Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/02/1996, 1 - THIS PUBLIC HEARING HAS THREE SEPARATE BUT INTERRELATED ISSUES: (1) AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO AMEND PROGRAM 12.7; (2) DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE EXPANSION PROJECT; (3) APPROVING A SCOPE OF
�Iil�►�� i��l �, c T: city of San LUIS OBISpo z NiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FWA"u FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: This public hearing has three separate but interrelated issues: (1) Amending the Circulation Element to amend Program 12.7; (2) Directing staff to proceed with the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion project; (3) Approving a Scope of Work and authorizing the distribution of Requests for Proposals for a Downtown Parking and Access Study. CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should consider each issue and take separate actions to: ❑ Adopt a resolution (Exhibit A) amending the General Plan Circulation Element amending Program 12.7'to read as follows: "tea giemg p,..* 914FOA•w; 4oula ❑ Direct staff to proceed on the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion project and the Wells Fargo lot (acquisition only), with property negotiations, all remaining design work, EIR update, and hiring a project manager. Appropriate $720,000 from the Parking Fund as follows: Purchase the San Luis Medical Clinic parking lot and the rear portion of the Post Office property or acquire air rights($450,000); Final Architectural Designs ($40,000); and($225,000) for plans and specifications; and Project Manager ($5,000). ❑ Approve the Scope of Work (Exhibit B) and authorize the distribution of Request for Proposals (RFPs) for a Downtown Parking and Access Study. Appropriate $96,000 with ($48,000) from-the Parking Fund and ($48,000) from the General Fund to pay for the study and authorize the CAO to award a contract to the most responsible proposer within the cost estimate. L REPORT IN BRIEF A. Circulation Element Amendment In May, 1995, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Circulation Element to delete Program 12.7. This program suggests that a comprehensive parking study be prepared and considered by the Council before additional parking structures are built. ����u ►�IIIII[I�pa I�U� CItY Of San WiSo OBISPO = COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 2 On February 28, 1996, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment and has forwarded the item to the City Council without recommendation (Minutes attached as Exhibit Q. The Commission considered two motions: (1) Delete Program 12.7 from the Circulation Element (failed on a 3-3 vote); and (2) Approve alternative wording to Program 12.7 that would allow the expansion of the Marsh Street structure and the consideration of the results of a parking study before any new free-standing structures are built (failed on a 3- 3 vote). Staff has been directed by Council to pursue deletion of Program 12.7 and after review, recommends that Program 12.7 be amended. Should the Council wish to pursue alternative direction such as an ad&-ional modification of Program 12.7, other policy options are presented in the body of this report. B. Marsh Street Parldng Structure Expansion Update. On January 16, 1996, the City Council appropriated $45,000 for preliminary work on the Marsh Street Structure expansion. Staff initiated property appraisals of the San Luis Medical Center parking lot adjoining the Marsh Street structure, and the Post Office's parking lot, and the parking lot to the rear of the Wells Fargo Bank. Staff has also identified a local consultant that can act as the project manager on a time and material basis. To continue implementing the expansion project, the City Council should direct staff to proceed with preliminary design and engineering work, hire a property negotiator, and appropriate $450,000 from the Parking Fund for acquiring property/air rights and $270,000 for final design and plans and specifications and Project Manager. C. Downtown Paridng and Access Study: At the direction of Council, staff convened an ad hoc committee comprised of business community and alternative transportation representatives to develop the scope, timing and funding amount for a comprehensive study. Three committee workshops were held. The interaction between committee members was very positive with two areas of concern remaining after the discussions: ❑ Should the study assume that the Marsh Street Parking Structure has been expanded and that the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot has been acquired? ❑ What should be the source of funds to pay for the parking and access study? After considerable discussion, the Committee felt that funding should be bome equally by the General and Parking Funds, however there were individual Committee members who felt that the study should be paid for entirely by the Parking Fund, and others who felt that the Parking Fund was not a legitimate source of funding for the study. The attached scope of work calls for the preparation of a Downtown Parking and Access Plan /-a2 ����►�►►�IIIII(Illp �l�►UI city of San WIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 3 that will guide City actions concerning parking development and to be used to enhance alternative transportation serving the downtown. The information in the study would be periodically updated. Staff recommends that the Council approve the scope of work, authorize the distribution of RFPs to qualified consultants, and appropriate $48,000 from the Parking Fund and $48,000 from the General Fund to pay for it. D. Project History The following presents background information for each of the three public hearing items. May, 1995. The City Council.decided to proceed with expanding the downtown parking supply. Staff had proposed a $45,000 C.I.P. project to retain a consultant to study existing parking demand versus supply and make a recommendation of the best location to purchase property toward an eventual third parking structure. The Council felt that staff should study where to locate a third free-standing structure rather than a consultant. The Council took additional action that day by expressing their concerns that the parking and alternative transportation study called for by the Circulation Element was not warranted. The funding for the project was dropped and staff was to determine the appropriate third site. The Council initiated an amendment to the Circulation Element to delete Program 12.7 that required the preparation of the parking and alternative transportation study (Exhibit D). November, 1995. The City Council held a study session with members of the BIA regarding downtown parking needs (Exhibit D). The Council: ❑ Heard public comment about the need to move quickly to expand the downtown parking supply (i.e., expand Marsh Street Structure) and to consider alternative transportation options. ❑ Voted to move forward with all possible speed on the expansion of the Marsh Street Structure (including hiring a project manager) and to purchase the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot as the third site for a future parking structure. This action, in effect, superseded previous direction to Staff to study and determine the best site for a future third parking structure. ❑ Directed staff to work with BIA representatives to develop the scope of work for a possible study of altemative forms of transportation as they relate to parking structure expansion and construction. January, 1996. At its January 16th meeting, Staff returned to the City Council for authorization to financially implement the Council's direction of November, and report on progress the BIA had made in discussions with advocates of alternative forms of transportation. Staff requested 1-3 11101111lll�p�l��ui� l► crty of San WrS OBISpo NMI is COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 4 additional appropriations of $714,500 to expedite the Marsh Street Structure expansion and recommended a more formalized dialogue between the BIA and alternative transportation advocates be undertaken to establish the scope of work for the "possibi " study Council had directed in November. After considerable public comment and discussion, (Exhibit D) the Council: ❑ Approved $45,000 to hire property negotiator, conduct appraisals, prepare preliminary designs, and to update the EIR for expanding the Marsh Street Structure. Did not approve funding for the project manager, design of plans and specifications or construction. ❑ Directed staff to work with an ad hoc committee of BIA and alternative transportation representatives to develop the scope, schedule, and funding amount for the parking and alternative transportation study and return to Council within 60 days with a recommendation. ❑ Directed staff to hire a facilitator to conduct the workshops with the ad hoc committee. ❑ Directed staff to schedule an April meeting to review the progress of the Mar.`, Street Structure expansion project, consider the ad hoc committee's recommendations for proceeding with the parking and alternative transportation study, and consider the Planning Commissions recommendation for amending the Circulation Element. The following presents background information and analysis for each of the three public hearing items. IL GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT DISCUSSION 1. Planning Commission Repoit At its February 28, 1996 meeting,the Planning Commission considered the Council-initiated amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element to delete Program 12.7. From the Circulation Element Program 12.7 reads as follows: Additional parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study (that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completed and its results considered. The Commission heard public comment on the matter and had an extensive discussion regarding the proposed change. The Commission considered policy alternatives that were presented in their Staff Report which are summarized in the following section of this Agenda Report. �- y ���► i ►�I�If��l�u�ugl�ll City Of sun CAIS OBISPO =.Offiffims COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 5 A motion was made to NOT delete the parking study requirement from the Circulation Element. The motion failed on a 3-3 vote, with one Commissioner absent. After continued discussion of the need to address both sides of the issue (expanded parking and alternate transportation options), a second motion was introduced. The second motion read: Prior to preparation of the conceptual, schematic and final architectural plans and specifications, the initiation of the CEOA compliance process, and the award of a construction contract associated with the consinuction of the first new downtown free- standing public parking structure after 1995. the City shall complete and consider the results of a comprehensive parking study that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities. Prior to preparation of conceptual, schematic and final architectural plans and specifications, the initiation of the CEOA compliance process, and the award of a construction contract associated with the construction of any new downtown free-standing public parking structure in addition to the first one after 1995, the City shall update and consider the results of the comprehensive parking study. This motion also failed by a 3-3 vote. The intent of the second motion was two fold: first, to exempt expansion of the Marsh Street Structure while mandating the need for the study prior to a third free standing structure; and second, to assure that the study is periodically updated and available for review prior to construction of a fourth free standing parking structure. As a result of the two split votes, there was no further discussion and the matter was referred to City Council without a Commission recommendation. 2. Policy Altematives. It is clear from the public debate and the Planning Commission's discussion that a key issue is the relationship between approving new structured parking projects and consideration of a study that identifies ways of reducing parking demand. Therefore, Staff has described alternative program statements that clarify this relationship. The earlier Council- initiated amendment is also presented for comparison. (a) Amend Program 12.7 to provide for no structured parking expansion until the study is complete: The City shall complete and consider the results of a comprehensive parking study that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities prior to authorizing the appraisal of real property, offers to buy real property, entering into a contract of sale for real property, preparation of conceptual, schematic and final architectural plans and specifications, the initiation of the CEOA compliance, and award of a construction contract associated with the expansion of existing downtown public parking structures or the construction of new free-standing public parking structures. [ Underlined emphasis added.] �'J ��im�►�NI���I �I�Hu�I��� MY Of San LUES OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 6 Impact on Paridng projects: This alternative would preclude any City action to expand any existing parking structure or purchase the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot as a third parking st= -ture site until a parking needs and alternative transportation study is completed 1 considered. (b) Amend Program 12.7 to allow for the expansion of an existing parking structure before a study is c- -ipleted. A program statement that achieves this objective would look like the following: The City shall complete and consider the results of a comprehensive parking study that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities, exempting the expansion of existing parking structures, prior to the initiation of any further steps leading to the constriction of neiv doivntoivn free-standing public parking structures. Impact on paridng projects: This alternative would allow the existing Marsh/Chorro or Palm Street garages to be expanded without considering the parking study. However, the City could not proceed with the acquisition of the Wells fargo Bank parking lot (FY 1997-98) as a third parking structure site until the study was completed and considered. (c) Amend Program 12.7 to allow for the expansion of existing Marsh/Chorro or the Palm Street parking structures and acquisition of Wells Fargo site before a study is considered. A program statement that achieves this objective would look like the following: The City shall complete and consider the results of a comprehensive parking study that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities, exempting the expansion of existing parking structures and the purchase of the Wells Fazrgo parking lot, prior to the initiation of any further steps leading to the construction of nein downtown free-standing public parking structures. Impact on parking projects: This alternative would allow the expansion of the existing Marsh/Chorro and/or the Palm Street garages and the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot to be purchased as a third parking garage site. However, before any commitment is made to design or construct any new parking garage, the parking study would have to be completed and considered. (d) Retain program 12.7 and interpret it to allow some additional structured parking. The first line of Program 12.7 states that "Additional parking structures should only be built... [italics added]" The Council could retain Program 12.7 but determine, as part of /-b �u�����l�ll�pp��u►I���11 City Of San LaIS OBISpO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 7 the Public Hearing, that it does not preclude the expansion of existing structures and only applies to the construction of any subsequent parking garage. Impact on parldng projects: This interpretation would allow the Council to proceed with the expansion of the Marsh/Chorro and/or Palm Street parking garages and the purchase of the Wells Fargo site. However, any subsequent parking garage could not be built until a comprehensive study of both need and demand management was completed and considered. The impacts of this alternative are the same as Alternative 2(c). While it would be possible for the Council to make this interpretation, the staffs experience working with the Committee would strongly indicate that there would be some who would strongly disagree with this interpretation, and having a constituency in disagreement with this interpretation would greatly complicate the implementation task of the staff and ultimately slow down the project. (e) Retain Program 12.7 and interpret it to preclude additional structured parking until after a parking study is considered The Council could retain Program 12.7 and determine, as part of the Public Hearing, that the parking study must be completed and considered prior to taking any action to expand existing parking structures or build new free-standing structures. Again, if this interpretation is given, there will probably be those who will disagree with this interpretation. Impact on parking projects: This alternative would preclude any City action to expand the Marsh/Chorro or Palm Street parking structures or purchase the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot for a possible future parking structure until a parking needs study is completed and considered. The impacts of this alternative are the same as Alternative #1. (f) Delete Program 12.7 (The Council-Initiated Action) Impact on parking projects: Existing and future potential parking projects could proceed, consistent with policies and programs in the Parking Management Plan. The Circulation Element would not establish a relationship between parking projects and the study of parking demand and alternative transportation options. This alternative does not preclude the City Council from proceeding with and funding the parking and demand management study currently under consideration. Nor would this option mandate or preclude future studies. Eliminating Program 12.7 makes all such studies optional and the consideration of those studies (once completed) optional as well. Program 12.7 currently suggests the /— Z '114►1IIIIIfI 10NI$ city Of San Luis OBISPO llii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 8 need for the study and mandates that if a study is pursued the results of the study be considered by the City Council prior to building any future parking structures. Should Council wish to amend its former direction to delete Program 12.7, staff would recommend that option 2(c) is most in line with all other Council directions to date. 3. Environmental Status and Alternatives. (a) Environmental Status. The Community Development Director has determined that the deletion of Program 12.7 from the Circulation Element is not a project as defined the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Guidelines Section 15378(a)). Theret. no evaluation of the environmental consequences of deleting Program 12.7 is required. Likewise, the Community Development Director has determined that amending Program 12.7 to exempt expansion of existing parking structures is not a project. He has determined that the actual expansion is a project and will need environmental review. This determination of Program 12.7 is subject to review by the Council as part of Council's consideration of the amendment. This issue was discussed in depth at the Planning Commission hearing. While the Commissioners did not make a separate motion on the question of the amendment being a CEQA project, it was ,-.-parent from the comments that a majority of Commissioners present agreed that it was not. that hearing, planning and legal staff emphasized several points which are important to keep in mind: Program 12.7 does not call for more downtown parking, nor does it restrict the amount of additional dov itown parking. It does not set up a conditional situation (i.e. "do this if that") if the study reveals that a certain thing is true, nor mandate the City undertake a particular action. The desirability of keeping Program 12.7 is a separate issue from the question of whether deleting it is a project pursuant to CEQA. The City can conclude that deletion is not a CEQA project, and still decide to keep the program (though it is not necessary to make a CEQA determination to leave the program in the Circulation Element). Deciding that the program deletion is not a CEQA project i^ no way binds the City to any other actions concerning provision of more downtown parking, or CEQA determinations for those actions. Any policy or program change concerning the actual provision of parking, and of course any decision to enlarge or construct a parking facility, is a CEQA project for which an environmental determination is required. An environmental determination will be needed for expansion of either parking structure or building an additional structure. If potentially significant impacts of an expansion cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the ������► ►�IIIIIIIIII���u'����II crty of San Luis OBISpo = COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 9 City must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR); the EIR must consider altematives that would achieve the project's objectives, but with less environmental harm. The key words in the sections of CEQA and the Guidelines cited by staff and concerned citizens are "physical change to the environment". Deleting the requirement for a study has no physical impact, direct or indirect. The City can decide to proceed with the parking structure expansion, or not, regardless of whether the study is called for, whether it has been done, or what it says. The potential physical changes which concerned citizens have identified follow from the provision of additional parking, not from deletion of a suggestion for a study. All else being equal, Program 12.7's requirements for a study may affect the timing of parking structure expansion or construction by a matter of months. Program 12.7 is not a CEQA mitigation measure for a previously identified impact. The court cases cited in previous testimony and correspondence concerned general plan amendments involving changes to land use designations. The issue in those cases was how soon CEQA review must be completed if the development potential of an area is being changed, when an actual development proposal has not been made. It is not clear that those who were asked for opinions on the CEQA status of this proposed amendment were aware of what this proposed amendment actually is. The reference to general plan amendments was added to CEQA Section 15378 after courts had ruled that general plan amendments involving land use changes are CEQA projects. (b) Environmental Alternatives. If the Council decides that the proposed amendment, or one of the alternate amendments, is a CEOA proiect, action on that amendment must be delayed until a CEQA determination is made. The determination could then take one of the following four forms: 1) Statutory Exemption: Feasibility and Planning Studies(Guidelines Section 15262). A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which (the City)has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. Council could make this determination now. Staff believes this would be the appropriate CEQA determination for a study of the type called for by Program 12.7. 2) Categorical Exemption: Information Collection (Guidelines Sections 15300 and 15306). The (State) Secretary for Resources has found that the following classes of projects do /-9 ''�� �►�I�IIfl�p�������I city of San Luis OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 10 not have a significant effect on the environment, and they are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents... Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities ti11ich do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource... Council could make this determination now. Staff believes this would be the appropriate CEQA determination for information collection involving, for example, interviews in connection with the study mentioned under#1 immediately above, or the traffic or parking consequences revealed by a temporary street closure. 3) Negative Declaration (with or without mitigations based on an initial study which has been available for public comment for at least 20 days. Council would refer the item to staff for completion of the initial study and publication of the public notice. The item would then return to Council, when the conclusions of the initial study would be considered and affirmed or modified by Council. 4) Environmental Impact Report: Council direction on topics to be addressed regarding the deletion of a "study" from the Circulation Element would be helpful. Council would refer the item to staff for preparation of a work scope and any necessary budget amendment, and public notices concerning pending EIR preparation. The work scope (and any necessary consultant service contract) would then return to Council for authorization to proceed. Once a draft EIR is done, it and public comments and responses would be presented to the Council, as a final EIR, for certification and CEQA findings before acting on the Circulation Element amendment. 4. Concurrences. The Community Development Department concurs with the staff recommendation and notes that the Downtown Housing Study commissioned by the Housing Authority concluded that a lack of parking in the downtown is an impediment to expanding residential uses there. 5. Fiscal impact There .be no direct fiscal impact of amending Program 12.7 from the Circulation Element. It is ...iowledged that the Downtown area provides the City with a substantial portion of its revcaues (sales tax, property tax etc.) and that there is a demonstrated relationship between the health and vitality of the downtown and the provision of adequate parking to meet customer demand. 6. Conclusions and Recommended Action. Staff believes that it is the wish of the Council that the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure and the acquisition of the Wells fargo lot and the completion and the consideration of a Downlo►vn Parking and Access Plena can and '���ibN�IVIIIIIU��IiIIIBIII MY Of San iui S OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 11 should proceed on parallel tracks. This strategy can satisfy the concerns of the BIA and some of the alternate transportation advocates. With Council support for these two activities, staff recommends that Program 12.7 be modified as suggested in alternative 2(c) above. III. MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE EXPANSION UPDATE DISCUSSION 1. Background. At its January 16th meeting, the City Council did not appropriate the full $714,000 as requested by Staff for proceeding with the Marsh Street Structure expansion. The Council appropriated $45,000 to begin very preliminary work on this project and directed staff to return with additional information and recommendations. 2. Progress Report To date, only the appraisals of the properties for expanding the Marsh Street Structure and the purchase of the Wells Fargo site have been completed as a prelude to the actual purchase. As all appraisal information is confidential, staff will brief the City Council in Closed Session on April 16, 1996 on the appraisal results. Should the Council decide at tonight's meeting to not pursue the Garage expansion project, the Closed Session briefing will not be necessary. No action has taken place to retain or pursue the remaining elements of Council direction of January 16th (i.e., retention of a property negotiation firm; retention of a firm to develop a concept plan; and retention of a firm to prepare environmental documents) pending the decision making at the April 2nd meeting. In preliminary discussion with a property negotiation firm, a key issue was the credibility of representing a buyer (City) only committed to a concept plan and environmental documents. In order to give our negotiations sufficient clarity, the Council should either authorize sufficient funds to allow purchase of the sites or await completion of Concept plans and environmental documents on the two sites prior to authorizing funding and then negotiations. Depending upon Council action on modifying the Circulation Element, work towards expansion of the Parking Garage will either continue or cease. Woilk yet to be done: At its January 16, 1996 meeting the Council did not authorize funding for: a) a project manager to expedite the project; b) funding for preparation of plans and specifications; c) funding to purchase two pieces of property. Maintaining the project on a "fast track" basis was an emphasis of the November 1995 meeting 'i°"°��►��II���° ►�IIII city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 12 and was, in fact, required by Council action of that meeting. However, Council did not fund that task as its January 16th meeting. As noted in the staff report (1-16-96 Exhibit E), a project manager would be helpful in keeping the project on track and the various consultants "on task" as was recommended. Assuming the Council determines via its decision on the Circulation Element amendment to continue past direction to maintain both the study and garage expansion on a parallel track, the Council will need to take a clear stand on its desires for a project manager. With a project manager the project will proceed faster and conversely without one it will proceed slower. If the goal is to proceed quickly (November 1995), the staff recommendation is to fully fund this position as requested by staff in January 1996. Staff has identified a consultant who specializes in public works projects and is willing to work on a time and materials basis as work as project manager. No formal contracts or agreements have been executed. 3. Environmental Review. Money has been appropriated from prior Council action ($5,000 from 1-16-96 meeting) to consider the update of the previous environmental impact report from the original construction project. If these preliminary findings warrant an expanded impact and traffic circulation report, then staff will return to Council for additional monies. 4. Fiscal Impacts. Staff is recommending that $450,000 be appropriated to support the required land acquisitions; $40,000 be appropriated to support Final Architectural Designs; and $225,000 for preparation of plans and specifications and $5,000 for Project Manager. All of these appropriations are recommended to be made from the Parking Fund. 5. Recommended Action. If the City Council intends that the Marsh/Chorro expansions and the purchase of the Wells Fargc t proceed as rapidly as possible, then the City Council should direct staff to proceed with all previous actions necessary to implement these two objectives. IV. DOWNTOWN PAREING AND ACCESS STUDY DISCUSSION 1. Background.At its January 16, 1996 meeting, the City Council directed staff to work with the BIA and alternative transportation advocates to develop the scope, schedule, and funding amount for a comprehensive parking study and return to Council within 60 days with a recommendation. Council also authorized staff to hire a professional facilitator to conduct the work scope.workshops in a focused and productive manner. �����►�►I�IIIIIII�Iil��`I city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 13 2. Is there a Parting Problem? The Marsh/Chorro garage continues to exceed industry standards for operation capacity on a regular basis. For the calendar year 1995,the Marsh garage averaged 87% occupancy, with the average daily usage exceeding 1300 vehicles, and at times, beyond 1600 cars per day (Exhibit F). Given the fact that the garage has only 252 spaces, this turnover ratio of 5 to 6 times per day is very high. The completion of the Downtown Center and its subsequent draw from other businesses has had a dramatic effect on the operating capacity of the Marsh/Chorro garage and is reflected in the current parking deficiency that exists in the downtown. How best to address the problem: a) fix an immediate need by expanding the Marsh/Chorro garage to reduce the parking deficiency in the downtown. b) identify long range problems and create options/solutions to preclude future excessive parking deficiency through a comprehensive parking demand and alternative transportation study 3. Preparing the Workscope. Staff hired Donald Maruska from Novaquest to facilitate the workshops. Mr. Maruska has extensive experience in this field with outstanding credentials and was favorably received by all workshop participants. Members of the ad hoc committee were selected from recommendations made by the business community and the alternative transportation advocates (Exhibit G). Both participant groups were well represented at the two half-day workshops which were held on Fridays in mid-February. Thanks to Mr. Maruska's expertise, the workshops were very productive with clear cut goals outlined at the outset. Through a full participatory process, the group identified four primary focus areas that needed to be addressed in the workscope (Exhibit H). Each committee member identified key work tasks that they felt should be included in the work scope. The Committee then ranked each of these components as to their importance (see Exhibit I). With this information and direction from the Committee, the Staff prepared a preliminary scope of work which was critiqued by the Committee in mid-March. The Committee recommended additions, deletions, and changes to the organization of the draft scope of work. These changes have been incorporated into the final scope of work (Exhibit B) that Staff recommends to the City Council. 4. Staff Review of the Workscope. Staff was involved in the planning of the workscope through participation in the facilitated parking study workshops. By nature of the diverse committee membership and the dual-focus of the study (parking access/demand and alternative modes of transportation), the elements of the workscope have been crafted so there will be clearly /-/3 MY Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 14 defined goals and objectives with (measurable) results for both aspects of the study. Although the scope of the proposed study is very ambitious, a single document that covers both current and future parking access/demand and a' -native transportation program options has never been done before as a single product is a ratic .. way to proceed. This comprehensive study is envisioned to ultimately become a guide/tool for future planning decisions. It was the consensus that the workscope process and end product represents a combined effort that is "realistic" and consistent with Council direction for the two perspectives to work together to develop a common approach to the study. 5. Focus of the Recommended Study. The recommended scope of work is necessarily broad since it must address both current and future parking demand and current and future alternative transportation program options. It's important to note that this study would provide important information and would present an action plan to guide City decisions over time. The scope of work calls for the preparation of a Downtown Parking and Access Plan that would be adopted by the Council as a free-standing document or incorporated into the existing Parking Management Plan. Key work tasks of the study would include: Inventory current parking supply and alternative transportation facilities Determine utilizations of existing parking and alternative transportation Determine existing and future downtown parking demand Evaluate current and future demand management strategies and define their effectiveness Evaluate parking costs and financing of future sites Develop parking access and circulation system models that will meet projected demand. Prepare a Downtown Access Plan that meets the goals of the Circulation Element and the Downtown Concept Plan. The intent of this study is to produce a quality document that is accurate, realistic in its recommendations, and with measurable objectives. Additionally, it must be structured so that the empirical data can be readily updated at intervals -- e.g., every 5 years -- so that implementation of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan can be monitored and adjusted overtime. The goal is to keep abreast of the changing needs for downtown and use the study as a planning tool for years to come. city of San IRIS OBISpo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 15 6. Concumnces. Ad hoc committee members agreed that the parking supply needs to be expanded and that alternative transportation is an important issue that needs to be looked at more closely. However, there was one fundamental issue that was not resolved: Should the study assume that the Marsh Street parking garage has been expanded and that the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot has become public property or, conversely. should it assume the status quo, with the possibility that the study results could be used to modify present plans to expand the Marsh/Chorro garage and purchase the Wells Fargo lot? Committee members were concerned about whether expanding the Marsh Street Structure has been committed to by the City and what would happen if the parking and access study showed that, with improved parking management and expanded alternative transportation, the garage expansion could be postponed or even eliminated. The other area of disagreement involves the question: where should the money come from to pay for the study -- should the General Fund or Parking Fund or a combination of these funds pay for the study? The Committee felt that the study's cost should be shared by both funds, but there was strong advocates on both side of the question. Up to this point there has been a strong philosophy adhered to by the Business Improvement Association and by the City that the Parking Fund is only to be used for increasing parking supply and maintaining and operating the parking system. While this recommendation is a modification of that philosophy, it recognizes that the parking supply and demand and alternative transportation services go beyond the Downtown, and in fact, represents an interrelationship between the downtown and the balance of the community. 7. Fiscal Impacts. Based on preliminary feedback from consultants who perform studies of this nature, the cost of the study could range from $75,000 to $100,000. The Staffs request for $96,000 represents an average figure with a contingency factor for unanticipated costs. We agree with the Committee's recommendation that the cost of the study should be shared equally between the Parking Fund and the General Fund. S. Alternatives. The City Council may: (a) Reduce, expand or amend the scope of wo& The Council should specifically identify any changes to the scope of work. (b) Decide that the study is not needed. Not conducting the study would be inconsistent with direction provided by the Council at both the November 95 and January 96 meetings. (c) Assign more of the Study's work. tasks to City Staff. Based on discussions with consultants, one way to reduce the overall cost is for the City to collect most of the data -/S city of San WIS OBISpo A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page 16 that pertains to inventories and utilizations. This strategy could reduce Consultant costs by 20-25%. However, there still would be additional labor costs associated with the City hiring temporary personnel to canvass the study area and compile the data. The net savings would probably be more in the 12-18% range depending on manpower requirements. Although there would be cost savings, this approach also loses some continuity by having different groups perform various tasks involving data collection, compilation and analysis. It also will require additional City Staff time to coordinate and compile the data which could postpone other priority projects. (d) Decide that the Paddng Fund or General Fund should pay for the entire cost of the study. The Parking Fund has sufficient money to do this, but the Parking Fund has not previously been used for any purpose other than parking supply and operations. The General Fund, as discussed at the mid-year budget review, has an impending shortage if present trends are projected. In addition, it is also true that the study has a relationship to downtown parking supply requirements at a level that justifies a 50%contribution from the Parking Fund. 9. Recommended Action. The City Council should approve the Scope of Work (Exhibit B) and authorize the distribution of Request for Proposals (RFPs) for a Downtown Parking and Access Study. Furthermore, the Council should appropriate $48,000 from the Parking Fund and $48,000 from the General Fund to pay for the study and authorize the CAO to award a contract to the most responsible proposer within the cost estimate. ATTACHMENT'S Exhibit A -- Resolution amending the Circulation Element Exhibit B -- Draft parking study rfp Exhibit C -- Minutes of 2-28-96 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit D -- Key transcription and minutes from 5-23-95, 11-7-95, 1-4-96, and 1-16-96 Council meetings Exhibit E -- Council Agenda Report of 1/16/96 Exhibit F -- Parking garage usage figures Exhibit G -- Ad hoc parking study work scope committee membership Exhibit H -- Parking study discussion summary Exhibit I -- Ranking of study elements to be addressed in rfp RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDING PROGRAM 12.7 OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT BE rr RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the General Plan amendment request, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommendations and report thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The amendment to the Circulation Element amending Program 12.7 is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The General Plan amendment is hereby determined not to be a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)) for the following reasons: a) The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15378(a)) define a project as the whole of an action which has the potential to result in a physical change in the environment. b) Amending the Circulation Element will neither call for more downtown parking or restrict additional parking, and therefore results in no physical changes in the environment. c) Amending the Circulation Element creates no entitlement nor creates any irreversible momentum that leads to future actions which have identifiable physical impacts on the environment. d) CEQA case law indicates that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process where flexibility in the project remains to enable environmental considerations to influence the project concept and design yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. Subsequent City actions regarding parking facilities will likely involve environmental effects, however the subject amendment is related so distantly that it neither requires, prohibits, nor creates irreversible momentum leading to the subsequent actions. CEQA review of subsequent actions leading to construction of expanded or additional parking facilities will provide opportunities to modify a project concept or design to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. e) Review of subsequent actions involving downtown parking facilities with reasonably certain ultimate affects on the physical environment will provide opportunities to evaluate meaningful information for environmental assessment. EXHIBIT A 17 SECTION 2. Approval. The following General Plan Circulation Element amendment is hereby approved: Program 12.7 7• rrio /ii rii/ariiii ii/r r HIM= On motion of and seconded by, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this , day of 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: #A+L SCOPE OF WORK DOWNTOWN ACCESS AND PARKING STUDY 1. Review Existing Literature: Review previously prepared reports that address downtown parking and circulation issues including but notlimited to the Wilbur Smith Report (1980), IBI Parking Sites Study (1986), Circulation Study (1988):Phase I Report(DKS Associates, 1988), Goals for Down sown(1978), San Luis Obispo Downtown Housing Study (December, 1995), A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center(1994),Parking Management Plan (December, 1995), the Downtown TMA Study (Strong, 1993), and the General Plan Circulation Element (November, 1994). Review the public record concerning the preparation of this work scope and the interaction between BIA members and alternative transportation advocates relative to the parking program. Copies of these reports and other studies/surveys and written materials relevant to the scope of the study will be made available by County and City staff. 2. Inventory Parking Supply: Prepare an inventory of all parking spaces within the Geographical Area bounded by Buchon Street and Freeway (US 101) and Johnson and Carmel Streets (see map) using maps and tables, including parking reserved for delivery vehicles. The inventory should include both public and private parking spaces and those reserved by government agencies. The consultant will work with the Parking Manager to establish the appropriate format for presenting this data (e.g., one that allows for easy inventory maintenance). Identify residential and office areas surrounding the BIA where curb parking is currently used by patrons and employees of the commercial core and government center. Inventory public parking spaces within this area and produce appropriate maps and tables. Survey the attitudes of residents in the impact area concerning the continued use of curb parking by downtown patrons/employees and identify areas where this parking behavior is considered a problem. 3. Inventory sting Alternative Transportation Existing Facilities: including the location of all bicycle parking, transit stops, trolley stops, and any parking areas reserved for carpools or vanpools and shuttles. 4. Determine Utilization of Existing Parking and Alternative Transportation: Within the geographical area during weekdays and weekends: A. Determine the turnover of parking, length of stay, and time of occupancy, and utilization (percentage of capacity) of all public parking and privately-owned parking lots that are open to the public. B. Determine the length of stay and time of occupancy of all curb parking areas reserved for delivery vehicles. C. Survey the origin of users for metered and unmetered spaces and parking within structures and privately-owned parking lots open to the public, vehicle occupancy, and establish the purpose of the trip. 1 EXHIBIT B �/q D. Survey BIA employees (by type of employer) and government center employees to determine choice of transportation modes for home-work trips, the origin of the trip, vehicle occupancy, and the location of preferred parking. E. Survey the use of bicycle parking facilities and prepare an estimate of the current level of bicycle access to the downtown. Survey pedestrian traffic in the downtown and determine mode of access to the BIA. F. Work with the City Transit Manger, Regional Transit Manager and County Rideshare Coordinator to determine the number of transit users that have a downtown origin or destination. Note: the Transit Manager will be conducting an origin-destination survey of the SLO Transit system which should produce this information. G. Work with the Director of Ride-On Transportation and the County Ridesharing Coordinator to determine the number of TMA system and ridesharing match users that have a downtown origin or destination. Note: the Director and Coordinator will provide ridership information to the Consultant and review plans forfuture enhancements to TMA services and ridesharing programs. Within the geographical area surrounding the BIA district: H. Determine the turnover of curb parking, length of stay, and time of occupancy for all curb parking. I. Survey the origins of users of curb parking and the purpose of the trip. Based on this completion of preceding work, develop a downtown access and parking utilization profile that, as a minimum, defines the origins and destinations of downtown trips by transportation mode, downtown parking utilization patterns (turnover, length of stay, etc.), seasonal fluctuations in parking utilization, peoples perceptions concerning the availability and convenience of existing parking and the need for more parking, 5. Determine Existing Downtown Access Demand: Based on the results of the previous analysis, develop separate existing access demand factors (e.g., patrons or employees per 1,000 square foot of usage) for the following: Retail and personal service patrons Retail and personal service employees Retail and private office patrons Retail and private office employees Government service patrons Government service employees Residential uses Determine the variance in demand based on the time of use of existing parking during weekend vs. weekday use. It is the City's expectations that demand factors developed as part of this task represent the average weekday and average weekend demand and necessarily peak conditions -- however, we do want to understand what the variance is. Based on existing modal choice profiles, translate access demand factors into parking space need ratios for the categories shown above. 6. Forecast Future Downtown Access Demand: Using the land use distributions and intensities shown in the Land Use Element on the A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center and working with City Community Development (Planning) staff, develop forecasts for parking spaces and alternative 2 "eV i transportation services/facilities based on current modal choice profiles for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. These horizon years should match modal choice benchmarks defined in the City's Circulation Element (Figure #1). These projections should consider the impact of future technologies (e.g., changes in car technology) that would:affect the use of private vehicles whenever possible. 7. PREPARE A FIRST PROGRESS REPORT: The work done as part of Tasks#1 through #6 should be summarized in written, tabular and graphic form in a first progress report and submitted to the City Parking Manager for review, critique, and editing before proceeding with subsequent work tasks. This interim report should be written .so that is easily understood by the pubic and should clearly present findings and conclusions. The Consultant should present these findings and conclusions to the Parking Study Steering Committee for feedback. 8. Evaluate Current and Potential Demand Management Strategies and Define Their Effectiveness: As part of the work tasks performed in Task #4 sections C and D, survey the interest and attitudes of downtown employees and patrons in using existing alternative transportation for downtown access and test the attractiveness of various TDM programs. Specifically identify which alternatives currently in use that are successful and which.ones are not, and why or why not? As part of work tasks performed in Task #4 sections C and H, determine how far existing downtown patrons and employees are willing to walk form their parked vehicle or transit stop to begin their retail shopping experience (first link of the walking trip chain). As part of the above work tasks, identify and measure the willingness of downtown patrons and employees to use alternative transportation and the effectiveness of incentives/disincentives As part of the above tasks, specifically identify new and/or improved transit, ridesharing, bicycle and pedestrian access, park-and-ride with shuttle services, light rail and trip substitution measures (e.g., home-based telecomuting for office employees) that can reduce parking.demand in the BIA while not adversely effecting the downtown patron access. Estimate the effectiveness of each measure in reducing parking demand, the target user group, the cost of the measure (initiation, maintenance and on-going management costs), potential sources of the funding, potential impacts on land use, and the ease of implementation. Cost information should be presented in a format that allows comparison with the cost of increasing parking supply =- both traditional surface parking and structured parking. 9. Evaluate Parking Opportunities and Costs: Estimate the cost of providing additional downtown parking to satisfy the deficiency of existing supply -- including the evaluation of the parking sites identified by the Conceptual Physical Plan that would be used to provide the additional parking and identify potential land use impacts. The cost of parking should include design, acquisition, construction, operations and maintenance, and debt service. Parking pricing options along with improved parking management strategies should also be included in the cost analysis. Cost information should be presented in such a format as to allow for comparison with demand management strategies. As part of this analysis or that done as part of Task 8, the Consultant should evaluate the idea of converting private parking.lots to public lots or creating parking lots outside the downtown and providing some type of shuttle service for downtown employees or patrons. The conversion to diagonal parking on key surface streets should-also be considered. 1. Evaluate the Financing of Parking Assuming that the current funding strategy of debt service, user fees and in-lieu fees are applied in the future, identify the potential for changes (elasticity) in these 3 W financing mechanisms to support future parking supplies. Identify other financing strategies that can supplement existing sources and discuss their ease of implementation. 11. Develop Access Scenarios for Consideration: Design and evaluate at least four future access scenario for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020 for consideration as follows: A. Maintain Status Quo: Identify the need for parldng and alternative transportation services and facilities based on the current access profile and demand factors described in Tasks #4 and #5. This option assumes that existing parking patterns would be maintained (e.g., parking within the surrounding impact area would continue and would be allowed to expand.) This evaluation should include costs of facilities and services, funding, implementation challenges, impacts on the downtown economy and land use, and impacts on area circulation and congestion. B. Maintain Status Ouo With No Additional Funding Sources: Same as Option A except assume that no new funding sources will be available. Evaluate the elasticity of existing funding sources for parking (fines and fees) and determine the level of parking supply that may be provided without new sources. Evaluate the elasticity of existing funding sources for transit, ridesharing and bicycle-pedestrian transportation and determine the level of services and facilities that can be provided assuming no new funding sources. This evaluation should include costs of facilities and services, funding, implementation challenges, and impacts on the downtown economy and land use, and impacts on area circulation and congestion. C. Maximize Demand Management: Identify all demand management programs applicable to downtown user groups and define residual parking demand. This options assumes that existing parking patterns would be maintained. This evaluation should include costs of facilities anc services, funding, implementation challenges, impacts on the downtown economy and land use, and impacts on area circulation and congestion. D. Concentrate Parking Within BIA: Same as A except assume that preferential parking districts will be established in surrounding residential areas that will reduce "spillover" parking supply. Accommodate half of this displaced demand via replacement parldng and half via demand management programs. For all other demand, assume status quo access demand profile. This evaluation should include costs of facilities and services, funding, implementation challenges, impacts on the downtown economy and land use, and impacts on area circulation and congestion. E. Other: Based upon review of the foregoing scenarios develop additional access plans that will meet the multi-modal split projections to the year 2020 as identified in the Circulation Element and full implementation of the Concept Physical Plan for the City's Center (1994). One objective of this task is to evaluate to what extent(partial or full) implementation of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (1994) will allow the City to provide effective access to the downtown, avoid impacts on surrounding residential areas, provide for adequate vehicle circulation, and meet the multi-modal objectives of the General Plan Circulation Element. 12. PREPARE A SECOND PROGRESS REPORT: The work done as part of Tasks #8 through #10 should be summarized in written, tabular and graphic form in a second progress report and submitted to the City for presentation to the Parking Study Steering Committee, to the public at a Town Hall Meeting, and the City Council by the consultant for input. This report should be written so that it is 4 easily understood by the pubic and should clearly present findings, conclusions, and recommendations for selecting an access strategy. (Note: The Consultant will prepare any refinements to its preliminary recommendations for presentation to the Council after receiving input from the Steering Committee and the public at the town hall meeting.) The Council will be asked to identify a preferred downtown access strategy that will guide the completion of the parking study. 13. Prepare a Draft Downtown Access and Parking Plan: Based on City Council review and direction on the second progress report, prepare a Downtown Access and Parking Plan that, at a minimum: A. Defines how the recommended strategy is consistent with goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and implementing plans. B. Includes clear goals, measurable objectives and policies that direct implementation of the Plan. C. Identifies the number of parking spaces desired, any changes in the distribution of parking supply (eg. reduction in parking in the surrounding impact area), the general timing of construction, a funding strategy that highlights changes to existing funding mechanisms and defines new funding sources, and an outline of implementation steps. D. Identifies desired demand management activities, the general timing of their implementation and implementation responsibility, a funding strategy that highlights new funding sources, and an outline of implementations steps. E. Identifies any changes that should be made to adopted City Plans (eg. A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (1994), Parking Management Plan (December, 1995), and the General Plan Circulation Element (November, 1994) that are warranted to implement the Plan. 14. Complying With Environmental Requirements: After review and approval of the draft plan by the City Parking Manager, submit the completed draft plan to the Community Development Department for environmental review and incorporate into the Plan any mitigation measures that are identified by environmental documents that evaluate the plan. The Community Development Department Staff will be responsible for preparing, or causing to be prepared, all documents necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 15. ADOPTING A DOWNTOWN ACCESS AND PARKING PLAN: Prepare a "Hearing Draft" of the Plan and submit it to the Parking Manager (in "camera ready" form) for consideration. Present the content of the Plan to the Steering Committee(one meeting) at Town Hall meetings (at least two) to the City Council at public hearings (at least two) and be available to answer questions. City staff f u ill be responsible for scheduling all hearings, meetings and preparing necessary staff f�`'reports that introduce the Plan and its development process. In addition, City and County staff will provide materials and available data pertaining to the location of public parking spaces, inventories of existing facilities (alternative transportation and parking), and previous studies and survey materials relevant to the scope of the study. parkcust 5 /-023 PARKING AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY (Timing, Budget, RFP and Selection Process) 1. Scope Work scope of study jointly developed by members of BIA, Alternative Transportation, and City staff 2. Timing a. finalize scope of study and submit proposal to City Council at the March 19 meeting but most likely the April 2, 1996 City Council meeting. b. advertise rfp by mid-April 1996 C. screen rfp's and invite finalist(s) for interview by early June 1996 d. finalize contractor by mid-June 1996 and begin study e. number of days for data gathering and summary depends on the final scope f. 45 days for final report and presentation to City Council by November 1996 (earliest) or June 1997 (latest) 3. Budget Based on the prior request for $45,000 to conduct a parking study, the recommendation would be to request at least $100,000 for the proposed study. Note: depending upon the final scope this figure will vary. 4. RFP and Selection Parameters of RFP will be finalized RFP will be reviewed by staff and one member from the BIA and Alternative Transportation group. Final selection will be based upon the following: response and understanding of the proposed work scope methodology to achieve required information qualifications and experience of contractor references and dollar amount to complete study and estimated time for final report patscope DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 14 Commissioner Senn made a motion to conn a Item#4 to a date uncertain. Commissioner Ready seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Kouraki , Cross, Whittlesey, Hoffman, and Chairman Karleskint. NOES: None The motion carried. 5. City-Wide: Amendment to the Circulation Element of the San Luis Obispo General Plan: Review of deletion of program 12.7 from the element. This program currently requires the preparation of a comprehensive parking study before the City constructs additional parking structures; city of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Due to the lateness of the hour, Commissioner Hoffman was excused from the Planning Commission Hearing at 10:10 p.m. Associate Planner Matteson and Public Works Director McCluskey presented the staff report which recommended the deletion of program 12.7 from the Circulation Element. Commissioner Cross asked staff is there is funding that was set aside for this. Director McCluskey stated at this point, the Council has only directed that the scope of the study be determined. Comrnissioner Cross asked staff if the study would be completed before any plans to build additional structures would be in place. Director McCluskey replied yes. Program 12.7 says the results must be considered before the structure is built, not before it is designed, conceptually approved, the environmental document, or the land is purchased. In terms of what funding has been provided, Council has funded appraisals of property, preliminary desgins, and an environmental update from the original parking garage. Council has provided finding for staff to hire a property negotiator to negotiate the purchase of the property. But, there has been no money allocated for actual plans, purchase, or construction. EXHIBIT C DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 15 Commissioner Kourakis asked Staff, referring to Program 12.7, is the study limited to only an evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities, or are we talking about a study that would take a look at demand and how many spaces are needed, et cetera. Director McCluskey stated "parking study" is a very generic term. The scope of the work that has been tentatively agreed to is a fairly in-depth analysis of both supply and demand for both now and in the future Commissioner Kourakis asked how far into the future. Director McCluskey stated the scope has been a ten- and a twenty-year scope. Commissioner Kourakis stated the study would be looking at supply and demand and then the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities would be in terms of how demand was effected and,therefore, the need for a parking structure or structures. Director McCluskey stated she is correct. Associate Planner Matteson stated the course of action for the Commission is to decide whether the environmental determination or information is adequate and then the action itself, which is a recommendation to the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated if the Commission decides to keep the policy in, there is no need for an environmental review. Chairman Karleskint asked if an initial study of the parking structures and alternative transportation is in place. Associate Planner Matteson stated when the Land Use Element and the Circulation Elements were updated, an EIR was prepared on the updates. The Land Use Element looked at certain amount of expected development downtown. The program that is before the Commission does not require environmental mitigation. There was environmental review of the overall amount and form of development anticipated for downtown. There was environmental review for the conceptual plan for the downtown city center which did indicate a parking demand. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pat Veesart, Chairman of the Sierra Club, stated the Sierra Club has taken a position on this issue. He was involved in the discussion and with the Environment Quality Task Force that created the language of 12.7 and made the recommendation to put it into the Circulation Element. He is not a 1-a4 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 16 member of the EQTF,but he was there when circulation was discussed. He was involved in creating this and he was also at the City Council Meeting when this was adopted. A did not go through the Planning Commission. The EQTF made the recommendation directly to the City Council. There has been a lot of discussion of what this language means. The language means that alternatives to parking structures were to be looked at before expending millions of dollars of public funds to build new parking structures. It was felt the City should look at alternatives, which includes alternative transportation, but is not limited to that. It also includes looking at existing parking inventory or ways to use existing inventory more efficiently. It was meant to be comprehensive parking study. The last time the City did a comprehensive parking study was in 1979 and is quite outdated. Since then,parking has certainly been a part of the EIR for the Circulation Element. DKS did a curculation study of the city in 1989 and parking was addressed in a cursory manner. Public and government awareness of alternative transportation and a need for alternative transportation has increased tremendously since 1979. He is a little disappointed at some of the discussions that have gone on about how, simply because they didn't get the language exactly right,they didn't have an attorney with them to craft this language, they're saying the addition is attached to old structure and it's not a new structure. That is not what was meant when this language was crafted. They are not concerned about parking structures. They are concerned about the impacts of parking structures. Whether they're stand-alone structures or attached is irrelevant. There is definitely a need to do something other than to continue accommodating private automobiles in San Luis Obispo. Mr. Veesart stated Council's direction to staff came from actions that took place in May of 1995 and November of 1995, at a budget session and a subsequent action initiated by business improvement district. These discussions did not include the public or alternative transportation people. When they became aware that these discussions were taking place, they entered into this process. He feels the staff report came before the Commission is driven by Council action that took place prior to the alternative transportation community taking place in these discussions. At this point now, Council is all but doing 12.7. Mr. Veesart stated it is the position of the Sierra Club that 12.7 is a wise policy. It belongs in the Circulation Element. The Commission should study all of the alternatives before spending millions of dollars of public funds. They should try to meet the goals and objectives in the Circulation Element. It is the Sierra Club's position that 12.7 be retained in the Circulation Element. Mr. Veesart stated he believes that Council is not looking for the Commission to simply rubber stamp their actions. He believes the Council is looking for the Commission to make a recommendation. The Council is looking for direction from the Commission. Mr. Veesart feels that this a project. The language in CEQA specifically mentions General Plan Amendments as being a project. This being in the Circulation Element is an obvious impediment to a fast moving freight train effort to build a new parking structure without studying alternatives. He w17 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 17 believes the alternative are going to show that by more efficient use of existing parking inventory and by better use of alternative transportation, we won't need to build a new parking structure. Very clearly there is a nexus between potential environmental impact or a nexus between positive environmental benefit by having this policy in the Circulation Element. Very clearly this is a project. General Plan amendments are considered projects under CEQA and should have environmental review. They feel strongly that this is a project and requires environmental review. There is nothing that's going to bring this parking garage plan to grinding halt quicker than a legal challenge. There is nothing to be gained by circumventing what appears to them to be due process. He asked the Commission to go through due process, do some environmental review on this, take a hard look at what the impacts would be if this is deleted. He asked the Commission to just not take into account the impacts on the business community, but what are the impacts on the entire community. These are public funds that are going to be spent. They feel it is wise and prudent to explore all of the alternatives before spending millions of dollars of public funds. He hopes the Commission recommends that the City Council retains Section 12.7. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Veesart if what he is saying is the City should ask for environmental review of the decision to drop a requirement for a study. Mr. Veesart stated yes. Commissioner Kourakis asked what kind of environmental document would be done on something that gives directions to not perform a study. Mr. Veesart stated it would be the same review the Commission does for any General Plan amendment. There would be the initial review to determine whether or not the actions taken would have the potential for environmental impacts. If there were impacts identified, the impacts would have to be addressed or there would be a negative declaration stated there are no impacts. This General Plan Amendment is no different than any other General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Senn stated he read Mr. Veesart's letter dated February 14. He stated he is having difficulties with their goals. He asked Mr. Veesart if they are looking for a delay and by keeping 12.7, it will force a delay. Mr. Veesart stated he is looking for compliance with the General Plan of San Luis Obispo. He was involved in putting this in there because he would like to see the City do something other than simply solve their parking problems by engaging in large capital projects. Be believes that there are ways for us to achieve exactly the same goals that the business improvement district has, without building parking structures. He stated he spent eight hours in a meeting with BIA Parking Committee and representatives from the BIA discussing the scope of the study and what the mutual goals are. They all want good business in the downtown, clean air, and improved alternatives transportation. The DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 18 only place that they differ is how to get there. He is asking that the Commission do a study to look at all the options. With all the options on the table, the Commission can pick and choose which mix of options work best to achieve what the goals are. We have defined what the goals are. The BIA traditionally has had one tool in their toolbox. He is just bringing in more tools and putting them on the table and saying try some of these. The City needs for options to achieve mutual goals. Pierre Rademaker, representing the BIA Parking Community, stated he is a supporter of the downtown. The BIA was formed many years ago primarily to provide parking. That is incentive that got the BIA started in the first place. The issue of the March St. parking garage expansion came up because of a demonstrated need downtown. He worked with Mr. Veesart and others the study session to develop the scope of the study. He hopes the needs is demonstrated to the Commission. The Downtown Center has drastically changed the chemistry downtown, which is good. There is a discouraging aspect to not being able to park downtown. They don't disagree with alternative transportation, but we also are dealing with the issue of behavior modification. To think that we can do that in the short term is unrealistic. Any project that does get built will go through an environmental process and EIR. Environmental laws will not be circumvented. As we go to build another structure,we will want to do additional studies. He feels Council's intention is to pursue the study, regardless of the action of the Commission. Commissioner Cross asked Mr. Rademaker if he feels that it isn't prudent to take a look at a study first. In the realm of economics, it may be less expensive to do something else. Mr.Rademaker stated the parking fund is pretty healthy right now. The parking fund is an enterprise fund that is designated only for parking uses. The biggest source of income is from the meters downtown for on-street parking. Commissioner Cross asked Mr. Rademaker if he concerned that if the Commission sends a recommendation to the Council to leave 12.7 in it will delay the Marsh St. expansion. Mr. Rademaker stated they think it becomes a requirement prior to proceeding on the Marsh St. expansion. If it happens concurrently, perhaps there won't be a delay. Deborah Holley, BIA Administrator, stated she has been in the seat where most of the phone calls that come in are from disgruntled business owners whose customers have left downtown unhappy with the parking situation, after having driven around and couldn't find a parking space. This is seen as problematic for their mission. Ms. Holley stated after considerable discussion, the BIA supports the removal of 12.7. It doesn't appear that this provision of the Circulation Element provides any flex for the present situation_ The the scope of the downtown center situation is much greater than was unexpected. The parking structure become full very early in the day. It is at more than a 90% capacity at peak periods. She stated the City Council study session on November 7 was open to the DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 19 public. The direction given to staff to amend the element. She reads the minutes of the meeting. There is a great need to expand the parking structure. She stated they are not fully supportive of alternative transportation measures being incorporated immediately. There needs to be some time for behavior modifications. Some cannot change their behavior, such as tourists, mothers with children, or elderly people. We need to address their needs as well. On a project by project basis, an EIR and CEQA processes are already in place, negating the need for 12.7. There needs to be a balance if economic and the environment, and not ignore the fact that one will benefit the other. We need to offer people access, especially to the public downtown. 12.7 does not address the very real needs of very real people who come downtown during the day. We are also looking at people who come downtown to shop at night, employees, and the downtown has turned into the cultural entertainment and dining center. She encouraged the Commission to adopt the recommendation of City staff and help this move forward and help them solve this problem. Customers who can't find a place to park are making complaints and the business community is coming to the BIA looking for solutions to the problem. This is just not one person or an isolated incident. This happens over and over and that's really critical to the BIA. Commissioner Cross stated there are outlining areas that are very under utilized. For example, some people say they couldn't find a place to park, but they might have been able to park a block away. Commissioner Cross asked Ms. Holley when the BIA and alternative transportation people met and what was the scope being discussed. Ms. Holley stated they had two four-hour meetings. They came up with huge list of things they would like to see. A lot of options were looking at cars or alternatives in transportation. Larry Allen, representing the Air Pollution Control District, stated the Clean Air Plan was recently updated and was first adopted by the board in 1992. We currently exceed State standards. About 400/o-500/o of the emissions that are responsible for those exceedants are the result of motor vehicles. In recognition of that, the California Clean Air Act put certain requirements on all Air Pollution Control Districts that require that they try to implement all reasonably available transportation control measures. There are goals that are set in the law that look at trying to make a substantial reduction in the rate of increase of motor vehicle travel, which has been increasing in the State of California and throughout the nation at about at rate twice the rate of population growth. A fairly significant portion of the Clean Air Plan is devoted to looking at ways to reduce trips and the vehicle miles traveled throughout the County. The City of San Luis Obispo has worked long and hard in trying to support those goals. The City has adopted very commendable and progressive Land Use Elements and Circulation Elements that support the goals of reducing trips into the City. The Circulation Element is an excellent document and it is designed to serve the transportation needs for the City well into the future. In the Circulation Element,the existing and future circulation system that's projected for the City is based on the expectation that vehicle trips into the City are going to be reduced / -30 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 20 through the support of alternative transportation. That was a conscious decision that was made by all of those who worked on it and ultimately adopted it, in order to try to retain the character of the community by working to improve access to the downtown and other areas without significantly expanding circulation system. There was a conscious recognition there on the need to enhance all modes of transportation, and not just movement by automobiles. Program 12.7 was the direct result of this philosophy. It recognizes the direct link between parking, traffic, and congestion. Any change to either one of the elements will effect the other. There are many studies that show that parking availability and pricing are the primary determinants of the mode of travel. The availability of inexpensive and convenient parking will definitely promote access by passenger private vehicles. Program 12.7 recognizes this and is the reason why a study of reasonable alternatives was recommended prior to building more parking. A significant expansion of parking downtown will bring more vehicles downtown. Eliminating Program 12.7 will cause greater problems than it will solve in the short term. Public controversy surrounding this action itself is addressed by CEQA. CEQA says that any project that has significant public controversy must be evaluated. Mr. Allen stated he has been sitting in on the meetings with the BIA and with alternative transportation advocates. Everybody has the main goal, which is to bring more people to downtown. Mr. Allen gave the Commission and staff a letter from Tom Folks. Mr. Allen stated the main concept that Tom has put together is looking at a way to free up over 100 spaces of existing parking that is actually owned by the City, that is currently under utilized. It could be better converted to metered spaces for the public. Mr. Allen stated there is another solution, and that is one that the Air Pollution Control District is working on with a number of transportation management agencies. They are working together cooperatively in order to work with employers on mechanisms to reduce commute trips to places of business. A large focus of commuting is to downtown San Luis Obispo in particular. Mr. Allen stated they are in the process of scoping a study right now that looks at long-term parking needs for downtown and solutions. The study will answer a lot of questions that need answering before new facilities are built. This study will be completed before additional parking could be built downtown. He recommends the Commission should stick with the Circulation Element and don't amend it. There is no need to amend it. It is a good element and it is progressive. The decision before the Commission is premature and unwarranted. Commissioner Ready asked if 12.7 is not in the Circulation Element and the City decided to proceed with building additions to the parking structure that exists on Marsh St., would that action require an EIR that would bring into such considerations as air pollution control? Does the air pollution V DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 21 control district have some input, and are matters such as alternative transportation considered in the EIR as well? Mr. Allen replied yes. Commissioner Ready asked Mr. Allen, when looking at 12.7, isn't it the creation of a two-tiered process that accomplishes the same thing at the tax payers' expense. Mr. Allen stated he doesn't believe so. The issues that would be analyzed in an EIR would not even come close to looking at the long-tern parking needs of the City. It would look at specific impacts of building the structure. The study that is called for in the Circulation Element requires looking at all of the alteratives to building that parking. The study that is being scoped right now would look at the real needs for parking downtown now and in the future. The study may well say that Marsh St. needs to be expanded,in which case, the City will go ahead and do that, with the full knowledge that the issue has been looked at significantly. Right now the Commission is being asked to build a parking structure based on opinions of the downtown business association without the real knowledge ofwhat level of parking is needed now and in the future and what alternatives there are. By expanding parking downtown, it's telling people we want them to drive downtown. Traffic and congestion will be increased downtown and in areas surrounding downtown. Commissioner Senn stated a philosophic decision has to be made. The business community is saying there is a shortage of parking. He asked Mr. Allen if the studies seem to indicate that people will come downtown if there is available parking and if it's priced right. Mr. Allen stated people will drive downtown if there is inexpensive, available parking. People will come downtown by another means if it is more convenient than driving downtown. John Lynn, business owner in San Luis, stated he can see multiple needs on the issue before the Commission, all demanding attention and resources. We, as a society, need to do more to reduce air pollution and it will require sacrifices from all of us. We are all capable of being part of the solutions. In a sparsely populated County, we realize that San Luis is a center for the whole County. We need to cut down vehicular trips where possible, but we also need to have enough of those vehicular trips to maintain job retention and job creation, as well as public transportation. Regardless of newspaper articles and radio tak to the contrary, our City's business community is not cutting a fat hog. There is the assumption that if anybody is in business, they're making a lot of money. There are a whole lot ofbusinesses downtown that are hanging by a thread. There are empty businesses in the downtown as well. The high cost of doing business and the weakness of our economy and the loss of business of areas outside the downtown core threaten the stability and the health of a really beautiful city. He must and does listen to his customers and he hears one message all the time, and that has to do with the lack of parking. People want and need to do business downtown, but many of them, whenever 3a- DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 22 possible, avoid coming to San Luis Obispo because of the parking problems. People have to drive around and around looking for parking places. People are not using the trolleys because they are not finding it convenient enough. Convenience is a critical issue here. The average person has one big issue in front of them all the time, and that's time. Time is a critical issue. Parking in an outside of town parking lot and bring people bussed into the City, at this point in time, is not a realistic solution for right now. We must make every effort to find alternatives, but for right now, we need the addition to the Marsh St. structure. Eugene Judd, Transportation Planner and teacher at Cal Poly, stated we are making great progress and is impressed by the way we really attack the problems here. He feels there should not be the deletion of 12.7. We need this element and we need a study before we put anymore money into designing a parking garage. Mr. Judd stated there are towns all over the world that envy us for our so-called parking crisis. He stated he agrees with Mr. Lee regarding short-term parking. He has 70 transportation engineering students who will take on-the-street interviews. They will ask approximately 300 people transportation related questions. Mr. Judd stated his opinion of the parking structure cost will be 6-10 million dollars. The income we have normally just covers the operation of the garages. Mr. Judd stated there was mention that the study would be very expensive. The study will cost less than five parking spaces. Mr. Judd stated he would like to make a few suggestions as a traffic engineer, and presented an overhead demonstration to the Commission. He stated when we look at the whole problem, we don't even know how the whole thing should function and where the accesses should be in 20 years. We should be thinking in the long-term. The problem we have today is conflicts with pedestrians. There are unprotected left turns. He stated there is another conflict with pedestrians and cars at entrances of parking garages. If we build a new parking garage, we should be thinking about accessing and exiting the whole thing from Pacific because there will be a better situation for pedestrians. The function of all streets must be rethought. In order to design this, we should know what the function of what most streets downtown will be. We need a study first. We shouldn't think of this garage before we have a study. If this whole complex functions, we will probably have six times more entrances and exits by car because we will have more short-term parking. Short-term parking spaces produce more trips per day than long-term parking. We need a study first. Mr. Judd displayed a map of the Downtown Concept Plan to the Commission. He stated visitors leave this town because of the lack of parking spaces. He suggested installing electronic signs on freeways and main arteries which let the public know when the parking structure is full or gives /-33 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 23 another direction. Mr. Judd presented his plan on the overhead to the Commission. He stated we need neighborhood parking zones, but we have to allow two-hour, short-term free parking. If we implement a park and ride program with lots at the city limit, we can push out 50% of the commuters. Mr. Judd stated there is a new booklet out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers about shared parking. With shared parking, during the daytime use the spaces are for commercial use and during the night the spaces are used by the residents. Mr. Judd stated we have a Circulation Element which sets goals. This is the transportation constitution that the City Council to all the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly will soon have a new another parking garage with 1,000 new spaces. The City should have objected to this, according to the Circulation Element. He asked the Commission not to delete 12.7. Lou Skoggins stated he came to San Luis Obispo in 1952. Parking meters haven't always been in the city and when they were installed the people didn't want them. Right now the parking structures are full which shows there is a need for expansion. He feels this city has been studied to death. More money is spent studying things that actually doing it. He feels 12.7 should be deleted so the downtown parking will be enhanced and downtown businesses will be more accessible. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Senn asked staff to address this from a legal standpoint. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated 15-78 of CEQA does say that the test for a project has an initial clause which has to be met. She stated, "The whole of the action which has a potential for resulting a physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly, or ultimately, and this any of the following..." One of the following is a general plan amendment. She stated with this qualifier, she feels comfortable with the analysis that it does not lead to any physical change in the environment. Commissioner Senn stated the Commission should first address whether this is a project. He asked staff if this is a legal decision. Assistant City Attorney Clemens replied no. The Commission has to factually be able to say whether it does or does not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. She stated removing the requirement for a study does not create the consideration of additional parking structures or cause it to be build. It is public demand for more parking that does that. Knowing that removing the study removes an obstacle to consider a future parking structure and one will likely be considered is not the DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 24 same as the study results and the need for more parking. She feels comfortable supporting what Community Development has done. Commissioner Kourakis stated great efforts have been made on calming traffic on Chorro St. And now were talking about putting in a parking structure that will cause more vehicular trips. A comprehensive parking study should be done which looks at supply and demand, and how the demand can be handled, and the impacts on major streets. The information for the Circulation Element in terms of parking demand, and shifting that demand and the collective impacts of the collective structures on the circulation system on the streets of the City is not there. Commissioner Kourakis made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they retain 12.7. Commissioner Cross seconded by motion. Chairman Karleskint stated a mandatory requirement to have a comprehensive study each time a structure is built is too costly. Commissioner Kourakis stated it would be a comprehensive parking study that would cover the need for all the structures. Chairman Karleskint stated it is his recommendation to delete 12.7. He feels we should have one base study performed. Commissioner Kourakis stated 12.7 needs to be defined. She asked if 12.7 can be recommended to the Council with a specific definition of what 12.7 means. The comprehensive study should also include impacts on the circulation system. Commissioner Cross stated this would be scoping the study and it's already being scoped out in a different area. Chairman Karleskint stated the Commission should recommend that the City Council proceeds with this study and the study can be updated. Commissioner Whittlesey stated other activities are needed to facilitate or encourage the alleviation of the current crisis. She stated she is not comfortable relying on a study that was performed in 1979. We need a vision of where is going. We don't have enough information right now to move forward with the construction of parking strictures. She feels 12.7 is needed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commr. Hoffman 3� DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 25 NOTE: COMMISSIONERS VOTED 3 TO 3 WITH TO RETAIN PROGRAM 12.7 (THE FINAL DRAFT WILL HAVE CLARIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL ROLL CALL) Commissioner Senn stated he feels uncomfortable adding an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and an unnecessary delay in the process. Commissioner Ready stated he has a problem with 12.7 because it is vague in terms of what exactly is a comprehensive study. If something is going to built there will be an EIR. The EIR will address the problems which need to be discussed. Commissioner Kourakis stated if the policy was taken in the context of the entire Circulation Element, many of the questions would be answered. The Circulation Element does talk about reducing trips, among other issues. Commissioner Senn made a motion to recommend that 12.7 be deleted, and the deletion be deemed not a project, and the Planning Commission recommends Alternative #3 on Page #5 of the staff Report. The motion was seconded by Chairman Karleskint. Keith Opalewski offered a suggestion to the language of#3. Instead of, "construction of a new " he suggested, "construction of the first new." downtown free-standing, Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff the cost of the garage expansion. Keith Opalewski stated, depending on size, it would probably cost close to 3-3'/z million dollars. Commissioner Whittlesey asked who would pay for the study. Director McCluskey stated the general consensus of the scoping group is that the General Fund should pay. Associate Planner Matteson suggested language to 93 to be, "the construction of the first new downtown free-standing public parking structure after 1995." He also suggested, "associated with the construction of additional structures, the study shall be updated." Commissioner Cross stated he would consider March St. to be new. Chairman Karleskint feels it is an addition. /-3.6 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 26 Director McCluskey stated this is clarified by the term "free-standing." If the Commission wants to be more specific, they can use the language "March St. structure." Commissioner Senn stated he does not want the study to inhibit the ability to construct the garage if it is deemed necessary by the City Council. He wants the language of#3 to clearly apply to the first new parking structure that is built after this amendment occurs. A compete reevaluation would not be required before each additional parking structure that may be built after that,just an update. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commr. Hoffman NOTE: COMMISSIONERS VOTED 3 TO 3 FOR THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. (THE FINAL DRAFT WILL HAVE CLARIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL ROLL CALL) Commissioner Kourakis made a motion to send a report to Council which states the Commission is evenly divided between retaining 12.7, and there is an agreement for the need to have a comprehensive parking study performed, and there are questions about the structure and concerns with delays_ The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Ready, Cross, Senn, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None The motion carried. COMMENT& DISCUSSION: 6. Staff Development Review Manager Whisenand p esented the agenda forecast. 7. Commission: Due to the lateness of the hour, no further Comm ission comments were made. 97 Council Meeting-May 23, 1995 RE: Parking Fund Rate Review/Parking Study-$45,000 Dodie Williams I think we've done many parking studies and I'm not inclined to do another one. We had 10 sites I believe 7 or 8 years ago and I think we've used 2 of them, several are still viable and I don't see any need to spend $45000 on a study, so I would be willing to amend that circulation element and go with staffs recommendation. I think working with the downtown we would understand in short order that another structure certainly is desired by downtown merchants and Kathy Smith I'm sure another one is desired I'm concerned about the time lost because I think we wanted to move a little faster than what is implied by changing the circulation element. Didn't we have a timeline that is shorter than that to have some action on a new parking garage? Mme McCluskey Well, we did a critical path if you will and said that we could have the study completed by Jan of 96, to get the results on where it should sit, that's how long it would take to get that accomplished, how long it would take to get the same thing accomplished without the report is about the same timeline we could get legally mandated stuff out of the way by Nov, meanwhile we'd be doing our own internal studies so we'd be back to you in Dec. About a month before a consultant would do it, in Jan. Bill Roahnan The reason that was written was a concern expressed at the circulation element hearings that we shouldn't be building additional puking structures, that we need to look for alternative transportation so the compromise if you will would be we'll do a study that encompasses both identifying a third site and alternative transportation. So the risk would be that by proposing to amend the circulation element stirs up a hornets nest, I'm just wondering though if the$45000 is realistic, is there a way to accomplish that for less, maybe a more focused study discounting half of the original proposed puking sites, we pretty much know 2-3 sites that are most viable. Mike McCluskey (a short response) the study if it goes forward, would have basically two scopes or two major work elements. la what's our existing walking, biking, busing population lb what could we do to increase walling, biking, busing population. If successful, Ic what would that do to parking demand. Second scope is to say now that we have opened Palm, which wasn't opened when we had the parking last one done, and Marsh and now that the downtown center has opened and that the south end of town really has not developed the way that might have been EXHIBIT D 1-3f anticipated, where are the empty parking lots, where are the majority of people parking, where is the demand for parking. And then take the results of lc and 2 and make a recommendation that you don't need a 400 car parking garage, you need a 300 car parking garage, or that it doesn't need to be at the south end anymore it should be at Marsh Street. Then you would end up with that kind of raw response. The$45000 was a estimate that we got by basically offering those two scenarios to a couple consultants and saying would do you kind of think this would be to do that kind of analysis it probably complicated. It would cost because to do the pedestrian surveys and the bike surveys and the bus surveys, adds more to it than just walling and observing the number of parking lots and how much they are used, so there is an effort there in finding out what people are doing with alternative forms of transportation. John Dunn I like the idea of not doing the study and proceeding as rapidly as we can on kind of a common sense basis. However, if we do not do the study, there's ultimately going to be two different constituencies that's going to come out and attack the decision. One will be I think an alternative transportation environmental constituency which will remember quite vividly that the previous council by majority vote did add an addition to the circulation element at their urging. Secondly, there is a small but vocal constituency within the southern downtown area that believes that the need is in southern downtown and more than that the previous promise of the city council in Sept 1987 parking management plan was the third structure be in the southern downtown and so there's those two constituency that will sooner or later will emerge. Mayor Settle I thinks its important to recognize that Mr. Roalman makes a valid point that$45000 is probably not necessary if the scope is refocused. But if we're looking at $45000 I'm willing to make the argument that with our own capacity in public hearing process including these other factors that we know already we're not novices. If it saves us several months to be able to do this focused very specific piece of research, to a large extent I think we will be able find that with common sense all the points that you addressed would be managed in that. But I don't believe it would be anywhere near $45000. Dave Romero This was the subject of the heated discussion during the circulation element. I remember arguing vociferously that this kind of study wasn't needed, I was in the minority at the time. Because we had done at first we have very thorough studies before building the structures, second we did our own studies that were rather thorough, we looked at about 20 sites around town,did detail analysis of cost, benefits and environment benefits. I think we've done alot of the leg work. I don't think we need to study whether we can encourage people to bicycle, walk or take the bus. I don't think that element is needed. I think that's extra work that we could do without. So I would be in favor of amending the general plan to eliminate it and proceeding with our own studies to try save the cost. Secondly, I also favor and would like staff to look again (as Dodie had mentioned before) that is the 90 min free parking in the structure means that virtually all the people, a very large majority in the parking structure, particularly the Marsh, park there free. If we change that to 60 minute free parking, some of those people, then we would get more revenue, and we might not have to raise the meter rates on the street. So we'd save that capital cost of modifying those rates with a very simple change the rates in the structure. It's much harder to change all those meters. The parking structure at Marsh is full alot of times, we've attracted so many people, it's so cheap, that we've been completely successful, it's time now maybe to react to demand. I'd be in favor of reactivating a study on how much free time we should give them. Mayor Settle Well, first of all, on the question of a $45000 study, what's the pleasure of council for staff direction? Dave Romero Moved that the staff follow direction of changing the circulation element that the city has. Dodie Williams - second Motion carries with Smith & Roalman voting no. Mayor Settle Next one was the question of whether or not you want to have this reactivated at this time. Kathy Smith I would like to speak to say that I think we need the 90 minute that its something we offer the downtown merchants that is meaningful and has helped build the downtown and I feel strongly that we should continue that program. We are making plenty of money already and I don't think we need to hurt peoples businesses so that we could make some more money. Mike McCluskey I'd just say before we ever did that we'd have to do a pretty comprehensive study to give the council options prior to Jan 1998, its a ways off, we have plenty of time to study it. Dave Romero I have a suggestion that we don't just change it, I suggest that it be brought back on the table with committee. Dodie Williams That's what I meant too. As a matter of fact, that's what I said. With input from the BIA see what their posture was now. I certainly don't want to hurt any of the business downtown. Many-of them are my very dear friends and I'd do nothing in the world to harm them. But I do feel that there comes a time when perhaps we need to take a look at some of these other issues. Bill Roalman When Barnes and Noble opens up, that will be another draw. And there's still two fairly large spaces in the downtown center that don't have tenants so I suspect that we are going to run into a full structure, so it might be prudent that we make it an hour so that you recirculate the traffic. John Dunn I've probably spent more hours discussing these issues than any human being would wish for themselves. I do know this and you need to keep it in mind, if we throw out the hour versus hour and a half at the same time we are discussing the third location, we're going to have an extraordinarily complex issue and its going to slow down, if not harm, the third location issue; so I would argue strongly that they be kept in separate issues at this time. Mayor Settle Is there an agreement that they be kept in separate issue? Dodie Williams If you feel that it's going to create divisiveness forget it. But my thinking was that I don't think we are being greedy, Kathy, I think what we are looking for is this fund is doing very well, it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do when it was instituted, and that is to provide enough money to build the next parking structure and to buy the next piece of land for future parking structures. That's just what it's doing. So I think we need to look at things realistically. See I haven't been involved in it for several years, John, so if you think it's going to create problems let's not do it. John Dunn It will be a very controversial issue within the downtown community. In fact, there is no doubt that if we pursue it at the same time as the third structure, it will be extraordinarily complex. Mayor Settle What is the pleasure of the council, do you want to pursue this at all at this point in time? Dave Romero Let me ask John a question, if we just gave the downtown committee a simple question, should we make it 60 minutes free parking in the structure, or should we raise the meters 10 cents on the street. Just as simple as that! John Dunn I don't know that that is sufficient. You would be looking for a certain amount of revenue increase. In order to get that, you need to do a time analysis of the parking stubs as they were taken and submitted so you could calculate how many stayed in 59 minutes or less versus 60 minutes or more to figure out how many 50 cents we are going to collect. And how many 50 cents-added up to what your original consent rate increase was going to be. Then we'd have a viable option to at least discuss. The original intent, when I arrived in 1987 when having this thrown in my lap, was to get the people out of the premium downtown parking on the street spaces and get them into the garages. So the whole program has been designed to do that. If we are expanding the garage by another 350 cars we'd want to have incentives and motivations for chasing people in the downtown into those garages. So what I'm saying is there are quite a few variables here that really have to be looked at. Dave Romero But you don't want to chase anymore people into the Marsh Street garage because half the time you can't find a space. John Dunn But if you double the size, you wouldn't have that. Dodie Williams The more merchants you have, the more likely a person is going to stay longer. You'll be sending them out of the garage. Jeff Jorgenson Based on what I hear everyone saying, if you could make a simple inquiry, on a rather low level with the BIA parking committee on what kind of reaction they would have, maybe that would be an appropriate first step. Bill Roalman Reaction to doing the study rather than reaction to making the change? John Dunn They have already gone on record as being in opposition to the study. Mr. McCluskey and I have met with the leadership executive committee and the parking committee leadership Monday and that's the single greatest conclusion (no they came up with three conclusions) 1. we absolutely need the garage 2. It should probably be an 'L' shaped extension to the Marsh garage 3. We don't need the study 4. We give that word to the council clearly. They may follow up with a letter to that effect. Bill Stattler I just want to make three observations, having sat with John for about a six month period meeting every Friday at 7 o'clock trying to work out a structure. I think Dave was there as well. The rates we have today, which I think have been financially very successful, and have done what we wanted them to do, I think John is right, this is the kind of issue that will gender a lot of discussion and it's really not an issue for another 2 and 1/2 years. So if we want to slightly tweak with the rate structure from what the updated study should be, I think we'd probably get further on the study and I don't think we'd put the parking system into any kind of financial jeopardy, immediately, because this issue will only have to be dealt with sometime after today. Mayor Settle If there are no further questions, we have a closed session. I'd like to move to that. John'Dunn I need to know what the council wants to do with this, I'm hearing 2 different points of view. Mayor Settle My understanding was its just informal. Dodie Williams Do a study. Mayor Settle Do an informal inquiry, we don't want to take a vote on this now. City Council Meeting Page Four Tuesday, May 23, 1995 Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. Anthony D'Albro said the City should look at incentives to entice golfers to the course. Mayor Settle closed the public hearing. After discussion, moved by Williams/Romero to 1)adopt Resolution No. 8422 setting golf course fees for 1995-97, and 2) approve a one-time general fund transfer of$68,700 in 1994-95 to bring the golf course to full enterprise operation status by 1996-97; motion carried (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS COMMA. Council Member Williams brought photos from the Dr. Paul F. Spangler Fitness Trails dedication. COMM.2. Council Member Smith complimented staff on their booth at the recent Chamber of Commerce mixer and praised Kathe Kleiman for her work on the booth. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. TRANSIT FUND RATE REVIEW (File No. 549) Council considered "Changes in Fund Balance -Transit Fund" projects revenues and expenses for the transit fund over the next four years. Mike McCluskey. Public Works Director, reviewed the report. Anthony D'Albro told Council there should be incentives to ride the bus. After discussion, Council received and filed the report.(general consent). S. PARKING FUND RATE REVIEW (File No. 552) Mike McCluskey. Public Works Director, reviewed the fund and asked for direction from Council on whether or not to proceed with the Parking Needs Study, estimated to cost up to $45,000, as mandated in the Circulation Element. Moved by RomeroWilliams to amend the Circulation Element to delete the Parking Needs Study and complete the study in house; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Smith and Roalman voting no). After discussion, the report was received and filed (general consent). 11:10 p.m., Mayor Settle recessed the meeting to closed session. Council considered whether to acquire property at 9701972 Nipomo St., 609 Palm St., 530/582 Marsh St. Negotiating Parties: City of San Luis Obispo: Michael McCluskey; Property Owner Representatives: Jerry Holland (Nipomo St.), Real Estate Group (Palm St.), Bob Henderson (Marsh St.)-pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8. /-�3 Council Meeting, Nov 7, 1995 Members present: Roalman, Smith, Williams, Romero, & Settle RE: Parking, council held a study session to consider the October 12, 1995 staff meeting with the Business Improvement Association Parking Committee regarding downtown parking. After discussion from the public and closed discussion between the council members the following continued: Dodie Williams I do feel that we need to expand the Marsh Street Structure. It's been on the books for quite some time. It was almost understood when the first study that came out when I was with the BIA was brought forward. There were lots of sites that were indicated important at the time. The third site was the Wells Fargo lot which I think would be a good purchase for the parking fund. I think we do need to expand Marsh Street. I would like to see us, if we are going to do a study, do a study concurrently with negotiating for the properties that we need and moving forward on the expansion. I think Marsh Street is the most economical at this point in time. Kathy Smith I'm concerned about the mixed messages we send to people when we build parking garages, on the one hand,and then on the other hand we say let us use alternative transportation. I think as a community we've done a fine job of promoting bicycle riders, buses, a lot of people love to walk in this community. It's extremely important that we do not have urban sprawl, that we not see our business scattered throughout the whole area. Our downtown makes us special in alot of different ways. When I look at the dollars we invest in a parking space, I have to admit that I become very concerned about the cost of parking spaces. I'm also concerned that I didn't hear anyone from the BIA speak to the fact that you have initiated programs to encourage your employees not to utilize any of the downtown parking. I think that is a key component of the businesses commitment to community is to take care of their own work force. I think that should be a number one priority of the BIA parking committee to have an active program. Mike Spangler We have been doing that for a number of years. But we have only been a little bit successful at it. It's human nature and almost a necessity to park in a convenient manner. All the parking spaces in the lot outside here are reserved by the people who work here. The county has a huge parking lot, all reserved for the employees. What we have done is basically put ourselves ahead of our customers. We as business people are as guilty as everyone else. This is a problem that we all share. We solve it by providing adequate parking. We need to have a surplus of space. Kathy Smith I would like to see as much commitment to the alternative transportation considerations for employees and some incentives put into place to use all of the buses, bicycle, add a shower at work so that people can take a shower when they arrive. All those things that do encourage people to use alternative transportation. I feel there is a need for the addition to the garage on Marsh Street. I'm in favor of moving ahead on that garage in a timely fashion, at the same time I'm not sure I am interested in the Wells Fargo site without study. I believe that there is time to study that and there are consultants who can give us some other options in terms of alternative ideas rather than moving ahead with that. I think Marsh Street needs to get on the books quickly, but I feel that Well Fargo should be studied. Mayor Settle We are dealing with customer and client services, we must put our customers and clients first. It's a case where we may have a parking space, but that's not the point. We are all in the business of customer service, and the customers are very much sensitive to convenience, pricing of the product, timing; if we can't perform here, the customer will go somewhere else more convenient and timely. Customers want to use their own vehicles and won't put their children on the bus. They will go elsewhere. I would favor to proceed with Marsh Street and the purchase of the Wells Fargo site; I would go along with the idea of a project manager to expedite this. If the Wells Fargo site has problems, then we'll know. I did not want a separate study for $45000 (12.7), I also did not want energy study $74000 that the county had just completed. I did not support the idea of 12.7. I voted to remove that element. Bill Roalman When was the last comprehensive study for creating spaces without having to build new parking structures? Mike McCluskey I don't think we have done one. Bill Roalman Lets fast track this study, to see what we need. We don't need to eliminate 12.7 of the circulation element we can do both. Pierre Rademaker I have spent a lot of time studying the downtown. We made quite a committement to alternative transportation. We need to maintain some future flexability. How can we hedge our bets? Make the Marsh extension adaptive readings so that it could become an office building if it's not needed as a parking structure in the future. We should grab Wells Fargo now while we can. Mike Spangler In regards to the study. The city staff can move fast. They are very good at what they do. We need some input from legal staff on this. Are those funds actually available (enterprise funds) for other sources? It would be nice to know that. Bill Roalman made a motion: I move that we direct staff fj'to begin study as called for in the circulation element with the added language that we would seek how to create new parking in the downtown area without building new parking structures and that secondly we would begin negotiations/discussions with the 2 adjacent property owners for the expansion of the Marsh Street structure. Requested second. None. m- e Dave Romero made a motion: I would move that we adopt process number two as recommended in Mike McCluskey's memorandum of 10/12/95, which calls for amending the current policy to eliminate studies and to expand the Marsh Street garage and to purchase the Wells Fargo site utilizing a contract project manager. Motion was seconded. Any comments by council members? Kathy Smith Yes, I would like to know whether there is a study attached to whatever occurs with the Wells Fargo Site? Because you have eliminated it from the circulation plan, where is the assurance there will be a study at any point. Dodie Williams We have had a couple of studies over the years and the most recent one called for that as one of the most important sites for future parking. So we've had several studies that have pointed directly to the Wells Fargo site. Kathy Smith But we still haven't grappled clearly with the fact a study that's never been done how to create new parking that really recognizes the alternative transportation concepts which is the question Bill asked earlier. My concern is that we would go ahead with the Wells Fargo site without any other concerns about a study. Dodie Williams But we are not talking about a structure, we are only talking about an acquisition. Kathy Smith My concern is that the way this is written and the way I read it, it almost says that we are approving the purchase of areas that will automatically become parking garages. I'm uncomfortable with that. Dave Romero I should point out that the Wells Fargo site is virtually all parking at this time, so all we would do is preserve parking unless we sell it. Currently, there is nothing that requires it to remain parking while in private ownership. Something else could happen to it. Mike Spangler We do need some type of study, to study alternative transportation. But I don't know who should pay for it, Parking or the BIA, because I have really no faith in these studies. It depends on what your end result really wants to be and who you contract with. The studies are almost meaningless. The decisions that have been made in the past on parking have all been right. Those were all seat of the pants decisions that were made. The studies were just done to reinforce the council's decision. The money for the studies was wasted. You could have bought �- r a bus with the money wasted on studies. The study is only step one. The utilization study should happen. These studies just go nowhere. Mike McCluskey The money that was spent on property purchases does not relate to 12.7 in the circulation element. 12.7 say "Before you build a structure" (which is basically saying before you spend millions of dollars in a structure, do a comprehensive study. The motion is to purchase Wells Fargo as a future site, wouldn't be built as a structure. Motion repeated: Dave Romero made a motion: I would move that we adopt process number two as recommended in Mike McCluskey's memorandum of 10112195, which calls for amending the current policy to eliminate studies and to expand the Marsh Street garage and to purchase the Wells Fargo site utilizing a contract project manager. Vote was taken and Motion carried. Dave Romero made a motion: Direct staff to work with BM to format a possible study of alternative forms of transportation as it relates to the need for further structures. Motion was seconded. Vote was taken and Motion carried unanimously. I'j17 AGEND� /2-S-9S ITEM # MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO . TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1995 -9:00 A.M. CITY HALL -COUNCIL CHAMBER- 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Bill Roalman, Kathy Smith,Dodie Williams, Vice Mayor Dave Romero and Mayor Allen Settle Absent: None City Staff Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer,Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Diane Reynolds, City Clerk Secretary; Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director; Bill Statler, Finance Director, Jim Gardiner, Police Chief; Keith Opalewski, Parking Division Manager BIA Members Present: Pierre Rademaker,Mark Furia, Steve Gilreath, Mike Spangler, Pam Copeland, PeterTerhune;Correne Cotta,Tem Westrope, Eva Young, Gray Ghan STUDY SESSION 1. DOWNTOWN OFFICER Jim Gardiner. Police Chief, introduced the Downtown Officer,Tim Hedges. Tim Hedges gave an overview of the downtown patrol program which included patrolling Mission Plaza and Garden Street 2. PARKING Council held a study session to consider the October 12, 1995 staff meeting with the Business Improvement Association Parking Committee regarding downtown parking. John Dunn. CAO, reviewed the main topics of the meeting of October 12, 1995 set forth in his memo of October 16, 1995. Mike Spangler. President of the BIA Parking Committee,spoke on the serious lack of parking in the downtown, the importance of commercially intensifying the downtown area, and the Enterprise Fund concept Peter Terhune. BIA President, stated that there was some confusion within the BIA regarding the location of the new parking structure,and now that the issue had been resolved,the BIA is looking forward to working with City staff. /7& -`-T-7_ City Council Meeting Tuesday, November 7, 1995 -9:00 a.m. Page 2 Mayor Settle opened the meeting for comments from the public. Tom Fulks. SLO Regional Rideshare Program, thanked Police Chief Jim Gardiner for his support of the Safe Ride Home program. He referred to Boulder, CO as an example of programs dealing with parking problems by creating parking rather than building more parking using alternative transportation. Research is available to the BIA and Council through Regional Rideshare. John Ewan. Transportation Management Association, expressed the need in downtown for alternative transportation. Mike SaanQler invited the"alternative transportation" people to meet with the BIA over the parking problem. Crain Anderson. SLO, spoke regarding his concern about the high cost to the taxpayers of a new parking structure, and expressed concern that the parking meetings were not better noticed. Mark Schafer.Director of Ride On Transportation Management Association, stated the goal of this process should be to get more people downtown and'not more vehicles. He suggested that downtown employers and employees use alternative transportation. Bill Thoma. President of the Chamber of Commerce,stated that a new parking structure is needed now, that there needs to be a short-term and long-term plan that involves both a new parking structure and the use of alternative transportation. Lane Allen. Air Pollution Control District, expressed concern about the lack of notification of the parking meetings. He stated that a parking structure would encourage more vehicles downtown and that this would affect air quality, and that studies are needed per the City's Circulation Element. Jeff Lanae.ECOSLO,expressed concern that all options be assessed before building a new parking structure. Pat Veesart, Chairman, Sierra Club Alternative Transportation Task Force, urged BIA/Council to follow the Circulation Element and consider alternative transportation. Tammy Jo Tavlor. SLO, expressed support for alternative transportation and concern about gangs in the City. Rick Porter.business and property owner in SLO,speaking for other owners downtown, expressed concern about urban sprawl and keeping downtown a nice place, and the need for more parking. Mayor Settle returned the discussion to the Council and BIA Board. After discussion, moved by Romero[Williams to approve Process Two: amend current policy and expand Marsh Street.Garage and buy Wells Fargo Site, including the retention of the contract project manager, motion carried (41, Council Member Roalman voting no). Moved by RomeroWilliams to direct staff to work with BIA to format a possible study of alternative forms of transportation as it relates to the parking structures; motion carried 3. HOMELESS KITCHEN RELOCATION Council Meeting, January 4, 1996 Members present: Williams, Romero, Settle, Roalman, Smith RE: Consider the revised Parking Management Plan After public discussion, Mayor Settle closed the public hearing and opened discussion between the council members. Motion: We adopt a resolution approving the revised parking management plan as amended. Amended as follows: change Section 2.3 to indicate use of the Palm Street garage by commercial core employees, deletion of Section 2.11, modifying Section 4.3 to specify "parking structures purchased by the Parking Fund, deletion of original Section. 4.4, new Section 4.4 to set policy declaring that surface parking lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial core, and addition of Section 4.5 Dave Romero Drop 2.11, council agrees. Drop 4.4 to eliminate controversy. Council agrees. Bill Roalman The new 4.5. An alternative transportation parking plan, consistent with the circulation element, will be initiated immediately. One objective of that study will be to identify ways to create new public parking in existing parking lots either publicly or privately owned. Identify ways to create more parking downtown with the existing asphalt. Mike McCluskey Council has already directed action to do the study and that's coming back in 2 weeks. For all that type of action. Bill Roalman What will be in the contents of that study? Mike McCluskey No. What the staff will be recommending that the BIA parking committee and the Alternative Transportation community work together for (we are estimating) 6 months to come up with a detailed scope of work of what all they want studied and how they want it studied. And that we proceed July 1 or August 1 of 96 to do the study. Now I don't know how that fits in with your definition of doing it immediately and whether that fits in with it. Mike McCluskey Action 4.5. Develop a program to encourage a more efficient use of under-utilized parking in the downtown. We will be looking for Jeff Jorgensen's wording in print, exact. /-S-6 Bill Roalman For clarification, we want to initiate the study under the process you have outlined already. But we also want the staff to begin looking at private parking and see if we might use under-utilized downtown parking. Mayor Settle Are there any other changes to this, because if we want to make a motion, it would be a motion as amended? Dodie Williams I move that we adopt a resolution approving the revised parking management plan as amended. Second, motion carries unanimously. City Council Meeting Page 4 Thursday, January 4, 1996 -7:00 p.m. 2. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (File No. 550) Council held a public hearing to consider the revised Parking Management Plan. Mike McCluskey. Public Works Director, commented briefly before turning the microphone over to Keith Opalewski. Keith Opalewski. Parking Manager, reviewed the Parking Management Plan highlighting the recommended changes. Council discussed the deletion of Section 4.4. Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. Tom Fulks, Regional Ride-Share Program and Regional Transit Authority, said he was relieved that Council concurred on the deletion of Section 4.4 and suggested that the City adopt a policy for use of currently existing parking spaces owned by private business. Pat VeesaR Sierra Club Chair, urged the Council to proceed with the Alternative Transportation Study immediately and expressed concern that the negative declaration was overly optimistic and mitigation measures need to be identified on daytime parking impacts. John Ewan. San Luis Obispo, communicated his apprehension over the increased traffic impacts that would be generated by new parking structures. Mike Spangler. BIA, said elimination of metered parking spaces in the downtown represented a severe financial loss for the BIA Parking Program and that every space eliminated by the City should be compensated to the BIA. Eugene Jud. San Luis Obispo, felt more public discussion was needed on what the City's transportation needs will be in the future. Mayor Settle closed the public hearing. After discussion, moved by Williams/Romero to adopt Resolution No. 8480 approving revised plan as amended to change Section 2.3 to indicate use of the Palm Street garage by commercial core employees, deletion of Section 2.11, modifying Section 4.3 to specify "parking structures Purchased by the Parking Fund, deletion of original Section 4A, new Section 4.4 to set policy declaring that surface parking lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial core, and addition of Section 4.5 for development of a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots in the commercial core; motion carried (5-0). 3. APPEAL -WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES (File No. 407) Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments of water and wastewater hook-up fees for the Amtrak San Diegan Layover Facility; SLOCOG, applicant. John Moss. Utilities Director, summarized the basis for the appeal and the Utilities Department's position. ��So2 Council Meeting, January 16, 1996 Members present: Roalman, Smith, Williams, Romero, & Settle RE: Marsh Street parking structure expansion Mayor Settle Mike I put forth a suggested motion, please put it in the overhead. This pertains to achieving what I believe I hear this evening is two sides with substantially valid points. A way we might be able to address the compliance with our circulation element at the same time as having our options remain open relative to the negotiation, appraisals, and concepts plans as far as the Marsh Street facility's concern, but at the same time as far as the BIA and alternative transportation representative to work to develop scope, timing, funding, for a council approved transportation study and return to us with that. Have this as an item for further discussion at the April 2nd meeting. At the same time I think its important that we consider contracting for alternative transit facilitator to the same extent that we're interested in contracting for a project manager to accomplish the objectives in item one above. (see attached). I would just like to offer forth this as an alternative motion that is put -forth as a means what I think many people here this evening have spoken to get around the awkwardness of really having an action before us that does in fact contradict the circulation element which we did say that we would do it. Dave Romero I have a question, Mr. Mayor, about the implications of your motion. Does this imply that we will slow down progress on the Marsh Street Structure? Mayor Settle No, actually what it does is stipulate that your saying you are going to move to let staff to look at property negotiations, appraisals, and so forth for Marsh Street which you are going to be doing in any event. But at the same time this will be discussed for consistency with our circulation element which is of course April 2. That would be the time which we could make amendments normally posted and I think what I have heard some people in the audience say tonight, if you want to change the circulation element at least be consist and do it at the time when you have these points coming together at the same time rather than saying we want to move here and the circulation element isn't consist. We are not in compliance with what we said we are going to be doing. No, in answer to your question, this doesn't really change the timing sequence, but it does help pull up the information that I'm hearing in the audience make reference to. Dave Romero I don't mind speeding up the information on the alternative transportation study. However, I think its critical to us that we move ahead very quickly with the Marsh Street structure. Now the motions were to move ahead with the Marsh Street Structure, the purchase of the Wells Fargo site (as a first priority), the second motion was (following right along behind it but not to delay it) to have the alternative transportation study. The intent was to move ahead with the structure. Now we didn't really gain that many spaces, when we built the Marsh Street structure, we replaced some private parking that Rileys had right after we finished the structure. The area that is now downtown center lost a number of spaces while they demolished buildings A53 and moved all that out, we also replaced some surface parking with structure parking, we gained very few spaces out of that. But now we have them all as public parking and that's what we need to do. That's the reason for the action at Wells Fargo, we have no assurance that the private parking is going to stay there. We need to move ahead to make sure that we get the public parking. We won't go ahead with the structure, I think staff is very ambitious with their timeline here. Mayor Settle Item one achieves is you are allowing our administrative officer to proceed with looking at the negotiations, appraisals, environmental review, update concept plan for the Marsh Street. I believe we heard from some of the people here tonight that you can't do much faster than that. We are looking to bring it together April 2. Bill Roalman I'd be happy if the BIA and Alternative Transportation committee were to come back to us with recommendations. Mayor Settle This is one opportunity to move in that direction. We have set a time of 60 days for a formal recommendation. Bill Roalman But this does not set up funding for moving ahead more rapidly with the Marsh Street structure. All it does is preliminaries. Mayor Settle Yes the preliminaries is the appropriation of$45,000. Bill Roalman It does not allow us to hire an architect, for instance, and start with the concept plan. Major Settle I believe the architect component is coming somewhat after April. Kathy Smith The concept plan is shown under architectural services. Hire architect on April 96. Mayor Settle This is to try to bring both points of view together with some degree of closure. Teff Jorgensen I think the real idea here is the critical point, as I see it, is going to be in the April meeting, whether or not, the council will determine to amend the circulation element and go forward with it's previous direction. The proposal to continue to gather preliminary information which we will need anyway which is not really going to affect the overall timeline, but it also avoids a direct confrontation tonight and basically preserves the ability to have another debate on the item S� when we actually have a circulation element amendment in front of us. Dodie Williams I think we need to be aware policy 12.7 in the circulation element says that additional parking structures should be built after ........................etc., this is an expansion of an existing structure, it is not additional structure, it is not a new structure. And when we met with BIA, on Nov 7, we said that we were willing to move ahead to expedite the expansion of Marsh Street, that Wells Fargo would be purchased and held in abeyance just so that we would have it somewhere down the line. And that is exactly what we told the BIA,that day, and I really feel that we made a commitment. I don't want to abrogate our own circulation element but I don't think that we will with that. If we were to build on Wells Fargo then we would be doing that. We don't need to amend it for the Marsh Street. After additional closed council discussion, the following motions were made: Roahnan/Settle 1 make a motion that we bring the BIA and Alternative Transportation representatives work with a facilitator to develop the scope, timing and funding amount for the council-approved transportation study and return to the council within 60 days or sooner. Motion carried unanimously. Motion-Romero/Williams Amend the 1995-1997 capital improvement plan and appropriate $45,000 for property negotiations and appraisals, environmental review update and concept plan for the Marsh Street parking structure expansion. Motion passed. Motion-Romero/Smith Schedule the above items to be discussed at a public hearing and appropriate changes be made in the circulation element at the council meeting of April 2, 1996. Motion passed. l�� Clty.Counall llaeting Page 5 Tuesday, January 16, IM -7:00 pm. Proposals from SLOCO Recycles and RALCCO compared. Mayor Setae asked for public comment. Mum McGmUL RALCCO, made a presentation In support of RALCCO's Proposal. Grua Shlolev. Paso Raffia, mpromental va of several refuse companies throughout the United Statessaid that San Lute Oblepo Mould be beater served by patting an and to the garbage mono" and trying RALCGO's irmwative conespt for wane management. Ded Division Pwsldent of Waste Management of the Central Coast,complimented staff on a fun job and cautioned that cost avoidance Is an tesue that Mould creed to be eonskhwed as ids process mouses forward. Tom Martin. San Luis Garbage, said SLOCO'S proposal conforms with the regrarsrrnnfa of AB 9W as wo as many oMmw to of the Gay's General Pian, Including the prwtetan to Provide employment opportunities for&=rvdderds, ratelning'audsting businesses, support community programs to reduce tin number of veNde trips, and told the Council that the staff recommendation will rr fn the quality jobs In San Lula Obispo that are-credal to a Vibrerrt aeorrorgy►. Jim Lamm. Tulare Cor* Compost, erglabned the composting process that SLOW plane to proceed with sad what could be achieved In meeting the goals of All 939. Two Martin returned is the microphone to explain that onoe the greenwasts program is ImoMmenh4 customers will no longer need as many cans and will realms a savings by reducing Unk level of service. Mawr Settle brought discission hack to Council. Atter discusel n, moved by mcvdS to 1)authorize staff to mmotdate, arrf CAO to erred te, an agreemind for reelderillal curbside msyoling services with SLOCO Recycles for a term not to earned five Irma,.ilii an option for two additional 12.nwMh exta7wions, and at a total program oast not to emceed !.16,896 for the first year and i91AV fur the second years and, 3)adhorme stmt to negotiate, and CAO to execute, an agmenw,et for green .caste collection services with SLOCO RmTdes tt7r a tarn not twe:eeed ties years,with an option for two addMonal 114nonth exlenslons, at a total program cost not to exceed U17,608 for the first year and 0219,412 for the second year motion carried (4-1, Council Member Brill Roalmsn voting no). 6. IRA STREET PARIUNG STRLKMME EMNSION (File ilio.551) Council considered emending the 111g8S7 Capital Improvement Plan and opptoprielf" an aoolortal $714,Q D for the hiring of a project reneger (64po) and for a phased, completion (671000) of the March Street parking strwdure agmmk n. Mika McCkmkm Public Works Dimetor. and KeM OoalswakL' ParMg Manager reviewed the timaBne for the expansion of lira March Street parking shu gnat, and the costs associated vA h the tbn48ne-to construction. llUM Settle asked for public Input CA/Comm meeting Tuaft. Janmq 16e low .7.00 pin. Page 6 Peter Terineme. President Of the 8U,Said the DIA and Alive Transportation representatives Were hard and mRUW progress kamrrd reaching a emnnstnum =F�� W Street, eekiressed oppoaBton tdthe eepansion project aced said perking was already adequate in the souftm part at do dawnt wm 1111111 Standar. Chair of gee MA, urged Couneh to apProve the much needed esparaioo of the Walsh Street Pam stnretnre. Ire nn BwmmE Court, Pmurftd a petitan supporting Ow position that the CRY CftuWI adlon to phu of Initiate UmAltemativa TrarrspoKatton study prior to taking P� sbutdserts. TOM SIA RMMdmkm Pmgmnr identlftad 100 parangi spaces downioMm that cordd be Pa1d9 in already eldsthng Parking lots. Iiaomr OrtaIL SLO resident' supported,the Pam structure expansion as presented by staff. INIX-A-U-0-OP Air PWkMm COnW DkhfA questioned tat ooMht in General plan and Cheoiat1on E&MOnt poft and feared that more parking would enommiie more ears to nom .UM the downtma. Keith tMvnrer. Lae Oros, fSit that fomes Of alt mstive transportation were lacking In the County, bat also M there wore too many saw in the duwntawm Pat VeeH Chair of the Siena Club,was eoosmed about moving ahead art the expansion pdar to amending fire C rO dWon Ele m4 JM& Cky resident, oflared solations tot cresting addidum, parking in the dwm" m wIt1mA building new strucarss. Patrick 8��, a local aUmM, Opposed the cqmmI1xL Nkut Sour_ Director of ItIde-On'a TiIA.encouraged Council to move funuffl raely with the Altamative Tmwporbdm Sbrdy. John Eakin. resident of San We 0615po, told Does wd to move ftward with the neared mon Stuty. b K=Warr San tads OWIM told COuneA he was perplexed as to why this expansion was � pumrrod at this tins ishan tha oaamtoVM Concept Pian had Need tam parking expansiae as a tang Tenn Pre1mg to be dors in seven to 15 years. KAU'idw Kmw- 8IUd8K the need for biryde.parift ddwrdafflL Deborah Li in, BIA Adminle mkw, said the parking shortage Infat ddwntoanr wad critical and angsd selpansmn of the Marsh street sbucbn L CYntli Boden. CAI nsldanR opposed any new periling prior to Investigating trmwWw m alternatives. i s7 Iva •i.... ..a.v was ........ 41J uvu CII,►Council Meet" Pao 7 Thy, January le. logo -7:60 p.m. Mayor Settle returned discussion to Coatoll and presented an alterative moUan to the staff recommendation. APoer diacu05kM moved by I1021 to direct staff to bring the DIA and IUtu►r WU" Thmsportatlon raprmoom mm together with a facilitator to dewlap workscope for the Alternative Transportation study and redo. to CouneU wtihbt 66 days, nwdm carried (5-0); Moved by RomardW UMM to approve appropriation of $45,600 from the 199647 Capital Inmproivement Plan for property negotiations and appraivats, environmental rsvlew update and wept Plan far expansion of the Marsh Street gym: motion carried (+1: Council Member Raadman-voft no)- Moved by RanRMMD 4h to direct staff to schedule the above Rom to be dlemased at a public = Peek and bring forward appropriate changes to the Circulation Element at the City Courwil meeting of Apol 8, 1998; motion carried (41; Covncrl Member Roalman vadng no)- 6. ROUTS 4A t1J1FEfY IMPRt MEM (File No.935) Council conalderea 6upporgng actions taken by the Highway Patrol and proposed actions by Senator Jack O'Connell to Improve safety on Highway 46 salt, and requesting the! CalTranc conduct a comprehensive brr,aigstlon of additional safety improvsrrwnt measures. Afar discussion, moved by$ mifh to adopt RoNdWan No. MH supporting Route 46 raft INIPMmenm; muton carried (6-0). 7. ECOG).QPROPOM LEASE (Fye No.484) - Couadil F-a mlk red leaving approximately 38 80 wjA of CSI4wmed real-property kgmted 3t45 Prado Road to ECOSW for operation of a recycling ser lee eerdar. Mayor Settle Wo d the floor. John Ewan told Council that with new Management In place, pkvm ata In place to upgrade the yard and create an environmental canter that tee City can be proud of. JO La ECOSLO Executive Director, detailed the Improvaments being made to the yard. After dismission, moved by RoalnraWSmIM to adopt Resolution No. 8481 approving, rad auliwrltJng tip.Mayor to e>ar, I a kwm agreement with ECOSLO; motion carded(0.0} Progress report on )ECOSW yard detM-up to be brought I Fm Council In sbr months. (General cOMMUNICA71ONS There Wm no 1= a.m. There behp no frrtipr business to sane beton the City Council. Manor Sema fored rneetft to Tuesday, Januamy 23, 1886, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room ci ty.of San Luis OBISPOn G GATE: WNG0i .. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared by: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager 14%-- SUBJECT: Marsh Street Parking Structure Expansion CAO RECOMMENDATION: a) amend the 1995-97 Capital Improvement Plan and appropriate an additional$714,500 for the hiring of a project manager($4,500)and for a phased completion($710,000)of the Marsh Street parking structure expansion b)direct staff to continue discussions with the BIA and Alternative Transportation representatives to develop the scope, liming, and funding for the council-approved transportation study and return to council within 6 months with a formal recommendation DISCUSSION; At the November 7, 1995 joint study session with the City Council and BIA Board of Directors, Council approved the expansion of.the Marsh Street Structure and the purchase of the Wells Fargo site as the highest priorities for expanding the City's parking space inventory. Council also-approved the hiring of a project manager to help expedite the Marsh Street garage expansion project. Council further directed staff to work with the BIA to develop the scope of a transportation study that would look at improved parking management through the increased use of alternative modes of transportation. Staff was directed to return to Council in January with recommendations to move the above projects forward. i Staff believes the schedule shown in (Exhibit A) best meets the direction given by council for a "fast track" project. The use of a project manager is not expected to speed the project significantly, but rather keep it on track successfully. The following highlights key dates for the Marsh Street Structure expansion project: * Begin property appraisals 2/96 * Begin property negotiations 3/96 * Hire architect; begin concept design 4/96 * Revise Circulation Element 4/96 * Begin final design after final review 12/96 * Complete design; bid project 7/97 * Award construction contract 9/97 * Complete construction . 9/98 Project Manager Because of the ongoing workload of Public Works staff, and the concern of the BIA to move MIBIT E /�� i city of sai . Luis OBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report Page Two as quickly as possible on the Marsh Street garage expansion, the concept of hiring an outsidd person to facilitate the project was deemed the most expeditious means to ensure the project meets the proposed timetable for completion. Staff concurs that additional staffing to coordinate and liaison with the required professionals and to keep the project "on target" is a very wise decision. Staff has conducted a preliminary estimate of the number of hours the project manager would need to devote to the project. To assure easier overall supervision and to reduce potential additional costs, such as insurance, that would occur by using an outside contractor, staff is proposing that the individual be retained as a City employee with no health insurance benefits.. Based on.the preliminary timetable (Exhibit A), the project manager would work approximately 140 hours on the various phases of the project up to the point of ARC and Planning Commission final approval. Staff is assuming a salary level equivalent to City personnel at the Project Manager(Engineering Field Supervisor) level. It is envisioned that the project manager would also draft the required reports and correspondence for the various steps throughout the city approval process. The ideal candidate would be familiar with municipal agency approval processes and the overall planning process to complete large-scale public projects. Staff has tentatively identified several well qualified candidates that could fill the position. As a matter of full and direct communication, the City Administrative Officer and the Director of Public Works have had a very positive preliminary discussion with Mr. Craig Stoner, Chief Executive Officer of the San Luis Medical and will be meeting with the Postmaster, Mr Jim Rivas, prior to the Council meeting on the 16th. Additional Appropriations As depicted on Exhibit A, it is estimated that an additional$710,000 will be needed to complete the expansion project up to the actual construction phase. Staff would return with a specific request for construction funds. The additional monies are needed to perform preliminary work regarding land values, negotiations and acquisition, EIR update, and architectural and engineering services. Approving the requested appropriations will ensure the proper amount of money is available to keep the project moving through the required steps. The following summarizes these costs: Project Costs to Construction * Appraisals (all properties) $20,000 * Property negotiator $100000 * Environmental review update $5,000 * Architectural services: Concept plan $102000 Final design $40,000 /-60 2— .M. A city or sat, Luis oaIspo am COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT unc genReport Page Three Working drawing/specs $225,000 * Land and air right acquisitions $4002000 $710,000 Consistent with the goal of producing an attractive, functional quality product and expediting the project time schedule, we believe the proposed budget is appropriate. However, we will make every attempt to contain the costs, consistent with these project goals. Use of Alternative Transportation Per the second action of the City Council from the November 7th study session, Council directed staff to work with the BIA to develop the scope of the transportation study that is to be completed before a third parking structure is built. Since there are a number of important issues to be determined (what will be looked at, the timing of the study, and cost) before the study can actually begin, staff is seeking Council support to direct staff to move forward with the transportation study discussions at this time with all of the concerned parties. Since this is a very important issue for the City, BIA and Alternative Transportation representatives, it is essential to begin and maintain an ongoing positive dialogue as the first step to keep the study discussions focused and moving forward. Staff is recommending a 6-month time period to work out the details of the study and return to Council with a recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT: As of June 30 1995, the parking fund's unappropriated fgpd balance was $2,181,400. After the appropriation, the remaining unappropriated fund balance of approximately $1,300,000 will provide a strong working capital position for the parking fund. Additionally, the parking fund's current revenue stream generates an annual surplus of approximately $500,000. This positive cash flow; coupled with our working capital position, will enable the parking fund to finance additional debt service for the construction of the Marsh Street Structure expansion. ALTERNATIVES: The Project Manager position could be fulfilled through a team approach of staff personnel. A team comprised of the City Engineer, Parking Manager, Engineering Technician and Administrative Analyst and Transportation Planner could be delegated the proposed manager responsibilities to complete the project. The plus for this option is that staff is familiar with the process and procedures of the various requirements to get the project approved which ultimately could help expedite the overall project. Conversely, the time requirement needed for this option would impact staffs current workload and could jeopardize the completion of other high priority Public Works projects. Exhibit A—Timetable and cost estimates for the Marsh Street garage expansion Time July 1, 1996 ** use of condemnation would delay project by a minimum of 6 months and the completion date would be revised to January 1999 or later Cost: $400,000 7. EIR for project 0 MSS--hire contract engineer Time: August 1, 1996 Cost: $5,000 8. Finalize architect for preliminary and final design (rfp and award) Time: September 1, 1996 Cost: $409000 9. ARC and Planning Commission final approval (complete preliminary design) Time: November 15, 1996 Cost: Staff time 10. Design structure (begin final design) Time: December 1, 1996 Cost: $2259000 11. (A) Bid project for construction and award Time: July 1, 1997 Cost: $3.5 million (B) -Purchase Wells Fargo site ($1,500,000 in 97-98 CIP) Time: July 1, 1997 12. (A) Begin construction Time: September 1, 1997 (B) Complete construction and begin operations Time: September, 1998 Total Estimated Cost: $4,210,000 for MSS and $1,500,000 Wells Fargo Grand Total $5,710,000 ���,2 Marsh Street Structure Expansion Preliminary T"unetable and Cost Estimates 1. Hire project manager for the Marsh Street garage expansion Time: February 1, 1996 Cost: $4,500 (140 hours @ $32/hour 2. (A) Hire appraisers for SIO Med and Post Office and Wells Fargo properties. Time: February 1, 1996 Cost: $20,000 (B) Conceptual site plan to the Planning commission for compliance with Land Use and Circulation Element (C) Revise Circulation Element at Planning Commission Time: March 1, 1996 Cost: Project manager and staff time 3. (A) Hire property negotiator contractor for all properties Time: March 1, 1996 Cost: $10,000 (125 hours @ $85 hour) (B) Hire architect to initiate conceptual drawings of expansion project. Time: April 1, 1996 Cost: $10,000 (C)•Revise Circulation Element at City Council (Staff time only) Time: April 1, 1996 4. ARC review of conceptual drawings of expanded garage Time: May 1. 1996 Cost:. Staff time 5. Council determination of final scope of project(consider use of condemnation)** Time: June 1, 1996 Cost: Staff time 6. Condemn SLO Med and buy lot and buy air space at post office with Council approval Exhibit A . .. NO ON NOR *aol .. CD CD \\ • cn to cn cn EXHIBIT W • • • • • • • • • tr CD co \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\O\\\\\\\\\M00 AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS (Parking Study Work Scope) Don Maruska, Facilitator Novaquest Mike McCluskey SLO Staff Keith Opalewski SLO Staff Terry Sanville SLO Staff Craig Anderson Sierra Club Eugene Jud Sierra Club Geof Land ECOSLO John Ewan Transportation Management Authority Larry Allen Air Pollution Control Board Mark Shaffer Ride-on Transportation Pat Veesart Sierra Club Pete Rogers SLOCOG Randy LaVack Air Pollution Control Board Tom Fulks SLO Regional Rideshare Ray Nordquist Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Tom Copeland BIA Deborah Holley BIA Mike Spangler BIA Rick Porter BIA Pierre Rademaker BIA EXHIBIT G Summary of the Parking Study Discussions Purpose of the Discussions: to define the scope, timing, and resources for a parking study that includes a range of options for meeting the parking needs of downtown San Luis Obispo. Process: Participants in the Parking Study discussions deserve great credit for the time, interest, and ideas they volunteered to design a study that will address the parking needs of downtown San Luis Obispo. The diverse group included advocates of environmental, business, alternative transportation, neighborhood, and goverment interests. (See "Participants in the Parking Study Discussions.") The discussions consisted of an advance planning meeting, two meetings of the full group, and a follow up meeting to review and comment upon the draft request for proposals from the Public Works Department staff. The discussions followed an agreed upon set of communication guidelines, including a sincere desire to avoid`tis vs. them" dynamics. Summary: The participants reached consensus on (a)vision for the downtown to underlie the study, (b) statement of the problem the study needs to address, (c)hopes about how the study will benefit the community, and (d) desirable elements for inclusion in the study. (The attachments present the results agreed upon during the discussion sessions.) In addition, the participants provided feedback to the Public Works Department staff on the timing and resources needed for the study. In brief, the participants fiilfilled the City Council's charter requesting these discussions. The participants explored the possibilities of resolving two other issues: the source of funds for the study(general fund, parking fund, or a mix) and the relationship of the study to the proposed expansion of the Marsh Street parking garage(await the results of the study or proceed with the expansion and have the study factor in the expansion as it addresses additional solutions). They did not reach consensus on these two issues. Observations: The participants in these discussions demonstrated the ability to work together on a significant range of issues and a desire to support one another on areas where they are in agreement. I believe that if the City Council unambiguously resolved the two issues the participants did not agree upon, the participants could focus their energies on constructive areas of mutual interest and benefit to the community as a whole. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. w March 7, 1996 Don Maruska,NovaOuest EXHIBIT H 1-417 WSRON of DOWNTOWN SAN Luis 091SPO A compact downtown with a friendly,vibrant cultural,government,business. and residential cb®muo[ity,accessible by pedestrians,bicyclists,transivand automobiles. This gathering Place for the commuaity wdl maintain ourr city's distinct character attract eg;residents and guests to exchange goods and services, While enjoying a safe°and friendly atmosphere: EXHIBIT H-1. p �'�p0 WHAT IS YOUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO? 1. Cultural Center;Government Center,Tourist Draw, Economic/Commeroial Viability, Healthy Mix of Uses 2. Friendly,Accessible. Cultural and Shopping Area 3. Walkable, pedestrian friendly; Central gathering place for shopping and social activities; Easy, convenient access for all modes of transportation 4. County Center,Economle Center, Entertainment Center, Retail Center, Meeting Center for San Luria Obispo 5. The regional speciatty retall,entertainment and cultural center for the Central Coast 6. Easy Access vii Alt Transportation, Business Center. Maintain Small City Atmosphere 7. Hub/Center for.'a.Jobs;b. Government;c. Retail;d. People — all linked by the best AIL Transportation program in the u.S.A. 8. Place for eMdeht exchange of goods, Information and other fundamental elements of SLO residents and visitors; Place with a distinct character that people can Identify as "unique"and'speclav 9. Continued and Increase economic vlabi dy; Increased residential density;visible and visit-able hub of SLO County 10. Pedestrian friendly, people friendly;vibrant, central downtown: many locally owned businesses; blko paths,light rall knits 11. Limited geographic growth; higher density; always changing: serving the needs of SLG' City first, region of SLO second;more people, fewer cars: busy,vibrant,clean, orderly,attractive 12. livability(residential uses), fun, pedestrian zones,well linked with neighborhoods. Different from Pismo. 13. Downtown ahoyid be a People Placel Autos dominate the space currently. pariang tef , THE PARKING PROBLEM ACCESS - How do we increase access to the downtown area? What are the solutions? - How can we use our existing parking resources better? - Customer access is limited. - Viability - economic and other- is strained due to accessibility. - Lack of convenient access to downtown. - How to create access without destroying downtown quality - Consumer access and visability - Providing access to the downtown that: - Supports the downtown economy - Minimizes traffic impacts on neighborhoods - Fosters a reduction in use of single occupant vehicles and maintains clean air. - Recognizes the preferences of downtown patrons - Pedestrian accessability - Too much reliance on automobiles; Providing additional parking may encourage more of the same. - Lack of alternatives to the auto Lack of mass transit options for downtown access Appearance of no real alternative to single occupancy vehicle access to downtown. Lack of alternative modes of transit FMIBIT H-2 >-7a SUPPLY& DEMAND - Parking is being used by "commuters" and there is limited parking for "customers". The private automobile has been historically accommodated and promoted as the way to access the downtown. Because of this, people have come to expect "cheap & convenient" parking and they have shaped their shopping and work habits around that expectation. Too many commuters using downtown parking spaces High demand for a limited supply of easily accessible (21/2 blocks) parking. Appearance of insufficient single occupancy vehicle parking supply. Under-utilized private parking. Too many commuters occupying public parking spaces. Parking space under-utilized CONGESTION - Congested auto traffic downtown - Too much traffic already - Too many private cars entering downtown. - Congestion impacts on outlying Business and Residential Areas. - Traffic congestion GENERAL Future urban sprawl. Question: How can the City of San Luis Obispo spend its limited Vs in the most efficient manner to alleviate this "problem"? 1-T/ - Shopping convenience (competition) - Existing neighborhood impacts - Perceived deficiency - Conflicts with pedestrians on streets - Different parking management needed. - Variable message signs for car drivers: From freeway directly into open Parking spaces. - Most immediate way to correct currently insufficient parking downtown. /-7X Craig Andoroon 545-5919 0 16/19S6 03:57:32 Lm P.1 Downtown BIA/Altcrnativc Transportation Mediation Fcbruary, 2 1996 110cs for 1'�no1AlL=aLj c Ir li.SWIlaLon tiludy The holes expressed by participants in last Friday's Mediation Session can be summarized as follows (not listed in any particular order): T1ic study will build oonscnsue,find a common vision and develop a plan for the future. 11ie study will provide assurances to merchants and rmidenls in the downlown that they will not be negativelyimpacted by the solution and that this solution addresses their financial and emotional investments in SL O. 111e studyvvill be comprehensive,objective,based on solid factual information(including studies of other communities)and identify a mix of solutions which mocts the access needs of the entire community. Thc study trill evaluate die cost-cffcctivences of various options including short and long-term analyses. - The study will inventory the current parking supply and find options for better management and/or an increased supply of parking. - The study will inventory the curreat"users"of the downtown(including both drivers and users of alt.frac®.)and provide a better undcrslanding of who they are,where they come from, how they gel here,and what thew nods are. - The study wi11 identify ways to improve aooessibility to downtown through means other than driving and evaluate die potential for the success of these alternative means.Both immediate and long-term solutions should be idefriified. - The study will deliver immediate and future solutions to improve downtown access,viability and competitiveness while retaining SLO's unique character. - The study-will be simple and easily understood - The study will strengthen the link between downtown parking demand and alternative Icansportation/aooess issues. - The study will examine future demand and provide various scenarios for mcding that demand. EXHIBIT H-3 1-73 ELEMENTS (Revised 2/5/96) 1. Inventory of parking spaces; public, private, government a. Define sphere of influence BIA District or Buchon to Freeway 2. User profile, parking user (structure, street meter, residential) vs. downtown user a. Demographics b. Who/when C. Purpose d. Frequency e. Seasona[Mme/Purchases f. Perception of users and non-users, business owners (i.e. is there a problem?) 1) Quality of experience 2) Willingness to use AT (and potential AT options) g. Origin/destination 3. Demand (existing) a. Retail/services b. Employers C. Public employees 4. Review of existing literature a. Wilbur Smith b. Page Report C. DKS Circulation Study d. Goals for downtown e. Other places 5. Occupancy analysis of parking a. Turnover b. Length C. Time d. Origin/destination 6. Parking ratios, square feet by types (office, retail, government) a. Actual b. Desired 7. Inventory of AT services (segmented by provider) a. Cordon Survey? b. Number of bus stops C. Frequency d. Ridership e. Cost of providing EXHIBIT H-4 /_�� 8. Cost of expanding access to downtown with AT a. How to match AT to needs b. Cost of AT to provide the equivalent of a parking space C. Is there a link between AT and parking 9. Impact of changes in parking/AT on business community a. Costs of delivery b. User satisfaction C. Circulation outside downtown d. Neighborhoods (Parking Districts pros-cons) 10. Projected demand a. Modal split objectives 11. Traffic modeling including; role of parking garage a. Impact on congestion b. User defined preference of other choices C. Strategies to reduce single operator vehicle 12. Public & employer policies and contributions to support AT (e.g. transportation pass) a. Impact b. Effectiveness 13. Immediate needs and future needs and solutions to meet and anticipate needs and make downtown competitive a. Attractive, exciting, realistic proactive strategies 14. Institutional barrier (policies, programs, regulations) to implementing programs 15. Revenue Stream Analysis a. Parking (public & private) b. Alternatives C. How to optimize use of resources d. In-lieu fees, meter rates, fines, (too high/too low) 1-7S 3 o a, Cn C4O O 3 y C j ; ; 3 ; C-) C ; C (b cl C4 Qj En O O y `y 3 C j Cb J Cb cD (4 CO 'Q cD .. cD C) CQ cD , O C y, C c in i Ck i n• i j i i C% i ,� i j C C y 4 C cD (4 c(n 'O y : c 0) lb e y ti 3 CD % �, a O C' cD p fD Q z ` y (by m rz n o c Cb cD o 0 4 :Cb cn ` r 3 CD Q y Cb C7 - 0 O a mM aD w w w m oA CZ H � rF � n Q N m 4�h W N N N ' CD G cm 61 C31 ' T m � d CD H 3 '► C H m C O O O RTI 3 m 3 rr C 3 3 CD n O O O O O O O O G H N EXHIBIT 1 �I CD ! y C O n C CD ! Gl Oi Z. i O C� i 0' i CSD C i i 0 R CO) a o x CbCb 3 �f ! y C? p d C y Cb -I CO CQ Q o � co v c� CL O CL -Pb 4�b cn O rn -1 .j m70 wW -kCc 2D ni CD CDoA Z PIP v � C) CD = CA 0) A W W W W W W CD CM in Cn CJl Cn Cn N m O 3 c�Di CD co m C N CD C_ m in cn in is in 3 3 CD C ctt n O O O O O O O y d ^C /-7J tiJ8 Cd1ft 4e, FS s Z SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER San Luis Obispo City Council I �Iqt? 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Refai this do ument for 14 February, 1996 future ou cil sting Dat . it yerd��ed Dear Mayor Settle.and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Sierra Club Executive Committee and the over 1500 members of the Sierra Club in San Luis Obispo County, 1 would like to thank the City Council for the opportunity to participate in the meetings with representatives of the SLO Business Improvement Association, and various agencies and citizens involved in alternative transportation, to discuss the Downtown Parking Study. As you know, we met on February 2nd for four hours and again on February 9th for nearly four and one half hours to discuss the scope and timing of the study. Included in the discussion were the wants and needs of the business community, the environmental community, and the community at-large. All three sides of the "Community Triangle" were represented and there was a high degree of consensus reached on all but two issues. A concern shared by all was for the health of businesses in the downtown and a recognition of the contributions that those businesses make to the city as a whole. All participants agreed that adequate parking must be available for both retail and service customers. Another area of agreement was that there is.a place and a need for more and improved alternative transportation in the downtown. RECEIVED FEB Z u 1996 CITY COUNCIL f%A.P!; 1231^o^ na ...To explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources... A third area of agreement was that Impacts to surrounding neighborhoods must be addressed. It was suggested that public workshops be part of the study process to better include the general public and to hear their concerns. The areas of disagreement were the timing of the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion and the funding of the study. It is the position of the Sierra Club that the city should follow its adopted Circulation Element and complete and consider the results of the Parking Study prior to spending millions of dollars of public funds on a parking structure that may very well not be needed. This only makes good sense, and we are confident that you will see the wisdom in this. We also feel that the funding for the Parking Study should, logically, come from the Parking Fund. These are the funds that are earmarked for that very purpose and it makes no sense to spend General Fund money when there is already a dedicated funding mechanism in place. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this historic meeting. It's obvious that there is a high level of agreement between the business community and the environmental community as to what is best for the future of the downtown, and we hope you will have the opportunity to thoroughly review the results of our meeting prior to making the hard political decisions. Sincerely, at Veesart Chairman, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club CC: SLO BIA SLO Planning Commission Mary Whittlesey Remarks to City Council April 2, 1996 Parking Issue 1 love the downtown; I fell in love with it the first time I saw it. I began to appreciate it and value it during the 5 plus years I was a downtown merchant. A. Needs to be re-defined: Convenient parking may be at a premium at peak times of the day during peak seasons I meet my husband for lunch downtown as many as 2 or 3 times a week. He is always able to get a parking space: either in the Marsh structure or on Chorro, Mono, or Pacific streets. B. Perhaps some perceive a "crisis" because we have not implemented the plans already on the shelf... Parking Management plan (rev Dec 95) Look at items #1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 2.3, 2.8, 4.5 to see a few ideas we could be acting on. Circulation Element 12.7 Let's get on with a professional, in-depth study of what the downtown needs, both now and in the future, under different scenarios, for accommodating and enhancing the citizens' mobility and the economic life of the downtown. This study needs to be comprehensive, something we can build on (not redo) in a few years C. If indeed there is a crisis: 1. Implement some of the "overnight" suggestions to gain spaces, (more short term spaces, less "free" time in structures during peak hours. 2. Get a study done: Draft a scope (advisory committee) and get the RFP on the street before June 1, 1995. Award the contract July 1, 1995 $. Begin the process (including project description, scope, RFP/IFB, etc.) for expanding the Marsh Street Structure after the contract for the study has been awarded. 4. Finish the study while building the structure. D. Another idea to contemplate for our downtown: I believe the Circulation Element and Downtown Concept Plan discuss concerns about pedestrian oriented amenities. We need to be addressing those ideas, and implementing them before we loose sight of them. One of the things that our downtown offers is an ambience and scale that people are comfortable in. If we market those things and perhaps encourage another week night of more pedestrian movement (such as during the farmer's market) we may be able to develop other shopping/pedestrian-oriented ideas and build on expanding "use" of the downtown. C1D0C51RECVCLV ABW%PARKING.LST Par`dng... We Want- It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature I� s� �' l m Pa king...We Want- It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 6 05). 1��----�_o_Z ' s s�Q _s�o ------ T-2 - C-�1 'T 10 2-V S.Oaie44-0- ----------------- C_2_J L -o _ ���Z 4'11 - - - L� q -5Lb _ SGS _ SL, ✓ Lf c��� Zf_s7 J a �� S� TB- okr&,N 3_4 � z Parxing...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 3?Z(3 SIA al qmQf-) jr Z %l 7--- '. --- —� � �--`Si���o� ' - -,�,t' Sry3 _S,,v f�i c rg�gr�`l�Ul 1 _ n n/ r o - - W. 93Y� ParKing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Lf /�y''°y� •,�P fYeZ/ — 54�/�" J ----------------------------------------- —-------------- � S Lv 0-121) z R,D Q ?3 yaz 2206 cP4-0 '�F 3 qo / S -Y3 © chi a ---------------------------------------------- 46:1 ---�Jr Parxing...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. owl* _yn ---- X7 -- -------------- ��� 60,.,? 7 70 /Q,-1 (1-31151{0 Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature I - ���& _L �✓v eZ�S Se,;ti-� 1;1��1c_vcl�_ .2c1 _/%k�_oci4iv -- ----- ------ Z�ILII.Ie-t! __ 1you_off 5t4m94r" e t -e h bz)t/-v►,, 'l c1- SLd__ �) yah 77ac " 0 �T�♦i��+w. ���.�.vsn�.�_w_ �. �.�.- ��^1T.T �.�.. �..r�.. �... �. _ .-- -. n - wl..� �v� � .�. ^.w..A.�•..-� _..qw.� J ]Paxking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature cQ ne> kcq1 haq 935 B LAE 6um LtJ �) Ipomo (?A 105 9z4sS9g lw lkma 3a�_I�l�— v6d' Vic- 3 r -MEAN 14 tfdNI- ts1 1,1�a0(r2�r�) (-1 777, —"".x".' LZ404--:2LY'�)CL- I ,NA.-- /612 0 iiarsL- NJ 91 -5 --�-- ? V9a Ja►xe,t k v, p_ jtr aux �s Q4- 5/�$z 6l Nr�b DAyv Parking ... We Want - 'It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name Print Address Include City & State Phone Si nat re L- I+O OI 1 0\f11cAY-N 1'727, !_r....%e,V1I-,- IIci-1QZ, C4/V„�.e1✓izA.___ A L ----------- N __ w L4= CfA-p-aazA 3-r"o P1X11 12M 5_Y3 iso ,a W ac cr 5 Parking...We Want _JU We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Inelude City & State) Phone Signature S6_ VCX Cres.5 ---a� 3�I Sa � _ ._ z S_ L& ------- �=6) 76ie 22 a— —---- f� ( ------ FO Atl Luint ait __ "i- $Lv __RN_Oel 2,Z —_FQ_a�✓_/e Z!�*- -040 --O Q_ SQ_v« Ca+Jfa-j _ /� _ S CO SIJ7- 2 13 Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. �r G hen---�-5� L4 k_ -s Lv -gyms `��---� ` KArrtLE ^�' IE -N 1a-'15 0—OR8ERo5 — 1/E'; � �6o �— - -�- __,s -q- -I E KZCl�'A-4 0 Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. V ---- wo-`1L2`a-, -- ------------------------ ----�=�-��.-� _.�1'�� Cif ���1L��=-��.-��►1� �,+-- ILI A11c►oi_ Wnq_ao _�'4, N -q�w _ Qo o Res ----- f� qL2 0/�U t- C- h _ 544-9i5S — —----------------- Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate n process of expanding the Marsh St: Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 1�1am_1a`tjy _yv, 7I�et, Co►_u3u_coY1a" _!tea LCoaf.2LL6� 11G—"L----�� 2 ----------------------- --- yr ----------------- - (�.Gt.Gti�� 2-00 e twit. Dr. 6A Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St: Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. i Fg rd • 1 • t-` �tti�k_Gn Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature C��Q_�hor1�2T-91------fie LL :P 2 39 — ZZS'U �r�___►'�''_�-?�ecc� _�e[e�2_�✓rte _��r_._�s.cQ_c� __`��l s�� ���,� 54 06 -xs-_----u - - Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. gu � 0 %pK����L.� IO� �Z %G 11-4ciele Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. [AOU! MAP,, !-2-4 23s Ll -- 6�ftk-- -awlt-- Ili U5—wyis- #t, j,-t_s-D-s-_ 5.3�`aia_;6,44 -&� INo4 ) (kulw 1 [a -* D SLD 01mol -3 331�J L ---- W �')^ ---- !3 51 , Lc2, std vqq 9 5z6 Parking ... We Want,It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. ����-- �LWI 2✓1 «4nef'--��-- �/t 5�_ c_o �Lc�_o�o;5 __J`�_a-p�/���� ft 2 e- V e— 6? o S '° S - Y7- X 70 Ci`l ee,m Re -e - d la9a- orcv V 1-31 --A -- ---------- �e4e4 Ti i���y J:',��aTo.✓ /� % , /i3 s i /JOOG � /�-G- ---------------------------- I'16L 5--ZC -7el—SSGL ---------------------------- --- �i 11� iJ. r�� t L * . I `•��y i ME q _9 P -o -Z9do /`10d3ox /605 S1 -v1 c,4 5-qi —521..5 Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 39k) 9, 4ti 54 -zDZ6 50AVYM4 SW cap Rf� X69 A- �- I----------------- --- _ l�� vin m���i---S�-C�h6Y✓� _��_ e A _ 3 L-2-=--- �f-= - yX and LLA 3 5W- 72*1 `CLA o (,k U Pe o vtz- St - -�. A — $� Q-----5' ; -_ow_ 0-0 hhk �- L-0 Partng...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Indude City & State) Phone Signature -- - U,oa, PSnwa ` S� c� 'eon'Amiq GB CA V. a , 'mac 1 L Lot -f aywzy 12d-5 S L -o "/a �gq ,G4 R3(J63 X383 Ge,�—q 3qv! -- CA 934:7�c( Parxing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 4,11s�(�v Jl l U-' nu--------eIrw—e4t4 _51-0 -------��-''�`� "0- 95 17C Casa, St.--- �ehLu�sJ2,_15-------- -- -- i Z' -3U Ccs rr id.a Pr'. l% ------ —-------- 643-71 SGS �r� zz0/ara 9 1419 U_P D� ---------- � �! -------------- --- -- ---- ---- �' t`L_�/ 4 luRori 132? �4n1'i ge-zAJe 52$- 3g4+� iJ' � � v -I_ "Y�_�_ togs Rd - - 3 8 - ct rrc�v ZZ� S �CL;' C.lc�_gsc-e :•., S0 -6c cc_a.. l-e,.cs rave -(�3 gZo `t ------------------------ -- =� ACL I �1� (if AN 01 MAA Vo lid . 6A FAA ` 7�0-`H bd fVUYiII� Parxing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature _ I ------------- — — — ---- � c cz E+rtn - tn ----- 3 C hIklt Tk►i __ r]►LL--- 12-2564_ � Pariking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation, element to provide for this procedure. -------------------------------- __ � �c — -------------------------- ----------- -------------- ---�--- IL �(3-13�I�( Its Lnuu- OLVJ) (/ - . 7 5-�0 VtcA N t -k- l to "1567,rt,1,1, Pe'C4Ck if 2-41 HAI�� ---------------- - ----- _C''1 117kw ---? Cq�0. SF _ I � (0 Sep u ota N6, �Ll t--- Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature A21 —Pkt-1 n--- —L'116—$±---EL°Leo—U44- ---------- ------ ---------�— - --��--y Wv u v- ryt LtAe h- _2z t,16c K � . 7 . AtJW Kc, Qikrr 44 AOJi--� . 1> 1r'1 Aa,77 UeAad . 4. `P 93Y0, Kkey Kv�cvui�L�i ',11 SFi2Pn�v S, SKI-Sqqv <%.0 6 57.s �/, �; Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLC City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. `O—Q)LI-- ---------- A ----------- `z- _ CUA Pot — i r Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signati c.V�— o rV e r 4es4k (o �Or. G.j e r �'� � . , S�-rJ Cfi �l3 S�}C) t) ------------------------- 5��---yam__�----_-71�2_ ��3 �� YS0 ry 9_= a ii VNIFRIFAM 4 STREAM ASBxAfITE,% ING. N SVLl -iVY � Yf -De97"2� Ste` u M(Ao4 ' .. l-)fz k,/t -&,a %J 269�a 1/ Q4'e,,'0'a- J ----- S -H `( 7 ° 4Y 1 Y 1 5-3&7 6-yY -7 `/ 7 7 Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. A c,ia M _DA,v15_i ��� Vis±aLc o Seo CQ. 14 ---------------- ?zO LU caw -------------------- Q�O ,-17 -J egnnj Cc3vu �1if ----------------------- a ---53 ------------- ------------------ ------------ ------------- i i G� ' - - Jam Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. ---- 12rrld �Q rnes_ J11&5 L& Qom!"b &&echa �a_ 4 OS 9?4 - ►�ar¢�.� �q �9i3 Cexeaczv3 _s.;..n. y44 -roost ------------------------ --------------------- �c�r � ka.__T�ck-�-✓ __ 2�2_�1_ �� ��+�_- 1�J`L----�3=9�I1�__�I _-- PFme 1%--------------- -w•�--��---- SL13—`--+°—� --- �c `iVlcilSLe % .J eAj #,4A4 r1 _ W f q.1 1:�e t 33'Plctceyji, �jeLSk ecl 1�-CA h 777ca5w�;p *-,4 C 4 ii -7.3 -8533 w 0 ki Parking ... We Want- It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 0A e--� a A 1 Parking ... We Want -It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature sow .r ---- ` ---=-- ----- ---1 -- II_ 5yy"710 r t��c _aaa------ arse=--=��- ------ 11175 LO --------------------------------= fir. ttto SW g3g6r 5qq_. ----------------------- 4(1-? Accy i i Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature 3 t.& Q. 4n_4337Le Seah lal� ezi-L�'V 7LNA2i65Zc1a?,Y-Av Ekt4wc (Oc; 2QFA-"'; N.{4- 7-n--sZS-L CI. A( u -D Z�24- Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature E, & - al-uz' ll� ��i108 �rr4/,_f-a;5 S1 _Url_7ZO -_�ls� 1�1_6o —� lllAolw��� tai Gn,lai•,�ari Lti Srtnnlc�, cR c�•+,u C►ti _�Q R�b RGQ --- /3 � YiNana QVC' — 4P / Z —sw Jb4u-111-d -. 0 Wei " - --- a 51 C /l/lzz-�— Par -king ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. ----------------- ---------- Re�-----C2� .Sem _ _sg �3 ----------- ----Oil- 6v----------�? 1 �� ► P ,nog! i 1�,C _ .IL_ f�,�,� � rd . R9� ] . /fie, � n n o lit_O_-��----��3 � a _� C Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. v ILI l Le (JULAA iU I a 'VL 58'-f -A- -- [--------------------------------- -& " f%4.- .Ic n --- 90 i I {��CA �N fi�2 �I�1 CC�a�i D o s� j 6-- � ib S Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature go -/5n ------ G/y_67z/70;Z - 7 moven mar / Ck.�?�, 55/y --3 U g- -----------a---3� Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature CA 7SZ-0&4 7 _V47)6�ert&.Loo 11 94411� 5)hvk 4. 51n . LA- ----►��� --------------------------------�q`�_fe�zV -- �5--------------------------=----� Parxing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. ----------------- S qAO Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. _Y¢ i�_1M1c�i _L�1ll 0. G�"1__SLO '17_� el _ n e _13_ro ke--- Sv_5 4 : a iII (D_ S2 Ja------------ '`-- Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. TA 7ud _(23� -pG�a S aK(C,S C,* 4707 sc� �g-o --a�-- ------------- -------c------ --- --— ---- Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition. the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Inelude City & State) Phone Signature ►��'Q�i2�slZ __a�G l_pTlf/,cL--�, �_�_CR __Sy.3 _ 33 I Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate {. process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the ; circulation element to provide for this procedure. - - --- -----�-----�-----I -- 4 `ry A'c4ard IO&L 1. 4 s e 1ve161- �� y 7,0 P,y [ARRA fi,AA eAd 1-25-0 --e-sumo Ca„yo� /�l .& �z fjo c,4 W5- il?3 G✓� (%S (% l7L'G�G+.y,o �G.� � �`� SLG G/1, 5,45W�3 315 Coe" 6f,D 5Y�-Jvgl -gg7o d a-s'� (/�A sal � �` •�.s .��� - ��'� C���� . � - S�af /�W" 1;�s yvs asdy , air `�' 3�-to2 N 05 �oj Y 1-7ar5o /l LO Yin �4�0�ji 5 1095 �SYr�sa C,-. pesoC?.�cfs2-3 ,4227-eoilA•&,jSL0 qjo �Ecc- G'��• � `�Ismo �ERcryCA 3-116 ��• 7 5" 93/any V��� �j691 / llrnan5,� �, , Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. t LUQ dA_% C(iol.l- ------------------------- OZ- L em Ply ---------- ------------------------------- --- cL ------ ------------- iL�,t�__Uii r_�__----- -------------- 9 - Mv&_ S -Lo 93u o �7 .Y///4/iso. �ge7�c� i�//� (�// /���j _/\-= =--=`� �5 An OL 1 � A Um/ l ,V PIAN 4A 1 l 1 � 1 Irl / . A 1445- I n . 0-4 13 Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. -- i-AA =_ w ( (---113 I I (� �o, _ _ Osas UIQ Q� _-----?_a zZ� AJA tv Rell� D--yRs1 _11 JkS hk- Rosa sLo MCiria-lrr4..LtsT1a'%in la9-1 Chc GrralCR-1 e- SC0EA 64,S96 3y.rY ------------ 00� '= Al Parking...We Want It! e, We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the ,circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) AddressfInclude Citv & State) Phone _Signature EL7 N /73ANS SLD ------------ — — ---- 0 -- -- — Lg c — pv_" beFeoS 102q Cka)Cro SLD C1- (oY.3�JL Pct cTa c_ --s ys'-v 5 Oe. 1- Pd b, q77 s fn 7�i - v AimY �X`I �i� �80� bLn(t� i+ iI pz s . 4(ok -438 U V rel. S t 1".7 uL5 0 s `13 y- s z-- _ al'z3-i _------- /� K He.Yir�y hl�Y-1i1 /9`/9��rr0 � U Parking ... We.. Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 4w VU -4-4-- ------------------- - �Q-----?S�-N_zA ate• --S40 s -5-2y -3 ---- ----------------- - 28il WfNk O C,/h 2.0 SLO 5"ys-51S-O ------------------------------------------ 1-3 AN9 Si �'� Sys-d6�1 &�_i��_��� c� 7o`.� 2�-2 SV3 03s1 Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the' Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. oNER B"02 w�, . r,,,,, 4131l� tell -2 --- -- _ ��D 3ju S u1_'2/l n -NAA r\ c/-1 a ? n 1 /. t1 z 14;z9 e , ��5�_° 3L0------ 5/1 -moi S _ raU�ec,L�.ev__3a� Parxing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. ili O/ _ LE4 No 21%W TJX � F---- Te- e L�4 J_ -----= 0 I V -3¢ l ,L 7aso 4 57 4L_ 16L44 41 hRzl LoV 1Z gE SLO_. —tnOM_r0eT.n„ Parking...We Want It! r We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. 5A 11�✓�_s�rL`Z( 1(33 ri , ----- - ---- (i3 rise �( It '— ---------------------------------------- w ) NJ 2A RL, 5 _AE!s H_ sT, SLv :7-F / - 39S �sZ fv-BTN/GL X/,fiT ;�O SYS - QUA Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Stru.Qure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure�— a,6"— -DL --.�c2XP -_1 I -AP M-?�' qk,41/ 1633 /C6V44- &14V .SLC �5V3 97Z 0 O(L7�'-� Dn v1 D 91qA2.&-C L ------------------ V ---�� S'7 _L-A ut6t, ut So Sy q °r 3 7 J- ' V Cswpex-�r*^ f63 "X Ol„ SWIRR }oh SSI 12OJ1rnC1 rch 2o.36Kr c. main n _1(.ia L D Ui --�/��-- 71tIOCK a,6"— -DL --.�c2XP -_1 I -AP M-?�' qk,41/ 1633 /C6V44- &14V .SLC �5V3 97Z 0 O(L7�'-� Dn v1 D 91qA2.&-C L ------------------ V ---�� S'7 _L-A ut6t, ut So Sy q °r 3 7 J- ' V Cswpex-�r*^ f63 "X Ol„ SWIRR }oh SSI 12OJ1rnC1 rch 2o.36Kr c. main n _1(.ia L D Ui --�/��-- Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding .the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. DOE_9 '—T/ n(JALL- , o� 7 �h�'.,�c4,44b L°AyuCas q9 _��!al _ i L>, R Su C-% ZS'Lo ---------------------------i--__-------- -10 ° +9 ---PO &)Y,_I �J-0-2 Lfw� ti4V ff9a Del R t o . . C G. BcX1I47 L/5 wA' 11 S� H-6571 S Zo Way AVV 8 Parking ... We Want - It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the 'Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. CA ------ r i —�LL2�elht s � i w► QN _ g l��_ _rU� o w� � , _ �_ � _i� r Q.'Ft _ IS4o I_ - -- - --_3 301- --, ----- alq,19 r r iq Parking...We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate V process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. N Name(Print) Address(Ynclude City & State) Phone Signature �fna }r►.n1s��u�Shs__J�S=�r�--s�� �r-1-c-Cr MR MWraMM -5 t Z i %A. Parking ... We Want--- -It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. � ^1 Parxing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signat -------- L oil. bjat-50z hs-m� e [�NKP R I FM 2FX� Pali. 2- } -Sar , � �fu� hnwar, /3,�� ff► a,� e,► -A ffi sGo 93�a i sus-���� � �arn; n o L 47t). C (, ---- �.�,, C'4 9aZ-o.�73 �cC -(LANA � F({.A1�� /f�h�8 I'�u✓0%3arnc�L* /�.,�nb�,a r� 9��� ��%D'"Q/.lE�/�'� Parking ... We Want- It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. I� wwga- 9- ' 1$70* Do ins �1v� L.6�s 6 sc�s S �'6 b T 777 -q -L 4i,,� 3S I 4-oS Gr-�P--os JC .5L -O j </3-4o5 -rl4 AIIU,. / Parking ... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature Ocs4S4. CO GtD {V(,tLLl l_ 4A, i -k MA -0t �51 lvzl' /Yl)l u c SSj &"OVA De "7 51j -S6 kv Ir i' Parking ... We Want Ii! the undersigned, process of expanding circulation element t opetition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the provide for this procedure. bro4A __S+ SL -0 r - Sqn / �t�rndp4ase_4'aL/ts_:?� ----------- -- -------=----= % v.Nr C.A 641 7-- 4 1 -� _�o�N---- vvo - - _-----�►�;��� __ �a3S two; ���F� �---s��-�`�_� o.Z) ------=C------ -------F101 �---------------- 9 1-� r a Ir =- -- ------------ --o "R -]Z---- _ -- vl�w --- - - -- -= ----9S at PDA -- S E_o Parloing... We Want It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO Cit; Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Par'xing structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone Signature �U(�T I,OW��t;nl �Z► 6oi ���22 S I, 0 ,CA-e'Iw6 �l 15 6�' / so 9.1;KVI" r�l 5�1-' '40 Wfvo e.. C J Parking...We Want_ It! We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding theMarsh St. Parki g Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. al� 3 --C.-------------- V/V Parking ... We Want -'It'. We, the undersigned, petition the SLO City Council to approve the immediate process of expanding the Marsh St. Parking Structure and amending the circulation element to provide for this procedure. Name(Print) Address(Include City & State) Phone. Signature u i QNLol�z-r, ,_� uG -St--SLS---'5—q Hb ?3Y-tl\ � 1/73 -V(,qZ -- — -- 4r� a Z 2 i, �'' � 1�l `1 �'1 E. l U � ----- -----------------����_��------------- — Q.O ox S 1 _.e���e 1917