walker Parking Consultants made the following assumptions when analyzing the program and parking occupancy data provided by the City. The assumptions reflect (i) Walker’s familiarity with the parking system in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo, and (ii) Walker’s familiarity with parking systems in similar downtowns in California. The assumptions, some of which were developed for the 2014 study, reflect Walker’s understanding of conversations with City staff. For the parking demand projections developed for this memorandum, Walker assumed the following. 1. The parking demand projections are for a typically busy weekday afternoon without special events. 2. The Phase I program data reflect information from development projects approved by the City. 3. The Phase II program data reflect potential developments. 1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 4 a. These potential developments reflect provisional assumptions about how land uses might function upon full build out and occupancy. b. The parking demand ratios for the Phase II potential developments are not necessarily suitable for projecting parking demand at present day conditions at existing land uses. 4. The interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs on Thursday between 12 PM and 2 PM. 5. The 2015 parking occupancy data reflect the anticipated parking demand of existing land uses in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo at the full build out and occupancy of both phases of the design scenario. 6. In its analysis of the Phase I and Phase II program data, Walker assumed that the Shared Parking Model developed for the 2014 study remained sufficiently calibrated for the parking demand projections presented in this memorandum. 7. Vehicles displaced by the demolition and redevelopment of existing public off-street parking facilities within approximately 800 feet of the Palm Nipomo garage may seek to park in the garage upon its completion. 8. Projected parking surpluses for private developments will not be shared with private developments that have projected parking deficits. PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS The parking demand figures presented in this memorandum reflect a combination of two types of projections. The parking demand for the two-phased development scenario were projected using the Walker Parking Consultants/ULI Shared Parking Model. The parking demand for the rest of the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo were projected using parking demand data collected by City staff. The parking demand data for the Downtown area were collected on nine days between August 19, 2015 and October 17, 2015. On each day, City staff performed occupancy counts every other hour from 10 AM to 8 PM, inclusive. Table 3, below, lists the days on which occupancy counts were performed. The timing of the occupancy counts were meant to capture the high demand for parking that may be generated both in the late summer, the beginning of the Cal Poly semester, and the overlap of the summer and school seasons. Table 3: Parking Demand Data Collection Schedule Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. In performing the count of parked vehicles, City staff excluded the following categories of parking spaces. Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015 Sep 02, 2015 Sep 03, 2015 Sep 05, 2015 Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015 1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 5 o Handicapped Spaces o Commercial Loading Zones o Passenger Loading Zones o Post Office meters Similarly, City staff excluded the following categories of parking behavior. o Multiple Vehicles Parked in One Space (e.g. 2 or More Motorcycles Parked in One Space) o Illegal Parking (e.g. Parking in Red Zone) Given the City staff’s familiarity with its parking system, Walker assumed that the excluded categories of parking spaces and parking behavior did not materially impact the parking demand collected by the City. PEAK PARKING DEMAND In its analysis of the 2015 parking data provided by the City, Walker determined that for the purposes of this study the interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs between 12 PM and 2 PM on Thursday afternoons. The designation of this time period as the interval of peak demand on a typically busy day assumes that typical peak demand rather than weekly or less frequent events such as a Farmer’s Market should not be a determining factor in determining the inventory of the proposed parking structure. To account for seasonal changes in the peak parking demand, Walker averaged the reported demand for the three Thursday counts. Moreover, to assess the adequacy of the parking supply, Walker used a blended effective supply factor of 0.92. An effective supply factor (ESF) is a projection of a parking system’s operational effectiveness. An ESF accounts for those spaces that are momentarily unavailable for use while cars circulate within a parking system. An ESF also accounts for the number of spaces in a parking system that are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance, mis- parked vehicles, and other factors. Finally the cushion of spaces identified by the effective supply can be used to accommodate more vehicles during spikes in demand above and beyond the design day peak demand. Table 4, below, summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typically busy weekday for the Downtown study area. Table 4: Study Area Average Peak Parking Demand, Weekdays Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. By way of comparison, in 2014, the study area analyzed consisted of a total of 2,041± on- and off- street parking spaces. The effective supply of spaces was 1,867± spaces. The interval of peak AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION SURPLUS (+)/DEFICIT (-) Study Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 vehicles 67% 645 parking spaces 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 6 demand was identified as occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on Saturday. During that interval, 1,289 vehicles were parked resulting in a utilization percentage of 63% and a surplus of 578 parking spaces. For this year’s study, the area of study was expanded however the observed trend for peak parking demand remained consistent. The differences in inventory, effective supply, occupancy, and parking surplus are due to the City’s designation of a study area for the 2015 fieldwork that was centered on the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure site. While a full discussion and analysis of the differences between the data collection area are beyond the scope of this memorandum, the slightly increased level of occupancy (from 63% to 67%) is an indication that the 2015 data allow for a more conservative projection of the impact of the two phases of development on the parking demand in the proposed structure; demand for parking in the Downtown is assumed to be slightly higher for this analysis. The 2015 peak week day data allow for a more conservative than the 2014 data because the former reflect a higher level of occupancy in areas that will likely generate parking demand in the planned garage. Based upon additional analysis of the parking demand and program data provided by the City, Walker concluded that the two-phase development will likely displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 and that these displaced vehicles would likely be parked in the proposed garage. Walker projects that the Phase I and Phase II developments will displace vehicles that currently park in Lots 2, 10, and 14 as follows. 1. City staff, based on their knowledge of parking patterns Downtown, asked Walker to assume that half of the parking demand in Lot 2 observed during the interval of peak demand would also park in the Palm Nipomo garage. At the peak a total of 52 vehicles were observed parked in Lot 2. 2. The construction of the parking structure requires the elimination of Lot 14 which would displace spaces where 48 vehicles are parking. 3. The build out of the Phase II development will require the elimination of Lot 10, which will displace 26 vehicles. Table 5, below, summarizes by phase the projected vehicle displacement for Lots 2, 10, and 14. The projected displacement is based upon data collected by City staff. Table 5: Vehicle Displacement Projections by Phase Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. Based on the on-street data collected, it is our assumption that motorists used to parking in Lot 10 and Lot 14 will seek to park in the proposed structure rather than on street or at another off-street PHASE AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION VEHICLES DISPLACED* Lot 2 59 parking spaces 54 parking spaces 52 vehicles 88% 26 vehicles Lot 14 77 parking spaces 71 parking spaces 48 vehicles 63% 48 vehicles Phase II Lot 10 27 parking spaces 25 parking spaces 26 vehicles 96% 26 vehicles * Values indicate number of vehicles that are assumed to park in the Palm/Nipomo structure. Phase I 12PM 1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 7 parking facility. We also assume that the City will actively engage in policies to encourage additional parking demand generated in the area to utilize the new structure. PHASE I AND PHASE II PROGRAM DATA The City asked Walker to project the parking demand for a two-phase development scenario. Phase I consists of seven (7) approved projects. The seven approved projects of Phase I fall into one of two categories. The first category consists of four approved developments that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. This category includes: x The Garden Street Terraces, x Chinatown, x Pacific Courtyards, and x Discovery San Luis Obispo. The second category is comprised of three approved developments that likely will generate a significant level of parking demand in the garage. These three developments are: x Monterey Place, x the Creamery, and x the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA). Table 6, below, provides a summary of the Phase I program data by land use. Table 6: Summary of Phase I Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. Phase II consists of five provisional development sites. These five sites are provisional in that they reflect assumptions that are conceptual in regards to land uses and user groups. Because of the Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf) 66,318 s.f. Family Active Entertainment 17,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 6,700 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 7,500 s.f. Museum 23,000 s.f. Spa 5,000 s.f. Hotel-Leisure 153 keys Residential 72 total d.u. 1 bedroom† 4 d.u. 2 bedroom† 51 d.u. >3 bedroom† 17 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 22,080 s.f. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 8 conceptual nature of these assumptions, the five land uses have parking generation ratios that do not necessarily reflect contemporaneous conditions for similar land uses in the Downtown area. Table 7, below, summarizes the Phase II program data by land use. Table 7: Summary of Phase II Program Data by Land Use Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. To project the parking demand for both phases of the development scenario, Walker used the Walker Parking Consultants/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM). Walker led the research effort to update the most recent ULI Shared Parking Model. Walker’s internal SPM is based on the ULI model but includes more detail, data points and specific land uses. Furthermore, the Walker SPM allows for calibration based upon on observed conditions within a study area and anticipated conditions within proposed developments. Based upon conversations with City staff, Walker concluded that the base parking demand ratios used for the 2014 parking demand projections should also be used for the projections presented in this memorandum. Table 8, below, summarizes the ratios used in the Walker SPM for the parking demand projections for the two-phase development scenario. Land Use Program Data Retail (<400 ksf) 14,440 s.f. Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f. Fine/Casual Dining 3,607 s.f. Family Restaurant 3,607 s.f. Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,607 s.f. Performing Arts Theater 200 seats Residential 82 total d.u. 1 bedroom† 82 d.u. Office <25,000sq ft 25,000 d.u. † Dwelling units (d.u.) 1.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 9 Table 8: Ratios Used in Walker Shared Parking Model for San Luis Obispo, 2014 and 2015 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2014-2015. It should be noted that the net new parking demand projection for the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA) was reduced by 50%. This reduction represents the conclusion of Walker that SLOMA will double the parking demand it currently generates, based on past and projected attendance data. The reduction reflects the assumption that the current parking demand for SLOMA is assumed to be accounted for in the 2015 occupancy demand data collected by the City. It should also be noted that the demand ratio for SLOMA reflects a blended demand ratio that includes the planned office space and other new land uses that will be available after the site has been redeveloped. Table 9, on page 10, details the program data and parking demand projections for the four developments in Phase I that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. The table reflects the City’s present understanding that the Garden Street Terraces will address its projected parking deficit by having twenty six (26) vehicles park in the Palm Nipomo garage. Table 10, on page 11, details the program data and parking demand projections for the three developments in Phase I that are anticipated to generate significant parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo structure. Table 11, on page 12, provides a detailed summary by land use of the program data for Phase II. Base Parking Demand Drive Non-Captive Retail/Commercial Space 3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 90% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100% Restaurant 9 to 15.25 spaces per ksf GLA* 60% - 70% 76% - 88% Employee 1.5 to 1.75 spaces per ksf GLA* 70% - 80% 100% Family Active Entertainment 4.5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Speciality Grocery 4 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Spa 6.6 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85% Employee .4 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Art Museum 5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100% Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100% Peforming Arts Theater .3 spaces per seat 60% - 70% 100% Employee .07 spaces per seat 65% - 75% 100% Hotel 1 space per key 90% 100% Employee .18 space per key 65% - 75% 100% Office .3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100% Employee 3 spaces per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100% Residential First space per unit is reserved. Studio 1 space per d.u. 1-bedroom 1.5 spaces per d.u. 2-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. 3-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u. Visitor .15 space per d.u. * Values indicate ranges for three restaurant sub-categories: fine casual, family, and fast casual. 70% (All units) 100% (All units) Ratios Land use Shared Parking Adjustments Shared parking adjustments account for fluctations in parking demand by land use type. These fluctuaions generally center around hour of day, day of week, month, and season. These adjustments are performed by the Walker Parking Consultants Shared Parking Model. 1.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 10 Table 9: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Unlikely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USESGarden St. Terraces1119 Garden St.ChinatownPacific Courtyards1321/1327 Osos St.Discovery San Luis Obispo(DSLO)Marsh & ChorroTotalRetail (<400 ksf) 15,542 s.f. 43,750 s.f. s.f. s.f.59,292 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining s.f.3,000 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,000 s.f.Fast Casual/Fast Food s.f. s.f. s.f.7,500 s.f.7,500 s.f.Family Active Entertainment s.f. s.f. s.f.17,500 s.f.17,500 s.f.Spa 5,000 s.f.0005,000 s.f.Hotel-Leisure 64 keys 78 keys keys 0142 keysResidential Guest† 8 d.u. 32 d.u. 9 d.u.049 d.u. 1 bedroom† d.u. d.u.1 d.u.01 d.u. 2 bedroom† 8 d.u. 17 d.u. 6 d.u.031 d.u. >3 bedroom† d.u.15 d.u. 2 d.u.017 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 41 spaces 53 spaces* 34 spaces0128 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥93 spaces 183 spaces 27 spaces 54 spaces 370 spacesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-52 spaces -130 spaces7 spaces‡-54 spaces -236 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**26 vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles26 vehiclesNotes‡ Surplus provided for reference only. The projected 236 space deficit excludes 7 space surplus.* Indicates stacked parking spaces† Dwelling units (d.u.)^ Projected supply after loss of 15 parking spaces.** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.1.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 11 Table 10: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Likely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo Structure Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. LAND USESMonterey Place667/679 Monterey St.Creamery Additional/RemodelSLOMATotalRetail (<400 ksf) 6,270 s.f. 756 s.f. s.f.7,026 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining 3,700 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,700 s.f.Museum0023,000 s.f.23,000 s.f.Hotel-Leisure 11 keys keys 011 keysResidential Guest† 23 d.u. d.u. 023 d.u. 1 bedroom† 3 d.u. d.u. 03 d.u. 2 bedroom† 20 d.u. d.u. 020 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft 14,030 s.f. s.f. s.f.14,030 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 29 spaces*0 spaces 0 spaces29 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥94 spaces 1 space 39 spaces§ 134 vehiclesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-65 spaces -1 space -39 spaces -105 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**65 vehicles 1 vehicle 39 vehicles 105 vehiclesNotes§ Total assumes that SLOMA parking demand will be approximately double the existing art gallery.† Dwelling units (d.u.)¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.* Indicates stacked parking spaces** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage1.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 12 Table 11: Phase II Program Data Assumptions Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015. PHASE II LAND USES Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 TotalRetail (<400 ksf) 8,500 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 14,440 s.f.Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.6,500 s.f.Fine/Casual Dining 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Family Restaurant 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Fast Casual/Fast Food 2,167 s.f. 1,440 s.f. 3,607 s.f.Performing Arts Theater200 seats 200 seatsResidential Guest† 50 d.u. 20 d.u. 12 d.u. 82 d.u. 1 bedroom† 50 d.u. 20 d.u. 12 d.u. 82 d.u.Office <25,000sq ft 22,000 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 25,000 s.f.Planned Parking Supply 50 spaces 16 spaces 12 spaces 21 spaces 99 spacesProjected Parking Demand¥107 spaces 47 spaces 17 spaces 53 spaces 9 spaces 233 spacesProjected Adequacy/Deficit-57 spaces -31 spaces -5 spaces -32 spaces -9 spaces -134 spacesProjected Additional Palm/Napomo Demand**57 vehicles 31 vehicles 5 vehicles 32 vehicles 9 vehicles 134 vehiclesNotes† Dwelling Units (d.u.)¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage1.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 13 Figure 1: Proposed Locations of Palm/Nipomo Structure and Phase I and Phase II Developments Source: Image, Google Earth Professional, 2015; development locations, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015; graphics, Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.1.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PAGE 14 CONCLUSION Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility as currently envisioned, would have a parking space surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I, based on a projected demand for 204± spaces and effective supply factor of 0.92. Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects that a 445-space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase II, based on a projected demand for 364± spaces (combined phases I + 2) and effective supply factor of 0.92. The Palm/Nipomo structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces is significantly more than currently necessary to accommodate current parking demand. The likely demand for parking generated by Phase I development represents less than half the planned supply of parking. However for Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking for future development, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. Given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to make a significant investment(or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared, public parking. However, if the projected Phase II development were not to occur as envisioned, the usefulness of the structure could be limited. 1.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015) (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - Downtown Parking Lot Map (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Preliminary Design1.c Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 2011 Urban Design Plan1.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1.d Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 1 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure) was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site is currently occupied by City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street). The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. They were also asked to be mindful of the City’s height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures: a self park structure, like the City’s current parking structures; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay. May 25, 2004 City Council Direction Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options: 1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing. 2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built. 3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street. 4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project. 5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground. 6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for the roof of the structure. 7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line. July 5, 2005 City Council Direction On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of 1.e Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components: 1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street. 2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on project plans. 4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design. 5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached “Dwelling over Garage”). 6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and note where exceptions are needed. 7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings. 8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site. 9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street. 10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass. In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional refinements to Self Park Option D3: a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible. b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access. c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey. To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights. In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure. 1.e Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 April 24, 2007 City Council Direction In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by “others” when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost. Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure oriented to reduce building height impact. Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f. No. of Levels 4 ½ 5 ½ 6 Building Height (35 ft.) * Height exception needed? 39 ft. Yes 41 ft. Yes 37 ft. Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft.) Street yard exception needed? Other yard (10 ft.) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0-10 ft. Yes 25 ft. No Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 12,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design. Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, 1.e Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 however much of the residence’s rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure’s roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure. Site Diagram for Option D3 The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers. Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet March 17, 2009 City Council Direction On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? 1.e Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016-17. 2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.” 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. 5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure. However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots. In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years. Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district. To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years. December 1, 2009 City Council Direction Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The consultant team was hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary urban design plan developed that has been well received by the community. The design assumes the removal of five City owned residences; two of which are located within a historic district. Environmental studies undertaken determined that removal of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the Downtown Historic District and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed to allow for their removal. January 3, 2012 City Council Direction Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the cultural resource issue as well as potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic. Due to staff resources and other City priorities, this work effort was delayed. As part of the 2015 annual Parking Fund review, Council directed staff to return with a study session to present an update on the delivery of the project and bring forward financial issues. This decision was made in the midst of the Great Recession and assumptions of background private development that would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many significant projects (Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions. 1.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December 2011 The uncertain timing of new development and potential for major revisions to their parking demand led staff to conclude it would be prudent to defer work on the environmental impact report and the final project design until the economy recovered. In essence, issues that need to be determined in the structure’s final design (such as total number of spaces, height limitations and building footprint) could be affected if major shifts occurred in parking demand due to revised private development needs. January 19, 2016 – Project Reboot City Council Direction Staff is seeking additional council concurrence with project recommendations and moving forward with design and the EIR. In addition, staff is seeking Council direction on negotiating a new MOA with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties. 1.e Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 50 California Street Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 982-5544 415 982-4513 fax www.pfm.com October 14, 2015 Memorandum To: Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo Jeff Brown, City of San Luis Obispo From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc. Re: Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations Public Financial Management, Inc. (“PFM”) has prepared the following memorandum as a high- level summary of some of the financing alternatives the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) may want to consider in determining its approach to the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project. Assuming the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage will be a public, City-owned parking structure, the City has several options for financing the project. Two primary alternatives are lease revenue bonds and parking revenue bonds. As it has done in the past (e.g., Series 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds), the City could issue lease revenue bonds to fund the project, using either the project itself or another existing City asset as the security for the bonds. Lease Revenue Bond Considerations: x The General Fund is pledged to repayment (though the City can budget the debt payments from the Parking Fund, similar to what it has done with prior lease revenue bond issuances, where debt service is allocated to other enterprise funds depending upon the projects financed with the bond proceeds) x Lease revenue bonds carry a lower interest rate than parking revenue bonds x The City must have available of unencumbered asset(s) to pledge x If assets of sufficient value are not available, the City will need to use capitalized interest during construction Alternatively, the City could finance the Palm-Nipomo project using parking revenue bonds, pledging the net revenues of the Parking Fund to repay the debt. Parking Revenue Bond Considerations: x With a parking revenue bond, the obligation to repay is limited to the net revenues of the parking system, so there is no General Fund exposure 1.f Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations October 14, 2015 Page 2 x Due to the limited pledge of revenue, this type of financing carries a higher borrowing cost than lease revenue bonds x Parking revenue bonds are uncommon, perhaps due to associated risks and the resulting cost of borrowing x Net revenues of the parking system (after O&M) will need to generate annual debt service coverage of approximately 2.0x x The City will have to covenant to set parking rates at levels sufficient to meet this coverage requirement x Unless existing system revenues are sufficient to pay debt service on the new garage (and generate required coverage), the City will need to capitalize interest during the construction/ramp up period For comparison, we have provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a lease revenue bond and a parking revenue bond, based upon a project cost of $17,600,000. Given that construction is not anticipated to begin until FY2017-18, we have assumed some increase in municipal bond interest rates, which are currently near historic lows. For both scenarios we have assumed that interest on the bonds during the construction period is capitalized, that the bonds have a debt service reserve fund, and that the term of the bonds is 30 years. Annual debt service on a lease revenue bond issuance is estimated at approximately $1.3 million and with the General Fund pledge on a lease revenue bond, there is no annual debt service coverage covenant. Annual debt service on a parking revenue bond is estimated at approximately $1.7 million. To generate 2.0x debt service coverage, the parking system would need to generate $3.4 million of net revenue in the Parking Fund. For either of the two security structures discussed above, the City could also consider financing the Palm-Nipomo parking structure through a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (the “I-Bank”), as it did in 2001 for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure. The I-Bank may offer interest rates that are lower than the City could achieve though a public offering of bonds. There is an application process for I-Bank financing that can be lengthy, so this alternative should be explored well in advance of the funding need for the project. Should the City elect to pursue a project at the Palm-Nipomo site that involves a partnership with a private entity, plans for private use of a portion of the garage, or other modifications to the basic concept of a City-owned facility available for use by the public, the financing options may change and the costs differ from those described above. 1.f Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15 (1231 : Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Study Session) 271 From:Fuchs, Alexander Sent:Wednesday, January 6, 2016 4:28 PM To:Turoff, Steffen Cc:Adams, Derek; Garcia, Daniel; Bochum, Tim Subject:RE: Projected construction cost Attachments:Council Agenda Report - Review of Design Option 04.24.2007.pdf Steffen, According to the approved site plan for Palm-Nipomo, a portion of the bottom level will be 16 feet below grade but a mechanical ventilation system will not be needed. I have attached a copy of a Council Agenda Report from 2007 discussing the design options and cost to build. In this report, it estimates the cost to build at $33,500 per net new space (Pages 8-9). I’m not 100% sure why the cost is estimated to be so high. Originally in 2005, Council approved $12M to construct Palm-Nipomo during the 2013-15 Financial Plan Robert requested to increase the amount from $12M to $23.6M. Building parking garages in SLO tend to be higher than other places because we build relatively small garages, they tend not to look like garages, and most incorporate some other uses (i.e. office spaces). To my knowledge, we have never had a consultant provide a detailed cost estimate to build Palm-Nipomo. Below is the information on the existing structures: I haven’t been able to find the cost breakdown to build 919 Palm but it is estimated that the office space alone cost around $4.1M to construct. The office space in 919 Palm accounts for an entire floor of the structure. Given that, the adjusted cost per space for 919 Palm is about $33,471. I hope all this helps. Let me know if you need any other information. Thank you, Alex From: Turoff, Steffen [mailto:steffen.turoff@walkerparking.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 2:23 PM To: Fuchs, Alexander Cc: Adams, Derek; Garcia, Daniel; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Projected construction cost Hi Alex, 272 We are grateful for the information; I hope it’s not too much trouble. P/N would all be above grade, wouldn’t it? What accounts for the high cost, more than 2X a typical space? Steffen From: Fuchs, Alexander [mailto:afuchs@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 2:20 PM To: Turoff, Steffen <steffen.turoff@walkerparking.com> Cc: Adams, Derek <Derek.Adams@walkerparking.com>; Garcia, Daniel <Daniel.Garcia@walkerparking.com>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Projected construction cost Steffen, Thanks for the quick turn-around on the report; it’s always great working with you and your team. In regards to construction costs for existing structures, I will put together a table showing (1) year built, (2) cost, (3) number of spaces, and (4) cost per space. I will send it off later today. As for Palm-Nipomo, we have rough costs but nothing specific. We currently estimate construction cost of at $23.6M for 445 spaces or about $53,000/space. Thanks, Alex From: Turoff, Steffen [mailto:steffen.turoff@walkerparking.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:34 PM To: Fuchs, Alexander Cc: Adams, Derek; Garcia, Daniel Subject: Projected construction cost Alex, I hope you’re squared away for the final revised document we sent to you earlier. Thank you for the opportunity to work on the project. I have a question I’m hoping you can help us with. Do you have specific cost/space projections for the construction of the as- planned Palm/Nipomo Garage? And/or do you have cost/space of the other public garages that the City has built? I know that Marsh has two components and may be more complicated, but total cost figures for each garage would be helpful and we could do the cost/space comparison. Thank you, Steffen Steffen Turoff, AICP Director, Planning Studies Walker Parking Consultants| Walker Restoration Consultants 606 S. Olive Street Suite 1100 | Los Angeles, CA 90014 273 213.488.4911 ext. 3709 (Office) | 213.488.4983 (Fax) www.walkerparking.com To send me a file larger than 10MB, please use this File Transfer This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Thank you. council.agenda nepont C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM :Jay Walter, Director of Public Work s Prepared By :Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Work s Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planne r SUBJECT :REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOM O PARKING STRUCTUR E CAO RECOMMENDATION : 1.Receive and consider information regarding potential design options for the Palm-Nipom o parking structure and identify Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park design) as the preferre d site plan design . 2.Provide direction regarding next steps in the development process for the project . REPORT-IN-BRIE F The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Council has met on severa l occasions to discuss the Palm-Nipomo site and designs for a parking structure at this location . At its last Palm-Nipomo meeting held in 2005, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual desig n options and directed staff to proceed with refinements to self park site plan Option D3, mechanica l Option 112, and mechanical Option H3 (an option submitted by Ken Schwartz) and provide a cos t comparison for the constructing and operation of the three different options . This report include s the information requested by Council and recommends that Council consider Site Plan Desig n Option D3 (self park) as the preferred design given the current significant cost differential betwee n mechanical and self park structures . However, the more fundamental underlying question before Council is :If we build it at this location, will they come?This is a reasonable question, given that it is very likely that the nex t parking structure will be the last one the City builds for a very long time . Staff believes tha t circumstances have evolved such that it is appropriate to complete this project . Given tha t completion will take at least five more years, factors supporting this conclusion include : (1) major planned development/redevelopment projects in the overall downtown ; (2) present and futur e cultural facility development in the immediate site vicinity ; (3) added development that may b e sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo (e .g . Creamery redevelopment?); and (4) the likelihood of a downtown parking district in the coming years that will shift parkers out of neighborhoods and int o structures . Meeting Date h//Fl /at S5/N®N.D.M. Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 2 DISCUSSIO N Backgroun d The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an importan t objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan . The Financial Plan calls for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipom o Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-leve l parking structure . The proposed parking structure site (see Attachment 1) is currently occupied b y City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and on e duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street). With the purchase of property at 614 Monterey Street last year, all of these properties are now owned by the City . The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site ; 79 surface parking spaces cur rently exist on the site . They were directed to incorporate uses intende d by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (see Attachment 2,"Conceptual Physica l Plan"). They were also asked to be mindful of the City's height regulations which limit buildin g height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations t o otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principa l use . Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures : a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures ; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in th e structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay . May 25, 2004 City Council Directio n Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25,2004 with their review of eight schematic design options . Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures (se e Attachment 3 and previous staff reports for designs and information regarding mechanical parkin g structures). In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structur e design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site , providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use o f space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs : Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the "baseline" design options for further study . Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options : 1.Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility an d leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing . 2.Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built . 3.Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street . 4.Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project . 5.Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground . 6.Proposing other possible uses (ie . senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) fo r the roof of the structure . 7.Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 3 July 5, 2005 City Council Directio n On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses o n the roof of the structure . At the meeting, Council directed staff (see Attachment 4, Excerpt fro m Council meeting minutes) to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2 , and mechanical Option H3 (see Attachment 5, a concept submitted by Ken Schwartz at the July 5 meeting) specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure . Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, added engineerin g requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use . Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components : 1.Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street . 2.Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (histori c Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3.Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St .) on project plans . 4.Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design . 5.Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached "Dwelling over Garage"). 6.Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations an d note where exceptions are needed . 7.Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level , off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on - site dwellings . 8.Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site . 9.Identify location of access/servicing area for "Future Use by Others"- if office use i s developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street . 10.Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cos t comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such a s including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce it s mass . In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the followin g additional refinements to Self Park Option D3 : a.Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible . b.Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access . c.Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey . To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, an d topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 4 Other Rooftop Uses ? In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential fo r other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing . The Council dismissed thi s idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantl y increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements . Thes e added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related . Additionally, buildin g height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking fo r the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the ne w structure . The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties fo r other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure . Current Site Plan Option s In response to Council direction described earlier, staff and the consultants have refined the three site plan options (see Attachment 6, 2007 Site Plan Options). Each site plan option is describe d below and the consultants are prepared to discuss the pros and cons of each option at the meeting . All options locate the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintain the large oak tree on Monterey and allow portions of the site to b e developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate . In essence, the structure could be built firs t and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place . Structure size, positioning, and height all affect the gross number of deliverable parking spaces a s well as property available for other uses . It is not surprising that the mechanical parking option s provide the most net space available to other uses due to their compact design . Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Street s leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street i n front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets . Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points o f direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo . The residence a t 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street i s redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure . One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roo f top level (see Section B-B for details) to step the height back toward the center of the structure thu s reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to th e northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structur e is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanica l ventilation system is not required . Additional parking levels have not been located below grade du e to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure . The parking structure's height i s measured as follows . Heights do not include elevator towers . Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =36 feet Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 5 Palm Street =44 fee t Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 21 fee t Table 1-Summary of Key Site Plan Option Feature s Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure wit h portions of upper level s removed to reduce building heigh t impact . Mechanica l structure wit h portions o f upper level s removed t o reduce buildin g height impact . Mechanica l structure oriented to reduce buildin g height impact . Building Footprint 34,350 s .f .20,500 s .f .20,500 s .f . Gross Building Area 150,850 s .f .118,750 s .f .121,500 s .f . No . of Levels 4'h 5'/2 6 Building Height (35 ft .)* Height exception needed? 39 ft . Yes 41 ft . Yes 37 ft . Ye s Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft .) Street yard exception needed ? Other yard (10 ft .) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft . Ye s 10 ft . No Oft . Ye s 10 ft. No 0-10 ft . Ye s 25 ft . N o Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s .f .8,700 s .f . 12,700 s .f . 19,800 s .f . Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s .f .4,500 s .f .3,000 s .f . 7,000 s .f . Per the City's Zoning Regulations, building height is measured as the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roo f (structure). The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of th e lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building and dividing by two . The building heigh t does not include the elevator tower(s) which can extend ten (10) feet above the maximu m building height . In the Office zone, the maximum building height is 25 feet ; 35 feet with th e approval of an administrative use permit . ** Per the City's Zoning Regulations, a minimum street yard of 15 feet is required . Othe r yards range from a minimum offive feet to ten feet, depending on building height . Because a self park design is less space efficient than a mechanical design, this design provides th e least amount of new parking spaces (366) in 4'/2 levels and the smallest amount of remaining lan d area (approximately 11,400 s .f.) for a future use by others . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 6 ,th:i Maid MUTI Figure 1 - Site Diagram for Option D 3 Site Plan Option H2 locates the parking structure mid-block between Monterey and Palm Streets leaving room for other uses (residential, office and/or cultural) to be constructed on Monterey an d Palm Streets in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Montere y Streets . Because users do not enter the mechanical structure, direct access is provided to the neares t public right of way, but not directly through the site to Monterey Street as desired by Council .A total of 412 net new parking spaces are provided within 5 1/2 levels of parking, approximately tw o of which are located below grade . Additional parking levels have not been located beyond 20 fee t below grade due to added costs for waterproofing the structure . Council may recall that groundwater was encountered 30 feet below the surface in one boring taken a few years ago . With this design, the five residences are relocated or demolished . Parking spaces (totaling 7 0 spaces) have been removed from the upper levels to step the structure height back toward the cente r of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from Monterey Stree t and the adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe . As an option, one less section of parking could be removed from Section B-B and Section A-A, whic h would add 39 spaces to the structure . The parking structure's height is measured as follows : Monterey Street =25 fee t Nipomo Street =43 fee t Palm Street =41 fee t Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage" = 14 feet Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 7 ~~~f fllfff ifi ~iIIIiII] III II t i'ma IN . "I EMCEE; RINKIMIl l Itl t~l~~~~11i111~G ) 4Rm Figure 2 - Site Diagram for Option H 2 Site Plan Option H3 locates the parking structure diagonally on the site providing the wides t separation between the parking structure and adjoining residences . With a separation of a minimum of 40 feet between the parking structure and adjacent residences, the upper floors of th e structure do not need to be stepped back to reduce visual impacts . This design results in the mos t efficient mechanical design providing the largest number of new parking spaces (486)within 6 levels . Again, additional levels have not been located beyond 20 feet below grade due to adde d costs for waterproofing the structure . With this design, two public spaces (totaling 3,000 s .f. and 7,000 respectively) are created at the property corners of Palm/Nipomo and Monterey/Nipom o Streets and direct pedestrian access can be provided through the public space to Monterey Street . The single family residence at 633 Palm could remain until the 19,800 s .f. "Future Use by Others" area is redeveloped . The parking structure's height is measured as follows : Monterey Street =33 feet Nipomo Street =43 feet Palm Street =41 feet Adjoining "Dwelling over Garage"=30 feet Considering only design features, Site Plan Option H3 best fulfills the City's goals for a parkin g structure at this location . Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 8 Figure 3 - Site Diagram for Option H3 Mechanical vs . Self- Park Cost Comparisons As requested by Council, a cost comparison for the construction, maintenance, and operation of th e three site plan options was developed. Table 2 – Construction Cost Compariso n Construction Cost Comparison D3 H2 H 3 Initial Capital Cost/Net New Space Self par k structure Mechanica l structure Mechanica l structure wit h building orientatio n Construction (ti $24,800 $47,800 $46,50 0 Soft Cos t (Design/Constructio n Management/Inspection/Permits/Fees) $8,700 $16,700 $16,30 0 Total per net new spac e Number of space s Total Construction Cost $33,50 0 x 366 $64,50 0 x412 $62,80 0 x 48 6 $26,574,000 $30,520,80 0$12,261,000 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 9 Table 3 — Operational Cost Compariso n Operation Cost Comparison D3 H2 H 3 Annual Expenses/Gross New Space Self par k structure Mechanica l structure Mechanica l structure ( pe r Ken Schwartz ) Routine/Preventive Maintenance (2)$140 $500 $50 0 Operation tsl $425 $240 $23 5 Utilities $55 $180 $17 5 Security $67 $36 $3 5 Insurance $18 $18 $1 8 Miscellaneous $85 $85 $8 5 Total per space Number of space s Total Annual Operating Cost $79 0 x 445 $1,059 x 491 $1,03 8 x 565 $586,500$520,00 0$351,500 Notes : 1)Construction costs are in current dollars and derived from recently developed project s including the 919 Palm Street structure. 2)Maintenance costs assume mechanical systems will be maintained by a mechanical servic e provider adding additional cost to routine maintenance . 3)Assumes central cashiering for self-park and pay-on-foot revenue collection for mechanical . 4)Equipment/structure long-term repair and replacement costs are not included . 5)Soft costs computed @ 35% do not include land, financing, contingency, or escalation . 6)Initial software costs are included in construction cost . Software updates should not ad d costs to the annual expenses . Standard maintenance associated with software is a part of the Routine/Preventative Maintenance line item . Ownership of the software should be factore d into the initial contractual agreements between vendor and client . 7)At least one additional full time staff person will be needed for a new structure regardless o f its type . As expected, the mechanical structures are more costly to construct and maintain because of th e mechanical parking systems, however there are additional reasons for the cost difference . Other cost factors include : 1.Site Constraints .The Palm-Nipomo site offers ample space to build an efficient self-par k structure . If the size or dimensions of the site were substantially constrained, it would cos t more to build a self park design . Because a mechanical design can be accommodated in a much smaller footprint than a self-park design, the efficiencies of a mechanical desig n improve when size constraints limit a self-park design at the same location . 2.Construction Components .A short-term mechanical parking structure for public us e requires twice as many portals (entrances and exits) and associated mechanical equipmen t than a long-term private mechanical structure such as Hoboken, New Jersey (se e Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures). 3.Software .A software program to operate the structure is required and needs to be update d to operate the mechanical features . Ownership transition of the software needs to b e Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 0 considered during the contract development to avoid later disputes should the vendor go ou t of business or change business practices . 4.Preventive Maintenance .The mechanical design requires maintenance of numerou s mechanical components that are not included in a self-park design . A mechanical servic e provider is needed to maintain the mechanical components . 5.New Technology .Because the concept of mechanical parking is relatively new to th e United States, there is not a lot of competition and therefore companies selling and maintaining the mechanical systems can charge what the market will accept . The consultant researched existing and proposed mechanical structures throughout the world (se e Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures) to learn more about the pros an d cons of mechanical parking from other projects .All research shows that the mechanical parkin g sites were constrained in such a way that made the cost of mechanical parking more feasible . Additionally, the structures were designed to accommodate the demand for residential use (no t general public use) thus requiring fewer portals which reduced the cost to build and operate th e structures . All constructed and operational examples were also much smaller in scale with th e exception of the Hoboken structure that was designed to accommodate 320 vehicles . Finally, th e consultant learned that projects that included a partnership between the mechanical system provide r (vendor) and the mechanical service provider had fewer operational problems . Although land cost was not considered in the comparison, it is also a factor . If land cost o r availability was as constrained as it is in other countries, we would have fewer options to consider (such as purchasing neighboring properties) when developing a parking facility . Staff Recommendation in Light of Significant Cost Differentia l As of the date of this report, no public agency in the United States has opted to build a mechanica l structure . It is staff's hope that once the technology becomes more mainstream, the costs t o construct and operate a mechanical design will decrease, making it a feasible option for future Cit y parking facilities . Until then, it is difficult for staff to support a mechanical design because of cost s and the potential for other uncertainties . Given the current significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommends that Council consider Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park)as the preferred design at this time . Although the mechanical design (H3) i s a much more efficient use of space, has the least amount of visual impact to the adjoinin g residential uses, and provides the largest remaining land area for a cultural facility, the costs of a mechanical structure are far too high to pursue at this time . Palm-Nipomo : Where to From Here, or, "And if we build it, will the come?" There are several outstanding issues which remain unresolved at this point that could affect th e consideration of the next steps in the Palm-Nipomo project should be . Those questions are a s follows : Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 1 1.Will there be sufficient demand ? Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parkin g structure . However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking . Project s such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose t o eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots . In addition, parking spaces on the street are bein g eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown . Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years . Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district , structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district . To meet thes e new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years . 2.Will there be "new" demand sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo ? The uses surrounding the Palm-Nipomo parking area are changing and increasing cultural activit y opportunities . Many of the neighboring properties to the parking are not "developed" to their ful l potential . If past history is an indication in San Luis Obispo, parking structures can have a revitalizing effect on their "neighborhood ." After the Marsh Street Garage was constructed many enhancements occurred nearby, ranging from Dr . Morton's Dentist office to the Downtown Center . With the Children's Museum project, possible remodel of the Art Center and the Marpom o residential project all happening in next few years, uses are increasing in this general area . Fo r many years, it has also been thought that redevelopment would be encouraged at The Creamery , and possibly other nearby properties, if added parking were available . 3.Can the utilization of parking at Palm-Nipomo be enhanced ? Presently, the City does not have an incentive based program to encourage users to park at thi s location . Staff believes that as part of the next step in the process, strategies to attract users to th e Palm-Nipomo location as a long term parking location should be developed . One potential new user group could be County employees . There have already been initial conversations with th e County Administrative Officer indicating some County interest in participating in this project i n exchange for parking spaces for County employees . Staff will follow-up on this preliminary expression of interest if Council directs staff to proceed to the next step . Taking the Next Step s Based upon current Parking Fund revenues, expenses, and limits on funding sources, it is very likely that this parking structure will be the final parking structure the City will build for a very lon g time . The critical questions therefore are :Should Palm-Nipomo be that structure at this time? If we build it; will they come?At its July 5, 2005 meeting, Council answered "Yes" to Palm-Nipomo being the right location for a new structure . With Council identification of a preferred site plan design option for Palm-Nipomo, the next step i n the process will be to prepare plans and applications for environmental review, architectural review , and use permit review by the various advisory bodies (see general timeline below). This step follows the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan which calls for design to occur in 2006-07 an d construction to occur in 2008-09 . Before proceeding, staff would like confirmation from Council Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 2 on the timing of the next steps . Other timing alternatives are included in the Alternatives section o f this report . Task Date Palm Nipomo Parking Structure 1 .Prepare RFP for architectural review plans, select consultant .7/07 2 .Submit application for architectural and environmental review .12/07 3 .Prepare RIP for environmental review, select consultant .2/08 4 .Complete draft environmental document .2/09 5 .Project review by Architectural Review Commission .6/09 6 .Project review by Planning Commission .10/09 7 .Project review by City Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications .1/1 0 8 .Completion of plans and specifications .7/1 0 9 .Council review of construction bids .10/1 0 10. Construction commencement .1/1 1 11 . Construction completion .6/12 Public Input during this Most Recent Phase of Analysi s Public notice of the study session was sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the projec t boundary . Additionally, staff presented the design options to subcommittees of the San Lui s Obispo Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association . The Chamber's response was no t available at the time of this report but will be provided to City Council as a red file before th e Council meeting . The Parking Committee of the Downtown Association voted to support movin g forward with the staff recommendation (see Attachment 8, Public Input). Finally, authors of th e Downtown Plan have been notified of the study session and encouraged to comment . FISCAL IMPAC T Directing staff to proceed with a site plan option does not have a direct fiscal impact because th e Council has already budgeted $150,000 for study and design services ; and $300,000 fo r environmental review . Approximately $53,000 remains available for completion of conceptual design services ; and all of the funding for environmental review remains . Additionally, the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan appropriates $1 .2 million for design in 2006-07 . On February 21, 2006, Council approved several parking revenue enhancements that would fun d the debt service and operating costs of the Palm-Nipomo structure . These revenue enhancement s Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 1 3 were anticipated to provide adequate revenues to build a parking structure at an approximat e construction cost of $11,000,000 . It was assumed that the operating costs would be similar to th e City's present self park structures . The approved revenue enhancements are being implemented incrementally so it is too early to confirm whether they will generate enough revenue to build an d operate a self park structure . If Council decides to proceed with a mechanical structure, the Cit y will need to look at significant revenue increases or other funding to pay for it . As mentioned earlier, the County is one potential partner worthy of further exploration . ALTERNATIVE S The following alternative actions are available to Council : 1.Defer decision until after parking demand in the area increases . Because it will take a minimum of five years before a structure could be available for use, staff does no t recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase, rather, the time should be devote d to researching innovative ways to increase the initial demand for and subsequent use of th e structure . 2.Defer decision until after hearing from mechanical vendors regarding their interest i n building a mechanical structure that could be leased back to the City . Given the difficultie s Hoboken, New Jersey has had with their vendor, staff does not recommend that the Cit y "partner" with a private company to fund a mechanical structure . 3.Defer decision until mechanical costs become more feasible . It is unknown how long it wil l take for mechanical parking structures to become financially competitive with self park structures . The self park structure costs will continue to rise if we wait . ATTACHMENTS 1.Location/Property Ownership Map 2.Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Cente r 3.Article on Mechanical Parkin g 4.Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes of July 5, 200 5 5.Ken Schwartz's Design Comments to City Counci l 6.2007 Site Plan Options D3, H2, and H 3 7.Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structure s 8.Downtown Association Comment s PROVIDED TO COUNCIL :11x17 copy of Site Plan Options D3, H2, and H 3 AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL READING FILE :Previous Palm Nipomo staff report s T :\PW CAR\CAR PALM_Nipomo v2 .DOC SS-/3 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPERTY LOCATION/OWNERSHIP MAP Properties currentl y owned by City ATTACHMEN T 11I11,11111111,,~,1111 1111 11 lllll1111111111 It 11 Ol t Conceptual Uses : Cultural Facilit y Parking etail ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 Chapter 1 8 AUTOMATE D PARKIN G FACILITIE S Donald R. Monahan and Richard Beeb e Henry Ford has generally been credited wit h the development of the motor car as w e know it . He may also be credited wit h creating the parking space shortage . Th e history of 20'h century urban planning an d transportation management indicates tha t major parking problems began to emerg e even before World War I and grew rapidl y thereafter . The increasing volume of automobiles in the prosperous post-war year s created a demand for parking that soo n moved from the curbside to vacant lots o r structured parking of many types . I n particular, freight elevator systems designe d to accommodate parking inside larg e buildings gained popularity as a retrofi t approach . Even in new construction, the use of elevators in multi-level garages pre-date d sloping floor garages (ramp-acces s garages), which required larger footprint s and more ingenious structural systems . Early elevator systems (mechanical-acces s garages) employed an attendant who drov e the automobile onto an elevator, operate d the elevator from the driver's seat, and drov e the car into a parking space on an uppe r level floor . There was a surge in construction of thes e mechanical parking systems in the U .S . following World War II . Bowser constructed a mechanical garage in Des Moines i n 1951 and went on to build dozens of others , including three garages in Chicago : LaSalle Street consisting of 375 spaces erected i n 1954 ; Wacker Drive consiting of 71 8 spaces erected in 1955 ; and Rush Street consisting of 420 spaces erected in 1955 . Among some of the other more notabl e mechanical systems were the Park-O-Mat i n Washington, DC consisting of 72 spaces erected in 1951 ; Pigeon-Hole in Toront o consiting of 396 spaces erected in 195 7 and Speed-Park in New York City consistin g Page 1 of 9 Dimensions of Parkin g Figure 1 . Chicago 1937 ATTACHMENT 3 November 7, 200 6 parcels as small as the size of two parkin g spaces (20 by 20 feet). Technological advancements now allo w computer-controlled machines to operate th e lifts and horizontal transport devices withou t human assistance . The machines use integrated electro-mechanical components with programmable logic controller s operating in a solid-state/real tim e environment . These devices are much mor e reliable than the older mechanica l (hydraulic) parking systems . It is also muc h easier to incorporate redundant components , backup power and backup computer s resulting in a system that is virtually 99 .9 % reliable . Automated Parking Descriptio n The automated parking facility consists of a large vault with steel racks for storing cars o n either side of a transport aisle . The racks are often 4 to 10 or more levels high . Th e vehicle is transported on a steel pallet wit h rollers that slide into guide rails located i n the storage compartment . Because th e storage vault is unoccupied, fire exit stairs and elevators are not required . Also, the parking facility is more secure since th e public is not allowed inside the storage vault . Since the vehicles are not operated durin g transport, ventilation of vehicle emissions i s not required . Lighting requirements and HVAC system requirements are greatl y reduced or non-existent . Patrons access the automated parking facilit y by driving into a compartment the size of a single car garage stall . The patron the n turns off the vehicle, sets the parking brake , gathers all of their belongings including pets , children, etc . and exits the compartment . Page 2 of 9 of 270 spaces erected in 1961 . Most o f these facilities have since bee n demolished to make way for more modern and higher-use buildings . The older mechanical systems required a parking attendant . Ramp-access garage s gained popularity because they allowe d the patron to park their own vehicl e without the expense of an attendant. Th e self-park, ramp-access garages are als o less expensive to construct and operate , and were more reliable in terms o f retrieving the patrons vehicle on a timel y basis . Mechanical garages have been even more popular overseas where land i s particularly scarce in major urban areas . A self-park, ramp-access garage require s a minimum land area of approximatel y 150 feet by 125 feet . This size parcel i s not often available in downtown areas o f most major cities, particularly in Europ e and Asia . Mechanical systems ar e available that can be constructed on ATTACHMENT $..—a Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 of the system . This is the system used at th e Hoboken, NJ automated parking facility . Figure 3 . Horizontal Shuttle s Sensors measure the vehicle to determin e that it is not oversized for the system, an d that the vehicle has no protrudin g mirrors, racks or other attachments tha t could be damaged . The patron then Another automated system consists of aapproaches the activation station just stacker crane that moves horizontally on rail soutside the entry compartment and fixed to the ground floor in the transport aisl eutilizes an electronic key card, keypad of the storage vault. A vertical lift is built intowith security code or takes a n electronically-coded ticket, which the n closes the doors to the entry compartmen t and activates the storage process . Th e computer then records your identify , determines an empty storage location , and maintains that record for late r retrieval . The door to the storage vaul t opens and a motorized transport device slides under the pallet in the entr y compartment, lifts the pallet and remove s the pallet with the vehicle on top . The transport device then moves horizontall y to a vertical lift where the car i s transferred onto the lift and move d vertically to the storage . level . Anothe r horizontal transport device then remove s the pallet/vehicle from the lift an d transports the car horizontally to th e storage compartment. The pallet is the n pushed into the storage compartment. Because there are separate horizonta l shuttles and lifts, many vehicles can b e retrieved and stored simultaneously , which speeds the storage/retrieval rate Page 3 of 9 Figure 2. Entry/Exit Compartment Figure 4 . Stacker Crane system Dimensions of Parking this single transport device . It i s generally suited for smaller capacit y systems (less than 150 spaces), althoug h a second crane could be provided fo r larger systems . This system is used at th e Summit Grand Parc Condominiums i n Washington, D .C . Quad Graphics i n Milwaukee, WI also has two, ten stor y warehouses that use automated stacke r cranes to move pallets of magazines tha t are stored between printing an d shipping . Upon returning to the parking facility lobby, the patron presents their key car d or ticket at the parking activation station , pays a fee and the vehicle i s automatically retrieved withi n approximately 1 to 2 minutes . Figure S . Vehicle Retrieva l Automated parking facilities ca n accommodate two to three times th e number of parking spaces in the sam e volume as a self-park, ramp acces s garage . This occurs for two reasons . First, the height of the storage racks fo r each level is typically on the order of 7 feet. Therefore, one can get 3 parkin g levels in an automated garage compare d to two levels at a typical floor-to-floo r height of 10 feet in a ramp-acces s garage . ATTACHMENT 7 November 7, 200 6 Figure 6 . Vehicle Height Stud y Also, the design can include selected floor s at a higher clearance to accommodate SW's, while the remaining floors ar e designed for the height of the majority of th e automobile population (see Figure 6). Second, the vehicles are moved in and out o f the parking spaces under precisel y controlled equipment such that the width of the stall only needs to clear the side vie w mirrors or approximately 7 feet wid e compared to 8 .5 to 9 feet wide in a sel f park garage . Therefore, one can achiev e four parking spaces in a mechanical garag e in the same width of 3 spaces in a self-par k garage . Automated parking systems ca n also accommodate tandem parking stalls , which further increases the parkin g efficiency . One of the disadvantages of mechanica l garages is speed . The capacity in vehicle s per hour is a function of the number o f transport devices and number of entry/exi t compartments . A maximum retrieval time o f 2 minutes is a standard in the industry . Manufacturers must then provide enough lifts and transport devices to meet this standard . Page 4 of 9 Dimensions of Parkin g The service rate of the entry operation i s a function of the time it takes for th e parking patron to clear the entry compartment, plus the time to remove th e vehicle from the entry compartment, plu s the time for the system to then delive r another pallet to the entry compartmen t in order to receive the next vehicle . Th e previous vehicle may still be in transi t inside the storage vault while anothe r vehicle is able to access the entr y compartment . The time for the patron to exit th e compartment and activate the storag e process is called the dwell time . Th e dwell time averages approximately 4 5 seconds . The dwell time will be highe r for infrequent users than repeat users . The average inbound service rate of th e entrance operation is then on the orde r of 50 vehicles per hour . The service rate of the exit operatio n depends upon the vehicle retrieval tim e plus the time to rotate the vehicle on a turntable to exit plus the dwell time to exi t the compartment . If the average retrieva l time is 60 seconds, the time to rotate th e vehicle is 20 seconds, and the dwell tim e is 45 seconds ; then the averag e outbound service rate is 29 vehicles pe r hour . If more patrons arrive to retrieve thei r vehicles than there are transport device s or sufficient exit compartments available , then the time to retrieve their vehicle wil l be longer . Delays of up to 10 minute s may occur . However, if the patron ha d to wait for an elevator, walk to thei r parked vehicle, and drive to the exit, th e elapsed time would not be any differen t than the average retrieval time for an ATTACHMENT e3 November 7, 2006 automated parking facility . The delay time i s more noticeable when the patron is no t occupied by some other activity . If the peak hour arrival/departure volume i s known or can be accurately projected, th e designer can determine the proper numbe r of entry/exit compartments and transpor t devices that should be provided in a n automated parking facility to serve that volume without excessive delays o r congestion based upon the service rate s cited previously . However, automated parking facilities are not well-suited for hig h volume arrival/departures such as specia l event uses, cinemas, office employees o r other uses that generate a high volume o f inbound and/or outbound traffic because the number of entry/exit compartments become s excessive and the access design become s very complex . Automated parking facilities are well suited to hotels, condominiu m buildings or other uses with relatively low arrival/departure rates . Construction Cost There are two automated parking facilitie s that have been constructed in the Unite d States : one is in Hoboken, NJ and the othe r is in Washington, D .C . Figure 7. Hoboken, NJ Parking Facilit y Page 5of9 ssc.o Dimensions of Parking The Hoboken facility was constructed i n the year 2000 and cost approximatel y $6 .7 million for the entire 7-stor y building with automated parkin g equipment . The capacity of this facility i s 324 spaces for a cost per space o f approximately $20,679 . It has fou r entry/exit compartments, two vertical lift s and 14 horizontal shuttles (2 per floor). Figure 8 . Summit Grand Parc, Washington, D C The Washington, D .C . facility wa s constructed in 2002 . The project consists of a luxury residential towe r with 98 rental units and 24,000 sf of commercial/retail space in the adjacen t five-story historic building . The parkin g structure is provided under the residentia l tower in a footprint of 60ft by 106ft o n four levels within a total depth of 32 fee t at a cost of approximately $1 .5 millio n or approximately $20,000 per stall fo r the automated parking system only an d not the building shell space in which th e equipment is placed . An article in the Philadelphia Busines s Journal dated August 28, 2006, indicated an automated parking facility ATTACHMENT 3 r November 7,2006 consisting of 64 spaces was planned for the 31-story condominium project at Center Cit y at a cost of approximately $2 .5 million o r approximately $39,062 per space . Recent proposals for a 32-space automate d parking facility on four underground level s for a condominium project in Bellevue, WA indicated a cost of $48,950 per space fo r the automated parking system only . The optimum size of an automated parkin g facility is approximately 150 spaces per lift . The cost per space of smaller facilities is hig h because the cost of the machinery i s amortized over a limited number of spaces . The construction cost of an above ground , stand-alone, open parking structure currentl y (2006) averages approximately $15,00 0 per stall . This cost can easily double for a n underground, enclosed garage . It is difficult to compare the cost of a n automated parking facility to a ramp-acces s garage as automated parking facilities ma y be the only choice for providing parking fo r your project on a small site where it is not possible to do a ramp-access garage . Also , the higher land cost of the larger parcel for the ramp access garage must be taken into account when comparing the two systems . However, where the size of the developmen t parcel is adequate to accommodate a standard ramp-access garage, then it is likel y more economical to do a ramp-access garage . Operating Cost s Automated parking facilities use automati c pay stations for revenue collection so th e operating cost should be compared to a rampaccess, self-park garage that als o utilizes automatic pay stations . Therefore , Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 Dimensions of Parkin g both facilities do not have the expense o f cashier labor . The largest expense fo r either garage will then be for utilities an d maintenance . The utility cost for an automated parkin g facility is approximately $0 .10 pe r storage or retrieval operation . Accordin g to the Robotic Parking website, th e Hoboken garage has handled over hal f a million transactions in its 29,880 hour s of operation since its opening in Octobe r 2002 . That equates to approximatel y 150,000 transactions per year for a n electric utility cost of approximatel y $15,000 per year or approximately $4 6 per year per space . One must also add . the cost of other electric systems beside s the automated parking machinery whic h may double the electric utility cost . The scope of work and components tha t must be maintained for the automate d parking machinery is very similar to a n elevator maintenance contract . Th e maintenance contract for the automate d parking system in Washington, D .C . i s approximately $3600 per month o r approximately $584 per space per year . A survey of 156 ramp-access garages i n 2004 indicated a median utility cost o f $52 per space per year, and a media n maintenance cost of $74 per space pe r year . Other parking facility operational cost s for management, insurance, offic e supplies, and miscellaneous are likely to be very similar for an automated parkin g facility versus a ramp-access parkin g facility . Therefore, the annual operating cost o f an automated parking facility is November 7, 2006 approximately $760 per space per yea r compared to $317 per space per year for a cashier-less, ramp-access garage . Summar y The construction cost of an automate d parking facility is approximately double th e cost of an above-grade, stand-alone, ramp - access open parking garage . Th e construction cost difference may not be a s severe for an underground, enclosed parkin g garage . The operating cost of an automated parkin g garage, excluding cashier labor, i s approximately double the cost of a self-park , ramp-access garage . However, automate d garages are analogous to automated vale t parking . If one accounts for the labor cos t savings not to have valet attendants, then th e operating cost of the automated garage i s likely much less than a valet garage . Automated parking facilities may be the onl y viable option to provide parking on smal l sites in dense urban areas . For high en d condominium or hotel projects, the highe r cost may be justified . Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 200 6 References : 1.Guide to the Design &Operation o f Automated Parking Facilities,a join t publication of the Automated & Mechanical Parking Associatio n (www .ampapark .org) in associatio n with the National Parking Associatio n (www .npapark .org), Washington , DC, February, 2003 . 2.Safety of Machinery Equipment for Power-Driven Parking of Motor Vehicles,DIN EN 14010, Europea n Committee for Standardization , Technical Committee CEN/TC 98 , Brussels, October 2003 . 3.Storage/Retrieval Machines (S/R ) and Associated Equipment,ASME B30 .13-1996, American Society o f Mechanical Engineer s 4.Automated Parking : Two-Year Repor t Card,by Gerhard Haag & Larry Byrnes, Robotic Parkin g (www . roboticpark i ng .com), published in PARKING Magazine , September 2004 . 5.Double Your Capacity wit h Technology,by Rob Bailey , SpaceSaver Parking Company (www .spacesaverparking .com), presented at Parking Industry Exhibit , Chicago, IL, August 2006 . 6.PARKING STRUCTURES : PLANNING, DESIGN , CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANC E & REPAIR,Third Edition, 200 1 Chrest, A .P . et al, published b y Springer Science + Business Medi a (www .springer .com), New York, NY Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. Public Comments None. -end of public comments ACTION : Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to approve the public art piece entitled Strong Play Ethic for the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields ; motion carried 5 :0 . 5.APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S ENTR Y AREA NEAR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY . INCLUDING ALIGNMENT OFA SECTION OF THE BOB JONES CITY TO SEA BIKEWAY . Natural Resources Manager Havlik provided a summary of the Concept Plan . He displayed a map showing the area of the project, discussed the improvements that will be made to th e southern entrance to the City and Issues that will be resolved with the Implementation o f the Plan, displayed and discussed photographs of the site, and discussed the funding that Is available for portions of this project as well as additional possible funding sources . Public Comments None. —end of public comments ACTION : Moved by SettlelBrown to approve a concept plan for improvements to the City's entry area near the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), Including alignment of the Incorporated segment of the Bob Jones City to Sea Bikeway; motion carrie d 5 :0. STUDY SESSIO N 6.REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE . Public Works Director Walter Introduced this Item, following which Principal Transportatio n Planner Mandeville commenced the report . She displayed an aerial of the site, explaine d that this project was established by Council as an objective in the 2003-05 Financial Plan , and reviewed refinements to the options that Council previously directed staff to pursue . Parking Services Manager Horch and Deputy Director Public Works Bochum were present to answer questions. Sam Nunes.Chong Partners Architecture, displayed proposed site plans and discusse d their key features . He discussed how a mechanical garage works and responded t o Council's questions . Mayor Romero expressed concern about event parking at a mechanical structure . He also expressed concern that the options do not provide for pedestrian access on the easter n edge of the structure on Monterey Street Public Comments ATTACHMENT p City Council Meeting Page 6Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. Patricia Wilmore,Chamber of Commerce, referenced a letter from Bob Wacker (on file in th e City Clerk's office) explaining the Chamber's position that action should be deferred on thi smatter for nine months . Ken Schwartz .San Luis Obispo, supported the Palm-Nlpomo-Monterey site fora parkin g structure and discussed recommendations contained In his memo to Council (on file in th eCity Clerk's office). Those recommendations include, In part, building the structure as soon as possible, proceeding with mechanical parking, acquiring property at 614 Monterey Street so that the parcel can be considered as a whole, and redesigning the site plan for Optio n H2, thereby making it Option H3 . Brett Cross,San Luis Obispo, explained why he does not think there is a parking deman dfor the Palm-Nlpomo site . He suggested that, given the limited resources, sites such as th e Wells Fargo property should be pursued . Gary Fowler,San Luls Obispo, concurred that action on this proposal should be delayed , that consideration should be given to other sites, and that it might be feasible to construc tan EOC (emergency operations center) on top of the new structure . Dave Hanninas,San Luis Obispo, concurred that this area is currently underused fo rparking purposes. He expressed concern that the recommended options are too close t ohis property and too high . Tom Swem,Chairman of the Parking Committee for Downtown Association, explained tha t the Downtown Parking Committee hasn't had an opportunity to review the proposals yet . He suggested that a concurrent financial analysis should be provided for each proposal. He supported the location of the parking structure and the purchase of the 614 Montere y Street property, but expressed concern about a mechanical structure . He supporte dOptions D2 or D3 . Andrtw Carter,San Luls Obispo, supported Mr. Cross' and the Chamber's positions . H e suggested that a mechanical garage should be used for employee, not transient, parking . He explained why, if this site is used, the entrance and exit should be on Monterey Street. Chuck Crotser,San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed site and the automate dparking system . He supported, In general, Option H2 but concurred with comments by Mr . Schwartz . He also concurred that access on Monterey Street Is Important . Pierre Rademaker,San Luis Obispo, concurred with Mr. Schwartz's and Mr . Crotser'scomments. However, he did not believe the Palm Street entrance and exit would be aproblem. He expressed concern that contextual Issues have not been addressed (i .e., th e Latimer adobe, pedestrian access to Monterey Street and Downtown). He supported a n automated structure as well as the acquisition of 614 Monterey Street He suggested tha t adjacent property owners should be contacted regarding their plans for future growth an d development . Deborah Cash,Downtown Association Administrator, explained why the Association supports moving forward with this structure . She discussed the success of automate d garages. She said that the Parking Committee will meet this week and will need to consider the proposal, following which additional feedback will be provided to Council . Scott Greenaway,representing the owner of 614 Monterey Street, expressed concer n regarding Mr. Schwartz's recommendation to acquire the entire site . The family Is willing t o consider use of the back portion of the property. City Council Meetin g Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p.m. ATTACHMENT V Page 7 —end of public comments Council discussion followed during which staff responded to Council's questions . Council Member Mulholland said the Wells Fargo site would be a better location, bu t supported pursuing the Palm-Nipomo structure since It is owned by the City . She also supported pursuing a mechanical structure . She said she thinks there needs to be a pedestrian connection to Monterey Street, that she would like to see financial implications , and that she supported delaying action on this proposal for three to six months or more because of the changes occurring in the Downtown . Vice Mayor Ewan expressed concern that with potential new projects on existing lots, parking will be needed sooner than later . He was also concerned with the increasing cost s that will result the longer the project waits. He supported moving forward with this project . Council Member Brown also supported moving forward . Council Member Settle supported proceeding in order to determine financing , methodologies, and costs . Mayor Romero explained why he thinks it is premature to move ahead with this project at this time . He also said, however, that a structure should be developed at some time in th e future, but should wait until further development has occurred In the area . He suggested delaying proceeding with this project for twelve months . Moved by Mulholland/Romero to defer for nine months a decision on whether to procee d with the parking structure at Palm-Nipomo ; motion failed 2:3 (Brown/Ewan/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Mulholland to direct staff to proceed with Palm-Nlpomo parking structur e site plan design Options D3 and H2/H3 (the concept submitted by Ken Schwartz) wit h adjustments to the layout for Option H3 ; motion carried 4:1 (Ewan opposed). Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to consider designs that will allow the house at 614 Montere y Street to remain . Following a brief discussion regarding the need to keep options open ; motion failed 2 :3 (Brown/Romero/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Brown to either include or exclude the houses at 610 and 614 Montere y Street as part of the study in order to keep design options open ; motion carried 3 :2 (Mulholland/Ewan opposed). During the prior discussion, Council directed staff to provide feedback on the followin g items : •property values •construction cost s urban design issues/pedestrian acces s •more community group response s In response to staff, Council confirmed that the oak tree is not a part of the design options; It is to remain . ACTION : 1 . Directed staff to pursue site plan options 03 and H2/H3 (a concep t submitted by Ken Schwartz) for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure, wit h adjustments to the layout for H3 ; motion carried 4 :1 (Ewan opposed). 2. Approved, ATTACHMENT 5" City Council Meeting Page 8Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7 :00 p .m . to ensure flexibility, Including or excluding houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Stree tas part of the study In order to keep design options open ; motion carried 3 :2(Mulholland/Ewan opposed). 3 . Provided additional direction as indicated above tobe Included when this matter Is returned to Council . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT S Mayor Romero reported on his attendance at a meeting on June 23 rtl with Supervisor s Lenthali and Patterson and staff members of LAFCO, APCD, the County and SLOCOG o n the program called "Community 2050," the June 28 "'meeting of the Whale Rock Commission, the June 23r° meeting of the Nacimlento Project Commission, and the Jun e 30"'meeting of the Performing Arts Center Commission . Council Member Settle reported that the State will approve the budget on July 6th, and tha t cities will receive the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) refund early . COMMUNICATIONS None. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourne d the meeting at 10 :30 p.m . to Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo . APPROVED BY COUNCIL : 7/19/2005 ATTACHMENT _.} RECEIVED . I 'JUL 0 5 2005MEMOSLO C!TY COUNCI L July 3, 2005 Re:Proposed par c i g structure for Palm and Nipomo Street s Council Agen . Item SS6, July 5, 2005 I have studied your agenda materials with staff recommendations and offer the following recommendations with rationale for you consideration. 1.The Palm-Nipomo-Monterey site is the best and most appropriate site for the nex t parking structure and it should be constructed at the earliest time possible . Rationale :(a) This site conforms to the criteria established in the "Downtown Plan" fo r locating parking structures on the Palm, Nipomo, Marsh and Santa Rosa circumferentia l loop around the 'core'ofdowntown; (b) the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace project generates an absolutely essential need for the Downtown to accelerate development tha t will enhance its unique identity and at the same time expand the downtown 's potential fo r being a stronger center for commercial and cultural activities ; (c) competition from siste r cities as well as outlying shopping areas dictate that downtown must improve it's physical assets post-haste; and (d) adequate parking is an essential asset and a parking structure at this location can best achieve these essential objectives . 2.The City should opt for an automated mechanical parking garage such a s described on page 6-9 of the staff report and identified in schemes H-1 and 11-2 . Rationale:(a) the space saving aspects ofmechanized parking structures becom e increasingly important as future expansion ofcommercial-retail activities in th e downtown become more compressed — again due to an unwillingness ofvoters to expan d C-R zoning elsewhere ; and (b) the impressions ofCouncilmembers and staff to their visi t to the N.J. mechanized parking structure were uniformly positive. 3.The City should acquire 614 Monterey and integrate this property into the tota l site design for the parking structure and this quadrant of Mission Plaz a extended. Rationale :(a) The Palm/Nipomo/Monterey quadrant is too important in the long-ter m commercial-cultural future ofSLO to accept a design that has been constrained by a reluctance to acquire this entire parcel —especially so when certain ofthe design schemes show the acquisition of the rear of this property( (This time rant given the long-term potential ofthis entire quadrant . To:Mayor Dave Romero Christine Mulhol Copies : Ken Hampian , From : Ken Schwartz d Councihnembers Paul Brown, John Ewan , d Allen Settle alter, Tim Bochum, Peggy Manderville, Robert Horc h RED FIL EMEETING AGENDADATE7/9'DJITEM #.!'6 COUNCIL V CAO ACAO ip ATTORNEYV7CLERK/0R10kiD LEADS COD DI R FIN DI R FIRE CHIE F PW DI R POLICE CH F REC DI Rum.ni±1 f ELI ne ; J S5 -Zit ATTACHMENT ..5-- Page 2 of 3 4.The size and parking capacity of the garage delineated in Scheme 11-2 should b e accepted, but not the site development layout! I offer a modified design labele d "II-3" that I believe is more appropriate to the site . (See page 3 .) Rationale:(a) I agree that exceptions to height limits and street setbacks for parkin g structures should be granted where appropriate and I believe both are warranted fo r Scheme H-3 ; (b) I believe that the parking structure positioned in a traditional layou t with sides parallel to Palm and Nipomo Streets is insensitive to more desirable spatia l considerations of this neighborhood especially the tight relationship with the adjacen t Latimer historical adobe it abuts; (c) by positioning the garage on a diagonal as per H-3, the corners of the site are opened up visually and /fat a later date, a Little Theate r and a small commercial structure were to be added to this site, the architectura l character of these two buildings could be made much more in keeping with the scale of neighboring buildings . 5.Two opportunities to assist the project financially have not been discussed : One , the small parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo was initially acquired with th e thought that it would ultimately revert back to Commercial-Retail use. Thi s would be the appropriate time to sell or lease that site for CR uses – once agai n to generate more retail floor area at the Nipomo end of downtown and t o enhance sales tax revenues as well as outright construction revenues . The site i s an ideal site for lower level CR uses, a mid-level office use and even possible to p floor residential uses . The City should ask for proposals as part of its large r attempt to invigorate this end of downtown . No less than two floors should b e devoted to sales tax generating CR uses .Two,given the difficult financial time s the City finds itself in, the garage roof top should not be put to any use tha t requires General Fund financing . I suggest that the rooftop be developed in a fashion that will generate rental/lease income such as private offices or wha t could be a spectacular restaurant site . I would not support rooftop housing a t this location . Rationale :Once again, the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace calls for Downtown Development/redevelopment to occur vigorously utilizing the land areas within the CR District to generate shopping opportunities (supported by needed parking) and th e resultant sales tax revenues to support necessary public service & 6.Design critique: I believe that the design consultant could have been much mor e positive about the potential represented in the downtown Plan for a mor e cohesive overall design of this significant site and how this parking structure could be an integral part of that overall development . The plan as presente d does not show how the users of the parking structure are expected to flow a s pedestrians into the downtown either by enchanted sidewalks along Nipomo o r by access through the Mission Plaza Extended area (Monterey Street) which ATTACHMENT .- Page 3 of 3 could have directed them — especially those who were visitors to the city — to th e Art Center, the Historical Museum or to the Mission and Mission Plaza muc h less into the downtown commercial area itself: How do children and thei r parents get from the parking structure to the new Children's Museum? I thin k the designers fell short on opportunities to generate for the Council and ou r citizens any urban design excitement in their proposals . 7. Alternate site plan proposal, H-3 : / WRNS STUD I(~,.P .Wr,I ROOK 37E .eAN /RAN ..ureRNIA ...mT.I i .Tnee`oo rAx PALM ST STATISTICS ound : 93 Parking SpacesTGrypical: 109 Parking Spaces Top:25 Parking Spaces ®O'Y tlr,y y 1 4 Pa:Hm Count Estknates 4yR Levels:445 Parking Net Gain 445-79=386 eulldhg Height Estimates North Scut 44'-6'33'6' Buikln9 Height per Zoning 39'-0 - o- ,.+ro e ....+. BtaldIng Square Footag e Parking 150,850 si t Eilkknt1 4YR Levels: 150,8501 445 = 339 sfka r Lit ROOF LEVEL utak rydtnm {a ~mend Resta.nM)44A00 ...1 45 y .n wNrvm nir R _ 6.1ONT°66% SI,'V . NIPOt O SECTION 8-8 SECTION A-A March 26, 2007 REv Palm / Nipomo Parking Structure City of San Luis Obispo .......... PALM ST STATISTIC S Ground :6 1 Typical :10 0 5th Level:8 8 Top:4 2 Parking Count Estimate s 5Y2 Levels:49 1l Perking Net Gai n 491 -79=41 2 TOP PARKING LEVE L A Building Height Estimates North South 4T-0"25'-0" Bunning Height per Zonl q 41-0" Building Square Footag e Parking :108,750 s .f. Efficiency 5Y2 Levels: 108,750/ 491=222 sf/ca r 8 Portals n~IllIiIlllilllll lilll'lllllllllllf llllllllllIllllllll11 1 iron n o''i'II~.dllll'IlllllllllllllilllllllllIN r A TYPICAL PARKING LEVEL n.I SECTION B-B Option H2 March 26, 2007 ONTERE Y SECTION A-A Palm / Nipomo Parking Structur e City of San Luis Obisp o o ro 4v W 57 ,06 120 IIIIIIIIIII WRNSSTUDHQ,. 0014500X0 SNEERMN MOOR, STE 402 RAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIA 041 Or 4 Tel4I O .R00.0100 PAR STATISTIC S Ground :65 Typical:10D Top:100 Pasdno Count Estimates 6 Levels:565 Parkin,' Net Gai n 565-79=496 M TOP PARKING LEVEL BuF m North South 4V-0"33'-0" 13u9Elnp HeklM per Zonin g 37'-0" Bultllno &ware Footers Perking:121 .500 s.f. MONTEREY secnoNAA Palm / Nipomo Parking Structur e City of San Luis Obisp oMarch 26, 2007 TYPICAL PARKING LEVE L SECTION B-B w9:4u I=mo 1111111111111 WRNS STUi7tt7,..k SECONO9TRZTnt Noon sc w 3SAN NRANOI85 0'pALIFORNIA 410 7 24 TE LIIa404.400 rAx ------- ----- PALMINIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE STUDY ATTACHMENT 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O APRIL 2007 Mechanical Parkin g Structure Examples Location Use # of Spaces # of Portals Cost pe r Stal l Hoboken Parking Hoboken, NJ Neighborhoo d Residential 320 4 $37,50 0 Summit Grand Parc Washington, DC Condominiums 74 2 $30,000 Chinatown New York City Condominiums 6 7 Proposed Project Bellevue,WA Condominiums 32 1 $40,00 0 (estimate) WRNS Studio LLP /Walker Parking Consultants April 4,2007 S5 -3 4 { ATTACHMENT c~ A San Luis Obispo 24 March 200 7DowntownAssociationTo:Robert Horch, Parking Services Directo r P.O :Box 1402 San Luis Obispo Frobborah Cash, Administrator, SLO Downtown Associatio n California 93406 Phone: 805-541-0286 Re :Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Recommendation At the March 13 meeting of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Board of Directors, the Board voted unanimously to support the Downtown Associatio n Parking and Access Committee Recommendation to uphold the CA O recommendation (Option D3) as the most feasible choice of construction option s for the proposed site . The Board also expressed their satisfaction with the forward movement of thi s project and how it will serve an area of town that is certain to need more parkin g as cultural and commercial development occurs, including the new Children's Museum and remodeled Art Center along with Mar Porno and proposed change s in the Creamery . The (draft) minutes of the meeting are attached ; approved minutes will b e provided after April 10 . Cc : Tom Swem, Chair, Parking and Access Committe e Board of D irector s Peggy Mandevill e FAX: 805-781-264 7 wwwdowntownslo .corn 274 From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Sunday, December 27, 2015 5:06 PM To:Grigsby, Daryl; Bochum, Tim Cc:Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Lee; Codron, Michael Subject:FW: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Attachments:SLO list of owned properties.xlsx; Asset listing_2014 Insurance values.pdf; Leased Assets, with Ratings.docx FYI Derek Johnson Assistant City Manager City Administrations 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E djohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7112 slocity.org From: Sarah Hollenbeck [HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 12:35 PM To: Brown, Jeff; Johnson, Derek; Bochum, Tim Cc: Sujay Umashankar; Kevin Dong Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting All, Great talking with you this morning. Attached as we discussed are the three documents I mentioned on the phone relating to the assets owned by the City, their values, and what is currently encumbered in connection with the City’s outstanding lease revenue bonds. Please feel free to call if you have questions or would like to discuss. Regards, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Brown, Jeff [mailto:JBrown@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:01 PM 275 To: Sarah Hollenbeck; Padilla, Wayne Cc: Sujay Umashankar; Mandeville, Peggy; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Afternoon Sarah, Thank you for making time to speak with the City regarding financing options for construction of the Palm/Nipomo parking structure on September 21st . Reason for this meeting is to flush out any financial issues/obstacles the city may have in financing the construction of a parking structure. As for the meeting, PFM will be the only one participating in the meeting with city staff, so a phone number is all I need, as we will have you on speaker phone. I am available to talk Wednesday after 1 pm, Thursday from 1 pm to 4 pm, or Friday after 1 pm as well to prepare for this meeting. Before we talk, here are some of the concerns that were brought up at our in-house- Palm/Nipomo kick- off meeting regarding financial hurdles:  What type of financing is available for building a parking structure, i.e. state qualify funds, state revolving loans, etc.  Due to the nature of the structure will this determine the type of financing the City may qualify/apply for.  State guidelines regarding bonding requirements and agreements  How future net revenues and debt service costs will be evaluated in terms of revenues being adequate to satisfy all debts. Wayne, Is there anything else that is relevant before Sarah and I talk this week? Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 P (805) 781-7234 E JBrown@slocity.org slocity.org From: Sarah Hollenbeck [mailto:HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:06 PM To: Brown, Jeff Cc: Sujay Umashankar Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Hi Jeff, Yes, I have it on my calendar. I am happy to provide a dial-in number if you’d like, or If PFM is the only participant who will be joining remotely a conference line may not be necessary. Just let me know at your convenience. I also thought it might be helpful if you and I could talk sometime this week to make sure we are properly prepared for the discussion on the 21 st. Is there a time this week that would be convenient for you for a short call? Thank you, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck 276 Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Brown, Jeff [mailto:JBrown@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 2:48 PM To: Sarah Hollenbeck Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Importance: High Good afternoon Sarah, Just checking in to see if you are still available to join us by phone on September 21, 2015 at 11:00am to discuss financing issues/options for the Palm/Nipomo parking structure? If you still are available, I will go ahead and set up the meeting for this time. Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 P (805) 781-7234 E JBrown@slocity.org slocity.org From: Sarah Hollenbeck [mailto:HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:43 AM To: Padilla, Wayne Cc: Brown, Jeff Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Hi Wayne, I would like to be there in person for this but I have a long-scheduled meeting in San Francisco on the 21 st at 1:00 that I cannot move. I could join by phone from 11:00 to 12:30, or if there’s another day that might work for the City I could come down. Let me know what you think. Thank you, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck 277 Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Padilla, Wayne [mailto:wpadilla@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:18 PM To: Sarah Hollenbeck Cc: Brown, Jeff Subject: FW: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Sarah – are you available either by phone or in person to sit in or attend this meeting? This is setting the stage for the development of rate structures and financing plans for the Palm/Nipomo garage. Please use reply all when you respond and that will let Jeff know your availability. From: Brown, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:38 AM To: Padilla, Wayne Cc: Bochum, Tim; Mandeville, Peggy Subject: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Wayne, I was looking at our calendars, and I see that there is an opening on September 21 st at 11:00 a.m. for staff to meet regarding finance issues/options for the Palm/Nipomo parking structure. Can you find out if Sarah Hollenbeck from PFM would be available that day and time? Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E JBrown@slocity.org T 805.781.7234 slocity.org 278 From:Bochum, Tim Sent:Wednesday, December 23, 2015 5:05 PM To:Thomas Jirovsky; Johnson, Lee Cc:Susan Perry; Johnson, Derek Subject:RE: SLO Palm Nipomo Attachments:0979OP-A.PDF; 0979OPABC.PDF; 0979OP-B.PDF; 0979OP-C.PDF; 0979GEOM.PDF; SLO County Parcel Map 002-41.PDF; 2011 design.pdf; 01-03-12 Palm Nipomo.pptx; 2011 site rendering qwith little theater.pdf Thomas, the attached are the schematic level design for the project. While there are some options shown for parking layout the “gray” area fronting Nipomo was the set aside are for potential office space as previously developed. The final site plan shows how the proposed Little Theater is positioned on the south side of the properties. From: Thomas Jirovsky [mailto:tjirovsky@kosmont.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 3:49 PM To: Bochum, Tim; Johnson, Lee Cc: Susan Perry; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: SLO Palm Nipomo Tim Okay I can work with the $7400 limit Do you know the status of the various site plans that the City wants us to analyze the development feasibility ? Tom Jirovsky From: Bochum, Tim [mailto:tbochum@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 1:36 PM To: Thomas Jirovsky; Johnson, Lee Cc: Susan Perry; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: SLO Palm Nipomo The PO has been processed but is awaiting final approval from admin on our end. Ryan says it is in Derek’s hands. Thomas, the PO is for a not to exceed $7,400 at this point (that’s just below our upper limit for informal consultant work) and an authorization to get Tasks 1-3 for the $4,500 going. From: Thomas Jirovsky [mailto:tjirovsky@kosmont.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:23 AM To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Bochum, Tim; Susan Perry Subject: RE: SLO Palm Nipomo Please copy Susan Perry with the authorization when ready Thanks Tom Jirovsky 279 From: Johnson, Lee [mailto:ljohnson@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:19 AM To: Thomas Jirovsky Cc: Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo Tom, I am pretty sure we have processed a PO to move forward. Tim, Please confirm. Thanks, Lee From: Thomas Jirovsky [mailto:tjirovsky@kosmont.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:18 AM To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo The City had requested my proposal for Palm Nipomo with analysis to be completed by first week of January. Unless we authorize project to start this week I will not be able to commit completing in that time frame Tom Jirovsky From: Johnson, Lee [mailto:ljohnson@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 10:19 AM To: Thomas Jirovsky Cc: Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Chinatown Financial Due Diligence Agreement Tom, As far as I know we are moving ahead. Tim, please confirm. I am not sure we were expecting you to come here related to Palm Nipomo… Lee From: Thomas Jirovsky [mailto:tjirovsky@kosmont.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 10:16 AM To: Johnson, Lee Subject: Re: Chinatown Financial Due Diligence Agreement Lee Do you anticipate needing the Palm Nipomo analysis ?? It would be great to coordinate a trip to SLO to cover both projects Tom Jirovsky 213-422-4097 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Thomas Jirovsky <tjirovsky@kosmont.com> wrote: Suzanne You can reach me at 213-422-4097 280 Tom Jirovsky Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Johnson, Lee <ljohnson@slocity.org> wrote: Tom, I would suggest you and Suzanne Fryer the attorney for the applicant make contact directly regarding the required information. That should make the process smoother. Anne or Suzanne please let us know if you see a problem with this concept. Thanks Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org From: Johnson, Derek Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:48:33 AM To: 'Thomas Jirovsky' Cc: Russell, Anne; Johnson, Lee Subject: RE: Chinatown Financial Due Diligence Agreement Good Morning Tom, Let me check to see where we are with the required documents. Derek From: Thomas Jirovsky [mailto:tjirovsky@kosmont.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:40 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Chinatown Financial Due Diligence Agreement 281 Derek When will the various document be available ? Are they being sent by developer via email or other means ? I work outside Kosmont offices so any fedex package needs to come to my home address Thomas Jirovsky 709 Mercer Ave Ojai, CA 93023 From: Johnson, Derek [mailto:djohnson@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:36 PM To: Thomas Jirovsky Cc: 'Suzanne Fryer'; Russell, Anne; Johnson, Lee Subject: Chinatown Financial Due Diligence Agreement Tom, Please see attached executed agreement for professional services. Thank you for working with us on the changes. All the best, Derek Palm Nipomo Parking Structure PROJECT DIRECTION The picture can't be displayed. Project Site Downtown Historic District 2007 Preferred Site Plan Design Development •Workshop #1: 37 attendees •Workshop #2: 29 attendees •Consensus preferred Option A •Issues to address included: •Traffic calming/creating sense of place •Natural lighting within structure •Garage deck heights •Workshop feedback generally positive 2011 Preliminary Design 2011 Urban Design Plan Nipomo St. Elevation Monterey St. Elevation 610 Monterey St. 614 Monterey St. Location of Residences Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting •Confirm that the project description should include removal of the residences. •Support direction to prepare EIR to address potential project impacts. 2011 Preliminary design The picture can't be displayed. Why the Palm Nipomo Site? •Public parking use established •Location complies with General Plan and Downtown Concept Plan •City found willing sellers- we own the land •Future development will create demand Anticipated Parking Demand Focused EIR Within Budget •CIP Approved $300,000 •Current Contract $ 77,800 •Available Budget $222,200 •Estimated Focused EIR $ 75,000 NEXT STEPS •Prepare and issue RFP 3/12 •Select consultant 4/12 •Prepare Draft EIR 12/12 •Review by CHC 3/13 •Review by ARC 8/13 •Review by PC 1/14 •Review by Council 4/14 •Complete plans and specs 10/14 •Bid Construction Project TBD by CC Project Cost Estimate •For Budgeting Purposes $20,000,000 •An updated cost estimate will be prepared for the project design and presented to ARC and Council for consideration. Direct staff to proceed with a focused EIR Staff Recommendation 284 From:Sarah Hollenbeck <HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com> Sent:Monday, September 21, 2015 12:35 PM To:Brown, Jeff; Johnson, Derek; Bochum, Tim Cc:Sujay Umashankar; Kevin Dong Subject:RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Attachments:SLO list of owned properties.xlsx; Asset listing_2014 Insurance values.pdf; Leased Assets, with Ratings.docx All, Great talking with you this morning. Attached as we discussed are the three documents I mentioned on the phone relating to the assets owned by the City, their values, and what is currently encumbered in connection with the City’s outstanding lease revenue bonds. Please feel free to call if you have questions or would like to discuss. Regards, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Brown, Jeff [mailto:JBrown@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:01 PM To: Sarah Hollenbeck; Padilla, Wayne Cc: Sujay Umashankar; Mandeville, Peggy; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Afternoon Sarah, Thank you for making time to speak with the City regarding financing options for construction of the Palm/Nipomo parking structure on September 21st . Reason for this meeting is to flush out any financial issues/obstacles the city may have in financing the construction of a parking structure. As for the meeting, PFM will be the only one participating in the meeting with city staff, so a phone number is all I need, as we will have you on speaker phone. I am available to talk Wednesday after 1 pm, Thursday from 1 pm to 4 pm, or Friday after 1 pm as well to prepare for this meeting. Before we talk, here are some of the concerns that were brought up at our in-house- Palm/Nipomo kick- off meeting regarding financial hurdles:  What type of financing is available for building a parking structure, i.e. state qualify funds, state revolving loans, etc.  Due to the nature of the structure will this determine the type of financing the City may qualify/apply for.  State guidelines regarding bonding requirements and agreements  How future net revenues and debt service costs will be evaluated in terms of revenues being adequate to satisfy all debts. 285 Wayne, Is there anything else that is relevant before Sarah and I talk this week? Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 P (805) 781-7234 E JBrown@slocity.org slocity.org From: Sarah Hollenbeck [mailto:HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:06 PM To: Brown, Jeff Cc: Sujay Umashankar Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Hi Jeff, Yes, I have it on my calendar. I am happy to provide a dial-in number if you’d like, or If PFM is the only participant who will be joining remotely a conference line may not be necessary. Just let me know at your convenience. I also thought it might be helpful if you and I could talk sometime this week to make sure we are properly prepared for the discussion on the 21 st. Is there a time this week that would be convenient for you for a short call? Thank you, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Brown, Jeff [mailto:JBrown@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 2:48 PM To: Sarah Hollenbeck Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Importance: High Good afternoon Sarah, 286 Just checking in to see if you are still available to join us by phone on September 21, 2015 at 11:00am to discuss financing issues/options for the Palm/Nipomo parking structure? If you still are available, I will go ahead and set up the meeting for this time. Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 P (805) 781-7234 E JBrown@slocity.org slocity.org From: Sarah Hollenbeck [mailto:HOLLENBECKS@pfm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:43 AM To: Padilla, Wayne Cc: Brown, Jeff Subject: RE: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Hi Wayne, I would like to be there in person for this but I have a long-scheduled meeting in San Francisco on the 21 st at 1:00 that I cannot move. I could join by phone from 11:00 to 12:30, or if there’s another day that might work for the City I could come down. Let me know what you think. Thank you, Sarah Sarah Hollenbeck Managing Director Public Financial Management, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982-5544 (415) 982-4513 (fax) hollenbecks@pfm.com  Please consider the environment before printing this email and any attachment. Thank you. From: Padilla, Wayne [mailto:wpadilla@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:18 PM To: Sarah Hollenbeck Cc: Brown, Jeff Subject: FW: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Sarah – are you available either by phone or in person to sit in or attend this meeting? This is setting the stage for the development of rate structures and financing plans for the Palm/Nipomo garage. 287 Please use reply all when you respond and that will let Jeff know your availability. From: Brown, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:38 AM To: Padilla, Wayne Cc: Bochum, Tim; Mandeville, Peggy Subject: September 21st- Palm/Nipomo Finance Group meeting Wayne, I was looking at our calendars, and I see that there is an opening on September 21 st at 11:00 a.m. for staff to meet regarding finance issues/options for the Palm/Nipomo parking structure. Can you find out if Sarah Hollenbeck from PFM would be available that day and time? Thank you, Jeff Brown Parking Manager Public Works Parking Services 1260 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E JBrown@slocity.org T 805.781.7234 slocity.org 288 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:39 PM To:Kevin Harris Cc:Patty Thayer; BRYCE; Bochum, Tim; Brown, Jeff; Mandeville, Peggy Subject:RE: Confirming Meeting next week Attachments:RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site; RE: MOA MARK-UP Kevin, We are still on for next Tuesday the 18th, 4pm at the Little Theatre. As far as what to bring, from our side we want to give an update on Palm Nipomo and the plan going forward. We would also like to talk about your plans and make sure we are on the same page. Specifically we would like to talk about the items referenced in the attached 2 emails. The goal is to come out with a general action plan for moving forward. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Lee From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevinharris@slolittletheatre.org] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:47 AM To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Patty Thayer; BRYCE Subject: Confirming Meeting next week Hi Lee, Hope your summer has been great. We’ve been making great progress over here and are looking forward to our meeting next Tuesday, August 18 at 4:00 PM. A couple of questions: -where are we meeting? -is there anything specific we should have for the meeting? -Pierre Rademaker talked to Patty and expressed some interest in getting an update on the project. Would you object to us inviting him to this meeting? (Not sure that he could attend, but, it seems like it would be agood place for him to get an update.) I think that’s it. Thanks, Lee! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 805.781.3889 x10 www.slolittletheatre.org MISSION: To present theatrical productions of professional quality for the entertainment, enrichment and education of the public. Our mission is based on the conviction that live theatre, performed and experienced in the full dimensionality of real 289 time and space, is of inestimable value, reminding us of our shared human values in an increasingly digitized and impersonal world. Facebook Blog 1 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:12 AM To:Kevin Harris Cc:Patty Thayer Subject:RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Kevin, Here is what I got from the parking guys: 1. Price per square foot. The parcels that the City purchased for the Palm Nipomo site had much higher values than what you are proposing. Please let us know how you developed your estimate for cost per square foot so we can provide feedback. As an example, the most recent property purchased by the City (614 Monterey) was purchased for approximately $140/Square foot. 2. Total square footage. Although the City has developed a conceptual design for the site, it has yet to finalize design parameters for the structure and the remnant land piece for public use adjacent to Monterey Street. The Council has only indicated support for pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility. No further details have been approved by the Council to date. The 2007 concept design for the structure indicated a gross area of 18,000 square feet that could be reserved for future uses. The 2011 concept design shows a possible building location for the Little Theater roughly within the 18,000 square foot area but does not indicate square footage or building separation and setback requirements that may affect the location of the building. In addition, the existing tree that is to be preserved on site causes additional constraints that limit buildable area. We have an internal meeting in 2 weeks to talk Palm/Nipomo. I would suggest we meet with them in early August to talk everything through. I would also suggest we don’t use the word “gifting” it has a negative connotation in the public arena as in “Gift of Public Funds” Give me a call if you want to discuss otherwise I will set up a meeting for early August. Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org From: Kevin Harris [mailto:kevinharris@slolittletheatre.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:41 PM 2 To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Patty Thayer Subject: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Hi Lee, We’re continuing to fine-tune our campaign materials and wanted to double-check estimated value of the land the City is gifting. The number that we’ve been working with: $1.4-$1.74 million. ($60-75 per sq. foot X 23,230, which is our portion of the proposed lot.) Just wanted to make sure that we’re in the right ballpark for our materials so we can create an accurate overall campaign budget and acknowledge the City’s gift appropriately from the beginning. Thanks! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 805.781.3889 x10 www.slolittletheatre.org MISSION: To present theatrical productions of professional quality for the entertainment, enrichment and education of the public. Our mission is based on the conviction that live theatre, performed and experienced in the full dimensionality of real time and space, is of inestimable value, reminding us of our shared human values in an increasingly digitized and impersonal world. Facebook Blog TICKETS NOW ON SALE! 290 From:Athey, David Sent:Friday, July 17, 2015 2:50 PM To:Guzman, Manuel Subject:FW: Palm-Nipomo Project Restart Meeting Attachments:2015 Palm Nipomo Kick Off Meeting Outline.pdf Manny, This is great information for the file and you. Please save this and creat a file folder if we don’t have one. David From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:09 AM To: Grigsby, Daryl; Johnson, Derek; Athey, David; Lynch, Barbara; Leveille, Brian; Schneider, Anne; Davidson, Doug; Hannula, Hal; Mandeville, Peggy; Brown, Jeff; Hudson, Jake; Rowland, Kyle; Codron, Michael; Cornejo, Rafael Cc: Johnson, Lee; David, James; Fuchs, Alexander; Padilla, Wayne Subject: Palm-Nipomo Project Restart Meeting Attached is an agenda for today’s meeting on the Palm-Nipomo parking structure. It also includes a detailed history and council direction on the project over the many years of work. The intent of today’s meeting is to reintroduce the project to the various work groups (since we have a lot of new faces) and let people know what has been done to date and what the intentions are from this point forward to the Council Study session. Unfortunately Peggy will not be able to attend today due to a family medical issue so we may not have as full a background information as we hoped for the meeting. None the less, it will give us a chance to discuss the background issue of the project and see if there are new issues we need to consider. Thanks for taking the time to help out on this big project. Tim Tim Bochum Deputy Director Public Works Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tbochum@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.431.5177 slocity.org 1 Palm Nipomo Kick Off Meeting July 16, 2015 1. Summary of Council Decisions to Date (attached) 2. Environmental Review and Focus of EIR  Removal of residences on Monterey  Traffic  Noise  Visual  Air Quality  GHG emissions (new issue) 3. Parking Consultant Findings (Organizational Assessment)  Existing structures appear to have supply for future parking demand  Future demand is not in close proximity to Palm Nipomo  Parking management policies will be needed to attract users  Efforts to better manage existing supply should occur  A smaller structure would be less expensive overall 4. Potential Financing Issues- Finance 5. Input from the Downtown Association  Want Palm Nipomo to be a priority  Concern that there will not be enough parking without structure  Consultant target for a .92 effective parking supply seems high  Desire for overnight parking in structure 6. Little Theater Desires- Administration 7. Study Session Information  Formation of as Steering Oversight Group  Update previous parking demand/supply study (Walker)  Data on existing structure occupancies, revenues and costs  Financial strategies to make the structure pencil out  Recommendations for managing existing supply  Strategies and cost to increase demand at Palm Nipomo  Proposed schedule for proceeding  Return to Council as necessary 2 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE June 2003 Financial Plan Adoption The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. Project Goals:  400 new parking spaces on the site (79 surface parking spaces currently exist)  Incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center  Be mindful of the City’s height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principal use  consider two types of parking structures: a self park structure and a mechanical structure May 25, 2004 City Council Direction Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs with their review of eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options: 1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing. 2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built. 3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street. 4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project. 5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground. 6. Proposing other possible uses (i.e. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for the roof of the structure. 7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line. July 5, 2005 City Council Direction Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, added engineering/code requirements, and the need for additional parking to 3 accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components: 1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street. 2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on project plans. 4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design. 5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached “Dwelling over Garage”). 6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and note where exceptions are needed. 7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site dwellings. 8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site. 9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street. 10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass. In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional refinements to Self Park Option D3: a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible. b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access. c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey. In July 2005, the Council also revisited the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure. April 24, 2007 City Council Direction In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All options: 4  Located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan)  Maintained the large oak tree on Monterey  Allowed portions of the site to be developed by “others” when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place. The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost and operational cost. Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure with portions of upper levels removed to reduce building height impact. Mechanical structure oriented to reduce building height impact. Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f. No. of Levels 4 ½ 5 ½ 6 Building Height (35 ft.) * Height exception needed? 39 ft. Yes 41 ft. Yes 37 ft. Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft.) Street yard exception needed? Other yard (10 ft.) Other yard exception needed? 8-10 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0 ft. Yes 10 ft. No 0-10 ft. Yes 25 ft. No Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future Use by Others 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 12,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as the preferred design. Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along 5 Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence’s rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure’s roof top level to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure. Site Diagram for Option D3 The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers. Monterey Street = 33 feet Nipomo Street = 36 feet Palm Street = 44 feet Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet March 17, 2009 City Council Direction During the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? 6 Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee provided the following findings and recommendations for Council consideration: 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016-17. 2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.” 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. 4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. 5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. At the time, consultants estimated parking demand to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years (PDAP) so staff anticipated another downtown structure would be needed by 2020. December 1, 2009 City Council Direction Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental review. Two public workshops were held to gain input. These efforts culminated in a preliminary design that assumed the removal of the City owned residences on Monterey Street to allow for a Little Theater or other cultural facility as called for in the Conceptual Physical Plan for Downtown. The removal of these two single story residences would allow for redevelopment with taller structures that will aid in screening the four to five story parking structure and reducing the appearance of its mass. Additionally, public plazas would replace existing front yards. Because the two residences are located within an historic district, their removal would be considered a significant adverse impact requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report and Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. January 3, 2012 City Council Direction Council reviewed the preliminary designs and IS and directed staff to proceed with the preparation a focused EIR to address the environmental impact of removing the two residences. At the time, the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects were delayed, the economy was still recovering, and occupancy rate of the Palm Nipomo parking lot was at an all-time low. Because of concern for the “shelf life” of environmental review and the unknown return of Downtown projects, deferral of the EIR until the economy turned around was decided. November 18, 2014 Parking Organizational Study Council reviewed the Parking Services Organizational Review Report on 11-18-2014. As part of that report the consultant reviewed operational issues associated with short term and long term decisions the City would make to improve service. Specifically regarding the construction and operation of the Palm-Nipomo Structure the consultant recommended: 7 Determine under what scenarios the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure as currently envisioned might exceed (a baseline of) 60% capacity on a design day in order to determine: a. If or when the parking structure should be built; b. The number of new spaces necessary to be provided; and c. The extent to which more cost effective alternatives could be used, such parking guidance systems or parking alternatives. June 15, 2015 Parking Fund Review With the economy improving and development projects proceeding, staff presented Council of its intent to schedule a Council study session in the Fall of 2015 to discuss the project schedule and financing. 8 9 291 From:Johnson, Lee Sent:Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:08 AM To:Bochum, Tim Cc:Mandeville, Peggy Subject:RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Tim, It is fine. I will clean it up and send it over to them. Who should be at the meeting with them from our side in addition to me and you? Let me know. Lee From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:44 AM To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Mandeville, Peggy Subject: RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Here is a response Peggy and I worked up. Is it too stern? Thanks, Kevin for your inquiry. Your email identifies an estimated price per square foot and total square footage. I would like to respond to both. 1. Price per square foot. The parcels that the City purchased for the Palm Nipomo site had much higher values than what you are proposing. Please let us know how you developed your estimate for cost per square foot so we can provide feedback. As an example, the most recent property purchased by the City (614 Monterey) was purchased for approximately $140/Square foot. 2. Total square footage. Although the City has developed a conceptual design for the site, it has yet to finalize design parameters for the structure and the remnant land piece for public use adjacent to Monterey Street. The Council has only indicated support for pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility. No further details have been approved by the Council to date. The 2007 concept design for the structure indicated a gross area of 18,000 square feet that could be reserved for future uses. The 2011 concept design shows a possible building location for the Little Theater roughly within the 18,000 square foot area but does not indicate square footage or building separation and setback requirements that may affect the location of the building. In addition, the existing tree that is to be preserved on site causes additional constraints that limit buildable area. We do not believe that the designs developed to date would accommodate the 23,230 square foot site that you identify in this email. If you could show us how your Little Theater site has been incorporated into Palm Nipomo parking concept design, we can provide you with specific feedback as to the accuracy of your projected building structure. From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:18 AM To: Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site 292 Can you send me something on your perspective on this so I can use it to set up a meeting with them at some point in August? Thanks, Lee From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:05 PM To: Johnson, Lee Subject: RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Can you give me a call on this? From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:05 PM To: Brown, Jeff; Bochum, Tim Subject: RE: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Any idea on the below? Thanks, Lee From: Johnson, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 6:31 PM To: Brown, Jeff; Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Gents, If you could let me know what you think the right number would be based on the below that would be great. Any questions please let me know. Thanks Lee Lee Johnson Economic Development Manager City Administration Economic Development 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ljohnson@slocity.org T 805.781.7164 C 805.710.1824 slocity.org 293 From: Kevin Harris Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:41:29 PM To: Johnson, Lee Cc: Patty Thayer Subject: Value of Proposed Theatre Site Hi Lee, We’re continuing to fine-tune our campaign materials and wanted to double-check estimated value of the land the City is gifting. The number that we’ve been working with: $1.4-$1.74 million. ($60-75 per sq. foot X 23,230, which is our portion of the proposed lot.) Just wanted to make sure that we’re in the right ballpark for our materials so we can create an accurate overall campaign budget and acknowledge the City’s gift appropriately from the beginning. Thanks! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 805.781.3889 x10 www.slolittletheatre.org MISSION: To present theatrical productions of professional quality for the entertainment, enrichment and education of the public. Our mission is based on the conviction that live theatre, performed and experienced in the full dimensionality of real time and space, is of inestimable value, reminding us of our shared human values in an increasingly digitized and impersonal world. Facebook Blog TICKETS NOW ON SALE! 294 From:Fernandez, Joe Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2012 11:13 AM To:Mandeville, Peggy Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo final traffic report Attachments:Watry Palm St Pkg Gar IS.pdf; Palm_Nipomo Structure TIA Review.pdf Looks good- I made a couple of minor comments in the attached PDF. I've also attached the summary of my initial review of the traffic study, in case Jake didn't share it with you. Let me know if I can help with anything else. I'll be back in civilization next week. From: Mandeville, Peggy Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:46 PM To: Fernandez, Joe Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo final traffic report Here you go. Please note: New public counter hours Monday-Friday, 8 am -12 pm and 1 pm -3 pm. The front door will be locked outside of these hours. Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street 805-781-7590 From: Fernandez, Joe Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:05 AM To: Mandeville, Peggy Cc: coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject: RE: Palm Nipomo final traffic report Peggy, I took a look at the documents and here are my comments. Monterey Place: The attached IS has a couple of minor typos corrected. I agree that no intersection impacts would occur. The in-lieu parking fee calculation (as shown in the traffic study) does not seem to reflect the loss of public parking that would result when spaces in Lot 14 are reserved for project use. By my count 39 off-street and 4 on-street public spaces would be reserved for the project. While this wouldn't typically be identified as a CEQA impact, the Chinatown EIR included a detailed discussion of the loss of public parking in the context of the in-lieu fee payment. It will probably make sense to do the same for this project. Palm/Nipomo: Most of the requested changes were made, with minor exceptions (bus schedules in the study are from 2010 and have since changed). I noted the need for an analysis of area parking (i.e. why the structure is needed, and whether there is adequate area parking to accommodate existing users displaced during construction). This parking analysis isn't included in the revised traffic study, but I would expect that the project description would include the background information supporting the need for the structure. Note that the Palm/Nipomo IS wasn't attached to your original email- if you'd like me to review it, please send it over. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Joe 295 From: Mandeville, Peggy Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:34 PM To: Fernandez, Joe Subject: FW: Palm Nipomo final traffic report Jake said yes. I am attaching the documents for your review. I want you to review the initial study for Palm Nipomo and Monterey Place (across Monterey Street from the project. Since you did not review the traffic study for Monterey Place, I am looking for your comments on keeping the two environmental documents consistent. You do NOT need to review the Monterey Place traffic study, but I did attach a copy should you want to refer to it. Thanks. Please let me know your timeline for completing your review. As far as priorities go, this is higher than the Bike Plan. Thanks. Here is the note from the planner who prepared the Monterey Place traffic section of the initial study: This really should almost be done. We just need to update the table with the LOS figures so we have something defensible and please add any needed discussion. I copied over the format from the Palm/Nipomo Initial study so that needs to be updated with your Department’s engineering expertise. I’m not sure the submitted traffic study from the applicant is going to be helpful for this. Since the initial study for the Palm/Nipomo parking garage found less than significant impacts for the 445 space garage, I would expect we will not have any real issues with impacts to intersection from the Monterey Place project. Please let me know if you need any more assistance with this. I’ll need to paste this section back into my initial study. Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street 805-781-7590 From: Mandeville, Peggy Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:11 AM To: Hudson, Jake Subject: Palm Nipomo final traffic report I think Joe looked at the last round. Can we have him take a look at this to make sure they followed our direction? G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Projects\Parking\Current Projects\Palm- Nipomo\Environmental\FINAL_Palm-Nipomo_Parking_Structure_Report_20120824[1].pdf Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street 805-781-7590 296 From:Mandeville, Peggy Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2011 4:10 PM To:Bochum, Tim Subject:RE: Palm Nipomo parking structure I can talk to you more about it at our next one on one if you like. This is what I gleaned from the report. Demolition of the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey would constitute a significant impact because: 610 Monterey (corner of Monterey and Nipomo) constructed in 1937 is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA because it is in the historic district and provides continuity in the historic streetscape providing an essential linkage between properties along Monterey Street and along Nipomo and Dana Streets. 614 Monterey (referred to as the Heyd property and is next door to Latimer adobe) is a significant resource for the purposes of CEQA because it appears to meet the eligibility criteria for individual listing as a Master List property because of its rarity and its representation of the vernacular renewal of adobe architecture in the decades prior to World War II. Demolition of any part of the building would constitute a significant impact to the Master Listed-eligible property and the Downtown Historic District because it would remove an important contributing element that provides continuity along the historic streetscape. My thoughts: The adobe was constructed in the mid to late 1930’s and rests on a concrete foundation. It does not appear to meet the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines description of an adobe. The report however notes that the Mission underwent a restoration in the mid- 1930’s returning the property to its earlier mission appearance by re-exposing the adobe bricks and returning to a tile roof which “may have even created a renewed interest in adobe construction. Within 2 years, a new adobe dwelling was built at 614 Monterey. At this time adobe was not a frequently utilized material; however, a renewed interest in adobe building occurred during the mid to late 1930’s, most notably in projects carried out by the Depression-era Works Progress Administration. The New Deal program funded construction of adobe homes in residential tracts for families relocating from the dustbowl. These projects appear to have occurred mostly in the southwestern United States, including Southern California. The WPA built the County Courthouse and other projects in San Luis Obispo, but it doesn’t not appear that the program undertook and adobe residential projects on the Central Coast.” “The building at 614 Monterey, located just seven parcels away from the Mission, was constructed of adobe and continues the theme of mission-style architecture down the block. The 1930’s dwelling is a rarity in the City and is the only adobe of its time period within the Downtown Historic District”. The report goes on to say that demolition of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the integrity of the historic district. Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7590 -----Original Appointment----- From: Bochum, Tim Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:56 PM To: Mandeville, Peggy Subject: Accepted: Palm Nipomo parking structure When: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: 919 conference room #1 When did 610 become significant???/ 1 Subject:Palm Nipomo Additional Services Request Location:879 Morro, Conference Room Start:Tue 3/15/2011 2:00 PM End:Tue 3/15/2011 3:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Tentatively accepted Organizer:Mandeville, Peggy Required Attendees:Mandeville, Peggy; Leveille, Brian bConference:0 Call Handling Mode:6 CallHandleReminderEnable: 0 CallHandlingCanceled:0 strInviteCode:Participant When: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: 879 Morro, Conference Room *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Meeting with Rincon, Applied Earthworks and Watry to discuss the listing for 610 and 614 Monterey, Rincon's request to provide additional services and whether or not this work is already included in their scope of work. 1 Subject:Palm Nipomo parking structure Location:919 conference room #1 Start:Thu 8/11/2011 11:00 AM End:Thu 8/11/2011 12:00 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Accepted Organizer:Mandeville, Peggy Required Attendees:Mandeville, Peggy; Davidson, Doug; Leveille, Brian; Bochum, Tim; Horch, Robert; Codron, Michael bConference:0 Call Handling Mode:6 CallHandleReminderEnable: 0 CallHandlingCanceled:0 strInviteCode:Participant Staff only meeting to discuss the consultant's determination that removal of either 610 or 614 Monterey residence would resul t in a significant impact and how we should proceed with the project. 1 Subject:FW: Meeting with Little Theater Location:Little Theater (Morro and Palm Streest) Start:Thu 2/13/2014 3:00 PM End:Thu 2/13/2014 4:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Mandeville, Peggy bConference:0 Call Handling Mode:6 CallHandleReminderEnable: 0 CallHandlingCanceled:0 strInviteCode:Participant Hi James and Lisa, I won’t be able to make this meeting tomorrow but would appreciate it if you could attend and report out at our next staff meeting. Thanks! -----Original Appointment----- From: Mandeville, Peggy Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:42 PM To: Mandeville, Peggy; Ricci, Pam; Codron, Michael; David, James Subject: Meeting with Little Theater When: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:00 PM-4:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Little Theater (Morro and Palm Streest) Meeting with the Little Theater and their architect regarding their fundraising and design progress to relocate the Little Theater down to 614 Monterey. 1 Subject:SLO Repertory Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Location:Jon's Office Start:Tue 6/5/2018 1:00 PM End:Tue 6/5/2018 1:30 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Accepted Organizer:Hill, Robert Required Attendees:Ansolabehere, Jon As we discussed by phone earlier this week. Background docs attached. The intent is to get this approved 7/17 at Council, but SLO Rep is hoping for some feedback on deal points by the end of next week prior to meeting with some prospective major donors. 1 Hill, Robert From:Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:59 AM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Suzy Newman; Patty Thayer; BRYCE Subject:Meeting Follow-up SLO REP Hi Bob, Thanks again for meeting with me on the 7th. We have our final Planning Committee Meeting tomorrow morning and look forward to officially launching the campaign later this year. Just wanted to follow up on the major items from the ENA we talked about to make sure that everything was clear:  6(b): we need to finalize the date that City would like to see our fundraising plan. This plan will be built around the timeline we discussed, with Palm/Nipomo going to Council for approval in July.  6(b): please confirm that written pledges can be included to reach the 50% requirement.  6(b): please confirm that the 50% requirement is only for to the total of the design/construction costs, not the overall campaign.  9(a): Our overall budget includes one full year of annual operating expenses ($850,000.00) in order to cover any delay in operations during the move from one space to the other. Please confirm that this will be sufficient to move forward.  9(a): Our overall budget currently has 15% contingencies on all design/construction items‐ the ENA calls for 20%.  9(d): We are currently working the design team for Palm/Nipomo to get some clarification on the frontage and landscaping requirements, however, any clarification or guidance from the City would be appreciated.  9(j): Clarification on the in‐lieu parking fees would be appreciated so that our budget can be accurately amended to include this expense.  9(m): timeline on this needs to be finalized. As I mentioned, we currently have an overall budget of $8,000,000.00 for the whole campaign (that figure includes the $850,000 annual expense safety net, a $500,000 facilities maintenance fund, and $250,000 to cover anticipated deficits for the first three years of operation in the space.) Our design/construction costs top out at around $4.5M. As of today, between signed pledges and cash in the bank, we have 2.1M ready for the campaign, so, hitting the 50% mark within one year of Council approval of the project should not be a problem. The biggest challenge we face with our donors, at this point, is not having a firm timeline to present to them. We have several prospects who are ready to pledge to the project once we have a written agreement with the City that clarifies the timeline for construction or confirms that we can probably build on the site should Palm/Nipomo not move forward. After working on this project for the last seven years, we are absolutely certain that we are in a position to make it happen. Our team appreciates any support you can give us! Please let me know if you have any questions at all about our campaign or organization as we move forward. Have a great day, sir! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 2 San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786‐2440 Office (805) 781‐3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: To present professional theatrical productions for the entertainment and enrichment of the public, and to provide theatre education opportunities for children and adults. Our Belief: We believe live theatre provides unique and powerful storytelling, blending multiple art forms and connecting communities through the shared emotional journey at each performance. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___day of ______, 201X, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter municipal corporation ("the City'') and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, a California non-profit corporation SLO REP The City and SLO REP are jointly referred to as the “parties”) RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of the property located at xxx Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City identified a portion of the Property as the site of a proposed public parking structure (“Palm Nipomo Parking Structure”) and anticipates that an estimated 18,000 square foot portion of the Property will not be needed for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (“Remainder Property”); and WHEREAS, SLO REP desires to construct a not-for-profit live performance theater facility and related on- site and off-site (if any) improvements (“Theater”) on the Remainder Property; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the exact location, size and availability of the Remainder Property for the Theater cannot be determined at this time, and understand that the Remainder Property has development restrictions including maintenance of trees, street setbacks and provision of pedestrian connections/plazas from the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to Monterey Street that affect the net buildable land; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support community-based performing arts groups by encouraging development of a live performance theater facility in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP recognize that identifying a location for the Theater, as well as some of the terms of a future lease, may help SLO REP’s capital fundraising efforts; and WHEREAS, construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theater and related rezoning and general plan amendments will require environmental review, and SLO REP must provide certain information about the Theater before City can conduct the environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Management Manual allows exclusive negotiations for long term lease of City property when the there is a clear link between the proposal and accomplishment of significant City goals, plans or policies; and WHEREAS, the City considers the development of a not-for-profit live performance theater on the Remainder Property to be in the public interest and in accordance with the City's goals and the existing and proposed Downtown Concept Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises and agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. RECITALS. The above Recitals are true. 2. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon the date set forth above, and expire five (5) years later, unless sooner terminated, or as specifically provided below. 3. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING PERIOD. During the term of this Agreement, provided SLO REP has met all of its obligations, and the conditions precedent to lease negotiation set forth below have occurred, the exclusive negotiating period shall commence upon City award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and shall expire 365 days later (“Exclusive Negotiating Period”). 4. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to proceed with environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and of the Theater, and to allow SLO REP to explore the feasibility of SLO REP financing, designing, constructing and operating the Theater, at its sole cost and expense, on the Remainder Property. 5. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Exclusivity. Negotiate exclusively with SLO REP as the future tenant of the Remainder Property. b. Initiate Rezoning and General Plan amendments. Upon City Council authorization, initiate all rezoning and General Plan amendments necessary to allow the construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property and the Theater on the Remainder Property. The City legally cannot, and therefore does not, agree as to how it will exercise its legislative authority to rezone or amend the general plan. c. Environmental Review. Upon City Council’s authorization, conduct environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. The City shall also include environmental review of the Theater. However, if SLO REP makes any changes to the Theater design after City commences environmental review, SLO REP shall pay for all costs and expenses resulting from those changes. 6. SLO REP’s OBLIGATIONS. SLO REP shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Non-Profit Status. Be a California non-profit corporation in good standing and be exempt from state and federal income taxes under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. Proof of Financial Ability. Provide to City’s reasonable satisfaction that it has the financial ability to design, construct and operate the Theater on the Remainder Property. At a minimum SLO REP shall: Fundraising Plan. Provide the City with a fundraising plan by March 15, 2018 which is acceptable to, and approved by, the City Manager, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The fundraising plan shall include a timeline with milestones that shall be met no later than 1 year from the estimated completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. These milestones shall include, at a minimum, prior to commencement of lease negotiations, but no later than one (1) year after City’s award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo parking Structure, that SLO REP shall demonstrate, to the City Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction, that SLO REP has available at least 50% of all the funds necessary to design, construct and operate for the first two years, the Theater. i. Preliminary Cost Estimates. Provide the City with preliminary costs estimates by March 15, 2018 design, construct and operate the Theater for at least the first two (2) years after completion of construction. Update those estimates as design progresses, but at least every 6 months. SLO REP will include the payment of prevailing wages in its estimates. ii. Annual Financials. Annually, on or before Janury 15 of each year, provide the City with a current financial statement, copy of most recent filed state and federal tax returns, and copies of current bank statements, to demonstrate fundraising results for the Theater. iii. Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Theater to the City no later than thirty (30) days after commencement of the Exclusive Negotiating Period. iv. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded. c. Environmental Review Information. Provide the City promptly with all information necessary to conduct environmental review of the Theater This information includes, but is not limited to, square footage of structure; square footage of various uses such as office, storage, classroom, and theater; number of seats; maximum number of performances per week, and any other information deemed necessary by City. 7. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other party at any time prior to commencement of the Exclusive Negotiating Period by written notice to the other. 8. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LEASE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION. All of the following conditions must be met as conditions precedent prior to lease negotiation and/or execution: a. Lease negotiation: i. Parking Structure. City has completed environmental review of both the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theater, and awarded and executed a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property, leaving sufficient Remainder Property available for the Theater. ii. Rezoning. City has rezoned and/or amended the City’s general plan allowing the use of the Remainder Property as the Theater. iii. Obligations Met. Both City and SLO REP have met all of their respective obligations under the Agreement. b. Availability of Funds for Design, Construction, and Operation of the Theater Prior to execution of the lease, SLO REP demonstrates to City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that SLO REP has met all applicable fundraising milestones in the fundraising plan approved by the City Manager. c. Non-Profit Status. SLO REP has maintained its non-profit and tax exempt status under applicable state and federal law. d. Design and Construction Schedule. Prior to lease execution, provide to the City’s Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction, a design and construction schedule, demonstrating, at a minimum, the Theater will be constructed within 3 years of the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. e. Design Coordination. Coordinate design of the Theater with the City to ensure it is compatible with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 9. GENERAL LEASE TERMS. If the parties enter into the exclusive negotiations, the parties desire that the lease include the following general provisions; provided, the actual language of each provision is subject to further negotiation, and most material terms and provisions of the lease have not yet been discussed. The City shall not lease the land for minimal rent unless the lease is completely acceptable to the City and approved by the City Attorney Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as an agreement or offer to lease upon the terms, provisions or language set forth below. a. SLO REP shall commence construction of the Theater within one (1) year of completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and shall complete construction of the Theater within three (3) years of completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. SLO REP shall not commence construction of the Theater unless SLO REP demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction prior to expiration of the year within which SLO REP is to commence construction, that SLO REP has all of the funds necessary to design and construct, as well as operate for at least two (2) years after completion of construction, the Theater, plus a 20% contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”). If SLO REP does not timely demonstrate that SLO REP has the Required Funds, or if SLO REP fails to timely begin or timely complete construction, SLO REP shall be in substantial default, and the lease shall automatically terminate unless City agrees otherwise in writing. The Theater shall be deemed complete only upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Minimum 40-year initial term with possible rights of first refusal to extend on mutually agreeable terms. c. Rent of $1.00 per year provided SLO REP: i. Is a California non-profit corporation in good standing; and ii. Is a federal and state income tax exempt 501 (c)(3) entity; and Uses the Remainder Property solely as a live performance theater and related City approved community uses. iii. SLO REP’s failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law or to use the Remainder Property for any purpose other than as a live performance theater and related City approved community uses during the term or any extended term of the lease, shall be a material breach of the lease. In the event any such breach occurs, City may, at its option, either terminate the lease or raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses. d. SLO REP shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Theater and all street frontage, landscaping, utility extensions and connections, and other improvements, at its sole cost and expense without any assistance from the City. e. SLO REP shall be responsible for meeting or mitigating all conditions, impacts, mitigations and requirements identified in the environmental review and entitlement processes for issues associated with the SLO REP’s operation of a theater on the Property, at SLO REP’s sole cost and expense. f. The SLO REP design of a freestanding building must be compatible with the design of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, including the parking structure’s entrance and exiting needs, as determined by the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. g. SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. h. If the SLO REP is not in material compliance with the Lease or ceases to be financially solvent and to maintain the Property in a commercially reasonable manner, the Lease shall contain provisions for the City to declare a default of the Lease, for SLO REP to effect a reasonable cure of the default(s), and for the City to terminate the Lease if the default(s) are not cured pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease, and for the Remainder Property to revert to the City. i. Prevailing wages shall be paid by SLO REP for construction of the Theater and related improvements, mitigations etc. j. SLO REP shall pay all applicable parking in lieu fees as determined by the sole discretion of the City’s Public Works Director. k. Payment of possessory interest and other taxes by SLO REP. l. Other long term landlord protection ground lease provisions, such as City standard insurance requirements, indemnity provisions, attorneys’ fees, prohibitions against nuisance, waste, requiring maintenance at SLO REP expense, etc. m. If the City Council does not move ahead with the construction of the Palm/Nipomo structure on or before [_________, 20__], a new agreement will need to be negotiated between the parties for a mutually acceptable alternate site or an alternate set of requirements for a portion of the Property. n. The City will not subordinate its interest in the Remainder Property to any financing. 10. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties. Any such extension, amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Council. 11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties. 12. NOTICE. All notices to the parties shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City SLO REP 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and SLO REP warrant and represent that each individual executing the Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. 1 Subject:meet with SLO Repertory Theatre Location:City Atty's Office, City Hall, 990 Palm Street Start:Tue 7/24/2018 11:00 AM End:Tue 7/24/2018 12:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Hill, Robert Required Attendees:Ansolabehere, Jon; Bochum, Tim; Kevin Harris EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___day of ______, 201X, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a California charter municipal corporation ("the City'') and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, a California non-profit corporation SLO REP The City and SLO REP are jointly referred to as the “parties”) RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the legal owner of the property located at xxx Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City identified a portion of the Property as the site of a proposed public parking structure (“Palm Nipomo Parking Structure”) and anticipates that an estimated 18,000 square foot portion of the Property will not be needed for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure (“Remainder Property”); and WHEREAS, SLO REP desires to construct a not-for-profit live performance theater facility and related on- site and off-site (if any) improvements (“Theater”) on the Remainder Property; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the exact location, size and availability of the Remainder Property for the Theater cannot be determined at this time, and understand that the Remainder Property has development restrictions including maintenance of trees, street setbacks and provision of pedestrian connections/plazas from the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to Monterey Street that affect the net buildable land; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to support community-based performing arts groups by encouraging development of a live performance theater facility in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the City and SLO REP recognize that identifying a location for the Theater, as well as some of the terms of a future lease, may help SLO REP’s capital fundraising efforts; and WHEREAS, construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theater and related rezoning and general plan amendments will require environmental review, and SLO REP must provide certain information about the Theater before City can conduct the environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Management Manual allows exclusive negotiations for long term lease of City property when the there is a clear link between the proposal and accomplishment of significant City goals, plans or policies; and WHEREAS, the City considers the development of a not-for-profit live performance theater on the Remainder Property to be in the public interest and in accordance with the City's goals and the existing and proposed Downtown Concept Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises and agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. RECITALS. The above Recitals are true. 2. TERM. This Agreement shall commence upon the date set forth above, and expire five (5) years later, unless sooner terminated, or as specifically provided below. 3. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING PERIOD. During the term of this Agreement, provided SLO REP has met all of its obligations, and the conditions precedent to lease negotiation set forth below have occurred, the exclusive negotiating period shall commence upon City award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and shall expire 365 days later (“Exclusive Negotiating Period”). 4. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to proceed with environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and of the Theater, and to allow SLO REP to explore the feasibility of SLO REP financing, designing, constructing and operating the Theater, at its sole cost and expense, on the Remainder Property. 5. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. The City shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Exclusivity. Negotiate exclusively with SLO REP as the future tenant of the Remainder Property. b. Initiate Rezoning and General Plan amendments. Upon City Council authorization, initiate all rezoning and General Plan amendments necessary to allow the construction of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property and the Theater on the Remainder Property. The City legally cannot, and therefore does not, agree as to how it will exercise its legislative authority to rezone or amend the general plan. c. Environmental Review. Upon City Council’s authorization, conduct environmental review of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. The City shall also include environmental review of the Theater. However, if SLO REP makes any changes to the Theater design after City commences environmental review, SLO REP shall pay for all costs and expenses resulting from those changes. 6. SLO REP’s OBLIGATIONS. SLO REP shall, during the term of this Agreement: a. Non-Profit Status. Be a California non-profit corporation in good standing and be exempt from state and federal income taxes under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. Proof of Financial Ability. Provide to City’s reasonable satisfaction that it has the financial ability to design, construct and operate the Theater on the Remainder Property. At a minimum SLO REP shall: Fundraising Plan. Provide the City with a fundraising plan by March 15, 2018 which is acceptable to, and approved by, the City Manager, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The fundraising plan shall include a timeline with milestones that shall be met no later than 1 year from the estimated completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. These milestones shall include, at a minimum, prior to commencement of lease negotiations, but no later than one (1) year after City’s award and execution of a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo parking Structure, that SLO REP shall demonstrate, to the City Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction, that SLO REP has available at least 50% of all the funds necessary to design, construct and operate for the first two years, the Theater. i. Preliminary Cost Estimates. Provide the City with preliminary costs estimates by March 15, 2018 design, construct and operate the Theater for at least the first two (2) years after completion of construction. Update those estimates as design progresses, but at least every 6 months. SLO REP will include the payment of prevailing wages in its estimates. ii. Annual Financials. Annually, on or before Janury 15 of each year, provide the City with a current financial statement, copy of most recent filed state and federal tax returns, and copies of current bank statements, to demonstrate fundraising results for the Theater. iii. Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Theater to the City no later than thirty (30) days after commencement of the Exclusive Negotiating Period. iv. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded. c. Environmental Review Information. Provide the City promptly with all information necessary to conduct environmental review of the Theater This information includes, but is not limited to, square footage of structure; square footage of various uses such as office, storage, classroom, and theater; number of seats; maximum number of performances per week, and any other information deemed necessary by City. 7. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other party at any time prior to commencement of the Exclusive Negotiating Period by written notice to the other. 8. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LEASE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION. All of the following conditions must be met as conditions precedent prior to lease negotiation and/or execution: a. Lease negotiation: i. Parking Structure. City has completed environmental review of both the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure and the Theater, and awarded and executed a contract to construct the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure on a portion of the Property, leaving sufficient Remainder Property available for the Theater. ii. Rezoning. City has rezoned and/or amended the City’s general plan allowing the use of the Remainder Property as the Theater. iii. Obligations Met. Both City and SLO REP have met all of their respective obligations under the Agreement. b. Availability of Funds for Design, Construction, and Operation of the Theater Prior to execution of the lease, SLO REP demonstrates to City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction that SLO REP has met all applicable fundraising milestones in the fundraising plan approved by the City Manager. c. Non-Profit Status. SLO REP has maintained its non-profit and tax exempt status under applicable state and federal law. d. Design and Construction Schedule. Prior to lease execution, provide to the City’s Community Development Director’s reasonable satisfaction, a design and construction schedule, demonstrating, at a minimum, the Theater will be constructed within 3 years of the completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. e. Design Coordination. Coordinate design of the Theater with the City to ensure it is compatible with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. 9. GENERAL LEASE TERMS. If the parties enter into the exclusive negotiations, the parties desire that the lease include the following general provisions; provided, the actual language of each provision is subject to further negotiation, and most material terms and provisions of the lease have not yet been discussed. The City shall not lease the land for minimal rent unless the lease is completely acceptable to the City and approved by the City Attorney Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as an agreement or offer to lease upon the terms, provisions or language set forth below. a. SLO REP shall commence construction of the Theater within one (1) year of completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, and shall complete construction of the Theater within three (3) years of completion of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. SLO REP shall not commence construction of the Theater unless SLO REP demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Manager’s reasonable satisfaction prior to expiration of the year within which SLO REP is to commence construction, that SLO REP has all of the funds necessary to design and construct, as well as operate for at least two (2) years after completion of construction, the Theater, plus a 20% contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”). If SLO REP does not timely demonstrate that SLO REP has the Required Funds, or if SLO REP fails to timely begin or timely complete construction, SLO REP shall be in substantial default, and the lease shall automatically terminate unless City agrees otherwise in writing. The Theater shall be deemed complete only upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Minimum 40-year initial term with possible rights of first refusal to extend on mutually agreeable terms. c. Rent of $1.00 per year provided SLO REP: i. Is a California non-profit corporation in good standing; and ii. Is a federal and state income tax exempt 501 (c)(3) entity; and Uses the Remainder Property solely as a live performance theater and related City approved community uses. iii. SLO REP’s failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax-exempt status under applicable state and federal law or to use the Remainder Property for any purpose other than as a live performance theater and related City approved community uses during the term or any extended term of the lease, shall be a material breach of the lease. In the event any such breach occurs, City may, at its option, either terminate the lease or raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses. d. SLO REP shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Theater and all street frontage, landscaping, utility extensions and connections, and other improvements, at its sole cost and expense without any assistance from the City. e. SLO REP shall be responsible for meeting or mitigating all conditions, impacts, mitigations and requirements identified in the environmental review and entitlement processes for issues associated with the SLO REP’s operation of a theater on the Property, at SLO REP’s sole cost and expense. f. The SLO REP design of a freestanding building must be compatible with the design of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, including the parking structure’s entrance and exiting needs, as determined by the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. g. SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. h. If the SLO REP is not in material compliance with the Lease or ceases to be financially solvent and to maintain the Property in a commercially reasonable manner, the Lease shall contain provisions for the City to declare a default of the Lease, for SLO REP to effect a reasonable cure of the default(s), and for the City to terminate the Lease if the default(s) are not cured pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease, and for the Remainder Property to revert to the City. i. Prevailing wages shall be paid by SLO REP for construction of the Theater and related improvements, mitigations etc. j. SLO REP shall pay all applicable parking in lieu fees as determined by the sole discretion of the City’s Public Works Director. k. Payment of possessory interest and other taxes by SLO REP. l. Other long term landlord protection ground lease provisions, such as City standard insurance requirements, indemnity provisions, attorneys’ fees, prohibitions against nuisance, waste, requiring maintenance at SLO REP expense, etc. m. If the City Council does not move ahead with the construction of the Palm/Nipomo structure on or before [_________, 20__], a new agreement will need to be negotiated between the parties for a mutually acceptable alternate site or an alternate set of requirements for a portion of the Property. n. The City will not subordinate its interest in the Remainder Property to any financing. 10. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties. Any such extension, amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Council. 11. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties. 12. NOTICE. All notices to the parties shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City SLO REP 13. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and SLO REP warrant and represent that each individual executing the Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. 1 Hill, Robert From:Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:59 AM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Suzy Newman; Patty Thayer; BRYCE Subject:Meeting Follow-up SLO REP Hi Bob, Thanks again for meeting with me on the 7th. We have our final Planning Committee Meeting tomorrow morning and look forward to officially launching the campaign later this year. Just wanted to follow up on the major items from the ENA we talked about to make sure that everything was clear:  6(b): we need to finalize the date that City would like to see our fundraising plan. This plan will be built around the timeline we discussed, with Palm/Nipomo going to Council for approval in July.  6(b): please confirm that written pledges can be included to reach the 50% requirement.  6(b): please confirm that the 50% requirement is only for to the total of the design/construction costs, not the overall campaign.  9(a): Our overall budget includes one full year of annual operating expenses ($850,000.00) in order to cover any delay in operations during the move from one space to the other. Please confirm that this will be sufficient to move forward.  9(a): Our overall budget currently has 15% contingencies on all design/construction items‐ the ENA calls for 20%.  9(d): We are currently working the design team for Palm/Nipomo to get some clarification on the frontage and landscaping requirements, however, any clarification or guidance from the City would be appreciated.  9(j): Clarification on the in‐lieu parking fees would be appreciated so that our budget can be accurately amended to include this expense.  9(m): timeline on this needs to be finalized. As I mentioned, we currently have an overall budget of $8,000,000.00 for the whole campaign (that figure includes the $850,000 annual expense safety net, a $500,000 facilities maintenance fund, and $250,000 to cover anticipated deficits for the first three years of operation in the space.) Our design/construction costs top out at around $4.5M. As of today, between signed pledges and cash in the bank, we have 2.1M ready for the campaign, so, hitting the 50% mark within one year of Council approval of the project should not be a problem. The biggest challenge we face with our donors, at this point, is not having a firm timeline to present to them. We have several prospects who are ready to pledge to the project once we have a written agreement with the City that clarifies the timeline for construction or confirms that we can probably build on the site should Palm/Nipomo not move forward. After working on this project for the last seven years, we are absolutely certain that we are in a position to make it happen. Our team appreciates any support you can give us! Please let me know if you have any questions at all about our campaign or organization as we move forward. Have a great day, sir! Kevin Harris Managing Artistic Director 2 San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Tickets (805) 786‐2440 Office (805) 781‐3889 x10 www.slorep.org Mission: To present professional theatrical productions for the entertainment and enrichment of the public, and to provide theatre education opportunities for children and adults. Our Belief: We believe live theatre provides unique and powerful storytelling, blending multiple art forms and connecting communities through the shared emotional journey at each performance. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter 1 Subject:SLO Rep Theatre Lease Location:Council Hearing Start:Thu 10/3/2019 11:30 AM End:Thu 10/3/2019 12:30 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Accepted Organizer:Sims, Shannon Required Attendees:Johnson, Derek; Hermann, Greg; Hill, Robert PALM/NIPOMO-SLOREP PROJECT 10/3/2019 11:30 AM Proposed Agenda Items All items below are included in the ENA, so, a review of the agreement should cover all of them: o Construction timeline/staging areas o Individual and shared expenses o Reporting/Financial milestones o Formal Development Application o Environmental Review Information (already submitted to Rachel?) o Frontage expense/maintenance determination o In-lieu parking fees o General Impact fees Items below are not in the ENA: o Transition timeline/expectations (between spaces) o Expected post-transition condition of current venue (888 Morro Street.) o Transient challenges 1 Subject:Discuss SLO Rep Modified Plans Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Mon 12/20/2021 10:30 AM End:Mon 12/20/2021 11:30 AM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Meeting organizer Organizer:Cohen, Rachel Required Attendees:Scott, Shawna Call Handling Mode 2:2 Hi Shawna- I would like to have a staff discussion on the changes before we meet with the SLO Rep group. I have attached the relevant plans and images. Thanks, Rachel ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ !" "! # $ "$ #%#! %#& %&#!" !#%#!! #%#!& " ( ) *+ *+ ' ' ' ' """!"&"""!"&""&"&"""" "") ) *+ (( '' ' ' '' ' '' ' "#"!"&"""""""""" $ ' B ' "' C ' DC D C ( ) ) ' '' '' '' D D E D' ! " " #"#"$" # !%" # !%%&#"! ' !% ( " # " ) ! # ' # &" !% "!)"!) !##"!) %#"! " "'*" " "#"(!% ( #&""""!##"! ! ) % "+"## "#" ( " # " ,-.// 0 1 ) 234,.56.78,3793367 0 :1 666 :1 ) 234.-56.78;6<9,44. C :1 :1 ) ( D D E D ' ) ) ) ) D ' ' # (' ! # (' F # (' F ) ! ) ) ) )) ' )) ' ) ) ' ) # )) ' ' ' # ! ' ' ' * + E ( ) G D#$DC #H ' E I' ' $ $ ' ID B ) *' '' '+ ' ' ) E ) ' ' )) ' D "*&#+ # &#17?=8;48,7=4/;8=;J>9,/5 =39 ' #" D "#*&#+ !6603;853J862/-=37237,;86 =39 ) ' *+ ) ' *+ ) (''*+ ) ' ' *'+ ) *+ ) '*+ ) *+ ) '* + ) ) *)+ ' ( #" D "*&#+ !& ) ' ' ' ) ) ) &! ) D "*&#+ !& "&5/-60,?JK/79,=3-0.5;,-;0 =39 ) + ) * ))+ ) ) ' ' ' 'L + ' ) ' ' 'L + B ' ' ' ) ) D ' ' ) '' )) ) ) ) ' )) D ' D ( (' ( )) ' ' ) ) ' ) ' ) ) ) ) ' ) D ) D ) ) ' ) ) ) ) ' ) # ' ' ' ' ' ( ) ) & ! ' ) ' )' D D )' ) ' ' & ' ) ' ) ' E ) ' ) (' ' ) ( ) ) ' ''D' D ) ) ) ) ) ) ' ) ) ) " ) ) ) ) ) ' ) D * ) (' )D ) ' ) ' ' ) ) D ) ) E D B ' D) D'D D D' D ) D DD )D 'D ) ) ')) ) ) ' ) ) *'D 'D)D 'D 'D ) (' D + ) ) D D D D D ) B *' B D ) D D D D D D + '' ) B ('D $ ' ' ' ) ' ) ' E ' ' B ) ' )) ' ) ' ) ( D ' )( D $ D ) ' ) # ) ' ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ! ) D B ) ) ' # & ' * D F ) E+ ) ) ' ( D ' ' D B ) ) ) "D" B ) ) #D# B ) ) D B ) D$DC ) ' ) ' ' ' #H ) ') ) ' ) ) ' ' ) D D 'D D ) D )) ) ' " " ' ' ) ! D # ' 'D' B ) $#C ! ' B ' ' E ' ' B & " E ' ' ' ( D ) D D D ' ) ( ) ) ) ' ' D ' ) ) ) D ' ' 'D ' ' UP UP UP UP UP UPOTTRR3'-6"10'-0"7'-5 3/4" 103'-9 1/4 " 1/8" ASSUMED P.L. ASSUMED P.L. N53° 05' 37"E 214.61'S36° 15' 10"E281.64'N36° 28' 51"W279.70'N53° 45' 07"E 70.11' - ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE N53° 45' 07"E 38.93' - ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE NN TREE (E) TO REMAIN TREE (E) TO BE REMOVED BOLLARDS GRASSCRETE LOADING RAMP D.G. PATHSTREET IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS TILE TILE BOLLARDS D.G.TILE CONC. PLANTER PLANTER PROPOSED THEATER LINE OF CANTILEVERED FLOOR ABOVE TREE (E) TO REMAINNIPOMO STREETMONTEREY STREET STAIRS UP TO PARKING GARAGE BY OTHERS PLANTERD.G . BENCHE S PARKING GARGE BY OTHERS PARKING GARGE BY OTHERS MIN.LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS STREET IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS STREET IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERSSTREET IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERSNOW PLAYING MARQUEE - SEE ELEVATION SHEET A-4.0 BENCHE S 96 GAL. BINS PER CITY STDS. O=ORGANICS, T=TRASH, R=RECY. RACKS FOR 6 BIKES RACKS FOR 4 BIKES MIN. 2 HR. RATED WALL WHERE ABUTS PARKING STRUCTURE DECORATIVE LIGHTING BOLLARD DECORATIVE LIGHTING BOLLARD DECORATIVE LIGHTING BOLLARDS BENCHES Palm Nipomo – ARCH-0448-2019 SLO Rep – ARCH-0415-2019 609 Palm Page 8 5.0 DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The proposed demolitions can be found consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance because Environmental Impact Review (EIR) evaluated the demolition of the two contributing historic resources located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street; retaining the structures is not feasible based on Figure 7: View of the parking structure from Nipomo and Palm Street Figure 8: Rendering of the SLO Rep Theatre front façade along Monterey Street