HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1999, 5 - REVIEW THE DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN (PDAP) AND DRAFT EIR council M.fimMay41
May 4,1999
j aGEnaa Repout 5
CITY OF SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Tent'Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN
ACCESS PLAN(PDAP) AND DRAFT EIR
CAO RECOMMENDATION The City Council should:
1. Receive presentations from staff and consultants on the draft PDAP and EIR;
2. Provide specific direction to staff concerning the final content of the Plan;and
3. Depending on the extent of the recommended changes to the draft plan, schedule a public
hearing to consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting the Plan.
DISCUSSION
In October, 1997 the City Council reviewed a draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan
(PDAP) and approved its contents for the purpose of initiating the environmental review process.
The Plan was prepared by the consultant firm of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates with Mr. Larry
Patterson as the project manager. Copies of the minutes of City Council meetings when the plan
was discussed are attached as Exhibit C. A copy of the draft PDAP,dated December 3, 1997,has
previously been distributed to each Council member.
The City hired the Parsons Transportation Group in March, 1998, to prepare a draft and final
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)that describes the impacts of fully implementing the Plan. The
draft EIR was published in November, 1998 and a public review period was established that ended
on February 5, 1999. During the public review period,the City received written comments from:
• Ira J. Winn,City Resident and Professor of Urban Studies(Emeritus)
• Eugene H.Judd,Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
• San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
• Ride-on Transportation
These comments have been responded to within the Final EIR, a copy of which will be distributed
to each Council member under separate cover.
Presentations
The membership of the City Council has substantially changed since the last City Council meeting
in October, 1997. For the benefit of the new Council members(Schwartz,Ewan,and Marx)and as
a refresher for continuing members (Settle and Romero) staff and Consultants intend to make a
presentation of key elements of the PDAP including a synopsis of the:
5-1
4
Council Agenda Report-Parking and Downtown Access Plan Study Session
Paste 2
• Expansion of Parking Supply (targeted areas, monitoring program and demand thresholds,
relationship of thresholds to planning activities).
• Parking Management(targeted activities,priorities and fiscal impacts).
• Parking Demand Reduction(targeted activities,implementation and funding).
The Council will also have available for review the "Final EIR" which will include written
responses to comments. The EIR consultant will be on hand to present a synopsis of:
• Significant environmental impacts associated with full implementationof the PDAP;and
• Mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the PDAP to eliminate significant impacts
or reduce them to insignificant levels.
Both Plan and EIR consultants will be available to answer City Council questions. A presentation
outline for the May 4te meeting is attached as Exhibit A.
Public Input
The volume of comments received as part of the EIR's public review process was minimal.
However,it is staff's belief that the "policy issues," i.e. the basic tenants of the Plan more than the
environmental impacts of Plan implementation,are still much the heart of the debate and may again
be raised by business and environmental groups. These issues are discussed in the City Council
Agenda Report for the October 28, 1998 meeting, attached as Exhibit B. Both staff and
consultants will be prepared to respond to questions at the study session.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Presentation Outline
Exhibit B: Council Agenda Report for October 28, 1997
Exhibit C: City Council Minutes for October 28, 1997
Under Separate Cover
Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan(previously distributed)
Final EIR for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan
1:\Everyone\CotncilAgendaReporm\DowntownAccessPlanStudySession
5-2
EXHIBIT A
PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN PRESENTATIONS
(May 4, 1999)
Element Responsibility Content Presentation
Time(1)
Introduction Mike Purpose of tonight's meeting 5
McCluskey Introduction of presenters
(Public Works)
Background Terry Sanville Origin of planning effort 10
(Public Works) Summary of process used to develop drift plan
Synopsis of Larry Patterson Synopsis of consultant's work scope 20
Plan (Plan Summary of Plan components(three-pronged
Consultant) program)
Rationale for key plan features:
horizon year
demand growth rate
parking utilizationthresholds
financing strategy
parking structure priorities and site options
Requisite monitoring effort
Synopsis of Frank Sherkow Synopsis of EIR scope 20
EIR (EIR Process used to develop draft and Final EIR
Consultant) Summary of significant impacts and mitigation
Synopsis of written comments received and
responses.
Public Individuals&Organization Comments and Questions As needed
Comments
Response to Staff Clarify factual information As Needed
Questions Consultants Address policy options
(public&
council)
Closing Mike Next steps at subsequent meeting are: 10
McCluskey Certify the final EIR
Discuss,amend as needed,and adopt Plan
Additional Council Information?
1. Council may ask questions for clarification after each presentation section. Presenter will be
responsible for fielding questions with help from other presenting team members.
5-3
EXHIBIT B ��
council October 28.1997
j acEnba Report ""�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
PREPARED BY: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: Initial Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan
CAO RECOMMENDATION The City Council should:
1. Invite public testimony concerning the contents of the Initial Draft Plan;
2. Consider staff's recommendationsand provide specific direction on the Initial Draft Plan;and
3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing on the Final Draft Plan upon completion of the
environmental review process(estimated to take ten to twelve months).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On July Ste, the City Council reviewed Progress Report #2 prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates.
At that meeting, various issues were raised by the Council and the public. Since July, the Consultant
completed an initial draft of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan (Exhibit A). Provisions of the
Plan itself and information included in its appendix address key issues brought up at the July Ste
meeting. These key issues are also highlighted in this Agenda Report. Other implementation issues
that staff has identified are addressed here with recommendations for Council disposition. These issues
include a staff-recommended strategy for funding Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) activities: first
use grant funds and then use increases in Parking Fund revenues.
The Parking and Downtown Access Plan includes three main components: Parking Management,
Parking Expansion, and Parking Demand Management. If access demand to the downtown continues
to grow at moderate rates, all activities recommended by the Plan would be carried out during a 15-
year period. However, a monitoring program to determine access demand is recommended. The
monitoring program will determine if a series of pre-established demand thresholds or "triggers" have
been exceeded. These thresholds must be exceeded before construction of new parking garages
(exclusive of the expansion of the Marsh Street garage)can be pursued.
The Community Development Director has determined that due to the Plan's scope,its implementation
may cause significant environmental impacts. The Director has required that a focused EIR be
prepared (see Exhibit B). Impacts to be addressed by the EIR include traffic, air quality, aesthetics,
cultural resources and possibly noise. It will take ten to twelve months to complete the environmental
review process. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Council accept public testimony, consider
staff recommendations and provide direction on the initial draft Plan, and defer adoption of a plan until
the environmental review process is complete.
5-4
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 2
Once the EIR is prepared and reviewed by the public, it is the intent of staff that the Council consider
adopting a Parking and Downtown Access Plan. Because this Plan contains significant additions and
deletions affecting the existing Parking Management Plan (1995), it will replace that plan. The
Council should note that provisions retained from the adopted 1995 document are underlined for easy
reference.
DISCUSSION
1. Status of Plan
The process that lead to the publication of the initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan
is presented in Figure #1 on the following page. After publication of two progress reports and input
from an ad hoc Steering Committee and the City Council, the firm of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
prepared the initial draft of the Plan. This document was distributed to Council members and interested
individuals and groups on September 29'x. On October 6 , an informal "Coffee Klatch"was held at the
City-County Library to allow people to ask questions of the Consultant. The attendance sheet for this
informal meeting is attached as Exhibit C.
The Community Development Department evaluated the initial draft of the plan, found that its
implementation may have a significant effect on the environment, and determined that a focused EIR
should be prepared. Therefore,the City Council may not adopt a Plan until the requisite EIR has been
prepared and circulated and a final EIR is certified.
2. Key Issues
At the Council's July 8h study session, Council members and the public identified problems with the
completeness of Progress Report #2 and the methodologies used by the Consultant to establish
recommendations. These concerns include:
• Basis and use of growth scenarios
• Timing of Plan implementation
• Impact of Parking Demand Reduction(PDR)measures on the timing of garage construction
• Monitoring and implementation triggers
• Clarification/refinement of costs and funding sources (both PDR and parking construction)
• Effect of compressed work week schedules and telecommuting on Downtown businesses
• The role of transit service as a PDR measure recommended by the Plan
The City Council directed the Consultant to review and refine the report based on the comments
received at the study session. This direction for "fine tuning" the strategies and recommendations has
been incorporated into the initial draft of the Plan; the Consultant's response to these issues is
summarized in Figure#2.
5-5
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 3
FIGURE#1: Synopsis of the Process to Date(October 1997)
ACTIVITY COMMENT
Progress Report #1: Completed in February, 1997, this report presents
Consultant completes report; information about downtown parking and alternative
port reviewed by the transportation, employee population, and choice of travel
Steering Committee. modes by commercial core employees, patrons, and
residents.
Progress Report #2• Completed in June, 1997,this report presents parking supply
Consultant completes repot and management options, PDR options, evaluates various
d it is distributed to policy alternatives, and presents a recommended parking and
Steering Committee and access strategy.
Council.
City Council Study Session: At the Study Session on July 8 , the public and the City
Consultant presents Report Council raised various issues. These issues are addressed
2 to Council, the public within the body of the Initial Draft Plan with a synopsis
provides testimony, and provided within this Council Agenda Report. Funding PDR
Council identifies various measures and cost and growth assumptions were the most
areas of concern significant issues raised at that time.
1
Initiate Environmental On August 27 , the rough draft was sent to CDD to begin
Review: Rough Draft of Plan the CEQA compliance process. Only basic policies and
as sent to the Community activities were identified with graphics outlining potential
Development Department to parking garage sites/areas still under consideration. A 95%
initiate environmental review. complete draft was transmitted for review on September
12'.
Initial Draft Plan Released: On September 29" the Initial Draft Plan was distributed
Consultant completes Plan along with a cover memo that invited interested
d Staff distributes it to individuals and groups to attend a Coffee Klatch at the
Council and interested City-County Library. The purpose of this informal
individuals and groups. gathering was to allow people to ask questions of the
Consultant and City transportation staff.
5-6
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 4
i -=� a:'Figare'#2:Summary ofKeyls'sngs ana;Consdltant Response
Issnes.:;. _; <; ConsultantrResponse�t !lan Appendiz_Citations)
The 5%per year The Consultant used a high growth rate (which is based on short-term historical
growth rate assumption data from 1991 forward) with the understanding this high level would not be
was considered too sustainable over a 15 year period. It was used to describe the "upper limit" of
high and could parking demand. This level of growth would not necessarily dictate more parking
prematurely accelerate garage construction(Appendix E)
parking garage
expansion
How will this plan be Implementation of the plan is described in a 15-year time frame. However, each
implemented over the plan component is linked to measurable performance thresholds or "triggers" that
next 15 years? define when they should be undertaken. With the use of these triggers, the
construction of new parking garages will be undertaken in response to measurable
increases in access demand and is not tied to a specific time frame.(Appendix A)
How will the impact of The Plan recommends that a PDR program be undertaken immediately, carried out
PDR delay the for three years,tested for its effectiveness and modified to improve performance as
construction of new needed. To the extent that this program can reduce access demand by"freeing up"
parking spaces? existing parking, additional growth can occur without triggering the need for new
parking structures(Appendix B)
What will "trigger"the PDR and Parking Management activities would be immediately implemented,
various phases of the monitored for their performance, and revised as needed. For the construction of
recommended plan? new parking garages, access demand would be monitored through direct
measurements at two-year intervals. Specific action to pursue constructing a new
parking garage would take place when pre-established demand thresholds
(referenced as"triggers")have been reached. (Appendix A)
The cost calculations The Consultant reconsidered the cost calculations and met with staff and financial
for garage construction community members to prepare more "realistic' cost projections. The Consultant
and PDR were skewed determined that a pro forma method for comparing construction costs and PDR
and other funding costs was more appropriate( see Appendix D, pg.9). In addition to Parking Funds,
options need to be the Consultant also identified General Fund and grants from state and federal
available agencies as possible funding sources for PDR activities. Recommendations for
funding PDR activities is presented elsewhere in this Agenda Report.(Appendix D)
Use of compressed The Consultant recognized these options as demonstration programs with a target
work weeks and of 3% of city and county employees (27 total) for telecommuting and 400
telecommuting will employees for compressed work weeks. The Consultant also acknowledged that
have a compressed work weeks keep people in town longer and sets up potential to
counterproductive patronize more businesses. Also, telecommuting is typically undertaken on a part-
effect on downtown time basis; its impact on retail activity would be minimal.
businesses
How does transit fit The Consultant assumed that transit service would be maintained at levels called
into the overall Plan? for in the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and that transit service has sufficient
capacity to handle additional downtown patronage. The Plan does not present
additional activities that enhance downtown transit service beyond those already
identified in the SRTP and the Circulation Element.
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 5
3. Primary Components of the Plan.
The initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan includes three primary components:
Parking Management, Parking Expansion, and Parking Demand Reduction (PDR). In the following
sections, the goal for eachyrimary component is summarized, implementation issues associated with
each component are identified,and a staff response and recommendations provided.
A. Parking Management: increase the use of underutilized peripheral parking spaces and reduce
long-term employee parking in the commercial core through application of parking pricing and time
limit adjustments to give optimum usage and increased parking revenues.
Action Plan. The Consultant has recommended that the following strategies be employed:
• Increasing the number of long-term (10-Hour)metered spaces in the periphery of the downtown.
• Raise the current maximum daily parking structure charge from $3.00 to$5.00.
• Reduce the amount of free time in the garages from 90 to 60 minutes.
• Consider Residential Parking Management Programs to address neighborhood issues.
• Increase meter and parking structure rates and parking fines.
• Increase in-lieu fees applicable to downtown development.
• Increase contributions from downtown property owners and businesses.
• Revise time limits for on-and off-street parking spaces.
• Consider adding a full-time enforcement person.
Implementation7ssue 'Staff.Response
Implementation of the activities listed Careful monitoring is required after each action is implemented to
above may not change parking determine its immediate impact. New strategies can replace those
patterns for long-term parkers — found to be ineffective. Adding another full-time enforcement person
primarily downtown employees. should ensure compliance with parking regulations and produce
additional revenue.
Long-term metered parking spaces An extensive education and marketing program is needed. BIA
may not be used to the fullest extent assistance in carrying out these activities is important and is called for
possible. by the Plan. As with other plan components, monitoring and
modifications to recommended strategies will be pursued.
Encouraging employees to park at the If conflicts occur, the City could establish "shared use" parking areas.
periphery of the downtown could Under this option, time limits would be established for curb parking
increase conflicts in adjoining (e.g. 2 hour limits) but residents would be given permits that exempt
residential areas. them from these limits. Other management options are available and
would be explored if conflicts develop.
5-S
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 6
B. Parking Expansion (increased supply): Provide ample short-term parking in the downtown for
visitors and shoppers by building parking structures strategically placed along the periphery of the
commercial core. Site acquisition, design and construction activities would be undertaken when
measurements of access and parking demand exceed pre-established thresholds or"triggers."
Action Plan. The Consultant recommends that the following strategies be employed:
• Construct parking structures as guided by the implementation and monitoring program proposed by
the Plan.
• Initiate property acquisition (as needed), design and environmental review of the Palm II parking
structure.
• Evaluate the potential for new parking sites and acquire two new sites: one in the Fremont Theater
quadrant, and the other in the Wells Fargo quadrant.
Implemeatatioa L9sae Staff116- se
_ „ � j
The Plan sets priorities Staff feels that the parking expansion strategy should be flexible enough to allow
for the purchasing the Council to consider alternatives and plan for the future. For example properties
property and building often "come" on the market that are situated in locations of future structures (an
new parking structures. "opportunity buy") or unwilling sellers make other targeted sites more difficult to
However desired sites obtain. Examples might include:
may not be available.
The City may be faced • The first priority site (Palm II) is partially owned by the City which should
with "unwilling sellers" facilitate project implementation. However, if the non-City owned segments
and may be unwilling or cannot be easily acquired, the scale of the project may need to be changed from
unable to employ its that presented by the Downtown Concept Plan.
powers of eminent
domain to purchase the • The willingness of the owner of the Wells Fargo site to sell the property is
desired sites. unknown. This site would produce little new parking and is recommended for
purchase at a later time.
• The City could purchase two adjacent residences and expand the Palm-Nipomo
site to include a third parking structure. However, demand in this quadrant of
the downtown is presently lower than in other areas.
The City will need to balance "opportunities" for purchasing land for parking
structures against priorities set by actual increases in demand in the downtown's
various quadrants. Purchasing land from willing sellers to build parking in low-
demand areas could delay construction of structures in parts of the downtown where
access demand is high.
The Consultant Staff recommends that the methodology for measuring parking demand be identical
recommends that to the one employed by the Consultant as described in Progress Report #1. Staff
parking demand be believes that directly measuring parking space utilization during the same time
monitored based on frame originally used by the Consultant will provide a more accurate estimate of
changes in parking changes in parking demand. This strategy will allow a comparison with the results
meter revenues. of the Consultant's original work completed in 1996.
5-9
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 7
C. Parking Demand Reduction. Reduce the need for constructing additional parking by carrying out
a comprehensive program that creates additional parking spaces for customer and visitor usage by a
combination of fostering the use of alternative modes of travel and reducing downtown trips to work.
Both actions are designed to decrease the use of single-occupant vehicles. This program is primarily
directed at reducing access demand created by downtown employees. (Note: in previous documents
PDR measures were referred to as "Transportation Demand Management (TDM)" measures. The
consultant and staff felt that the PDR terminology provided a better descriptor for use in this Plan.)
Action Plan.The Consultant recommends that the following strategies be employed
• Market existing and proposed PDR programs.
• Implement vanpool and carpool programs
• Pursue a plan or guideline for improving pedestrian access.
• Pursue improving access for bicycles(with minimum impact on parking and circulation).
• Initiate trial programs for telecommuting and compressed work schedules.
Implementation lissne:. '.' Staff Re iponse '
:.. ;
`.
Selecting a funding The Consultant recommends that increased Parking Fund revenues be used to pay
source(s) for the PDR for PDR activities —reference Policy S.1,page 18 of the draft Plan. Alternatives
program. to this policy are shown on page 19 of the draft plan and include the following:
• Use grant funds to pay for PDR activities and augment these funds with City
General Funds as needed.
• Use grant funds and General Funds to pay for PDR activities for three years.
If the PDR program is successful, consider shifting permanent funding
responsibilities to the Parking Fund.
• Use any Parking Fund revenues to fund all components of the PDR program.
Staff has carefully considered the various options including consideration of
likely grant funding and the impact of using General Funds to pay for ongoing
PDR activities. In general, grant funds are not a secure long-term funding source
while reliance on General Funds could postpone or eliminate other approved City
programs or projects. Staff recommends that the following "combination
strategy"be incorporated into the Plan as Policy 5.1:
5.1 Funding PDR Activities
• First priority: to the greatest extent possible, pursue grant funding to
support the ongoing costs of PDR projects and activities.
• Second Priority: Ijgrant funds are not sufficient to fully support the PDR
program, use increased Parking Fund revenues generated through
implementation of this Plan.
Use of Parking Fund revenues would be limited to the amount of new Parking
Fund revenues generated by implementation of the Plan. To insure that these
revenues become reality and that parking management objectives are met, the
draft plan recommends that the Council consider the addition of a parking
enforcement officer in 1999 (reference page A-11, third row of Table 2). To
insure PDR activities are pursued, implemented and measured, the Plan
recommends a new half-time PDR Coordinator position be created. 5-10
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 8
Imp7enien4atiowhine ..` -staff.Response
How will PDR provisions The draft Plan suggests that compressed work week schedules and telecommuting
for telecommuting and be implemented in Summer, 1998 (reference page B-3). The City already has
compressed work extensive working knowledge of one form of a compressed work week—the 9/80
schedules impact City and schedule. Neither agency has experience with telecommuting.
County work force
management? In May, 1997, the City Council approved a Trip Reduction Incentive Program
(TRIP) for the City's work force as an 18-month "trial program" which could
include both elements. Program guidelines are being produced and should be
ready for Council consideration during Fall, 1997.
In light of concerns for workforce management, staff recommends that the
implementation section of the draft Plan (page B-3) be amended to delete the
bulleted items under"Summer 1998"relative to these two PDR activities and add
the following items to"Winter 1998":
Winter 1997/98
• Initiate the City's Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for a 18-
months trial period, monitor its performance, and amend the program as
needed
• Provide a copy of the City's TRIP guidelines to the County and request that
it consider similar programs for its downtown workforce. Enlist the help of
Ride-On Transportation, as needed, to facilitate PDR activities with the
County.
Note: Since an EIR is required prior to adoption of the Plan, "no-cost" PDR
activities may be independently initiated and tested during the time that the EIR is
being prepared. This initial test may help to frame the final provisions of the
Plan.
5-11
Council Agenda Report—Parldng and Downtown Access Plan
Page 9
PUBLIC INPUT ON THE INITIAL DRAFT PLAN
Throughout the process of developing the Plan, there have been numerous opportunities for individuals
and groups to comment. A synopsis of major comments is provided below. In cases where an
individual acted as the `recognized representative'for their respective organizations,the table identifies
both the individual and the group they represent.
' -igar�e#3zSummary"ofComments.andS.taff_Res-onse""
y.,
'BIA PARKII�TG COMNIITI'F•F - �, p;r � "
rte- '^ -4'• r F. ..t
J'ta��j10n8e ! 1_�_. �..•, 1 _
.. •.. - ..
Parking Fund revenues should not This is certainly one of the "key issues" for resolution. Staff has
be used for anything other than the recommended a middle road position which first looks to grant funding for
parking operations and parking PDR activities and only secondly recommends use of the Parking Fund.
capital facilities. However, all three components (Management, Expansion, PDR) of the
Plan, in one way or another, increase parking supply and are therefore
justified for funding by the Parking Fund.
Do not require the downtown The Plan suggests that if the measures are to be successful,BIA support is
business community to pursue PDR important. The trial period for PDR activities is proposed to last three
measures(otherwise known as years. In staffs estimation, it can be shortened to two years with "non-
TDM Measures). cost" items being initiated and tested during the EIR preparation period.
Critics of the BIA unfairly maintain The BIA may support alternative transportation strategies, however, they
that the downtown business may be reluctant to declare this support until the funding of PDR measures
community is not sensitive to the is resolved. The BIA does not consider the funding of the PDR as a
need for alternative transportation legitimate use of the Parking Fund. Staff believes that use of Parking
as a viable option for providing revenues for PDR measures is analogous to how Water Utility revenues are
access to the commercial core. used to support the city's Water Conservation program,i.e.a parking space
saved is a parking space created.
ALTERNA=TRANSPORTATION-EggeneJad(JudConsultanfs)`.
tssae StaffResponse ..
x
How can the Marsh Street Parking At past public meetings,the City Council made it abundantly clear that this
Structure expansion project be a project is authorized to move forward independent of the Council's
"given" at this point without the consideration of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan. The EIR for
EIR being certified? expanding the Marsh Street Parking Garage will have been considered for
certification at the October 21" Council meeting. Should the project fail
sufficient data exists in the Planto allow alternativesto be pursued.
The cumulative impact of an The scope of this study and hence the Plan was to determine the demands
increased "car-oriented" plan on and supply for access to the downtown and means to address those issues.
pedestrians should be studied. A study of the impacts of cultural"car-orientation" is a separate issue.
5-12
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page10
:- Issae ' eVoW
The City should "freeze" the total The notion of establishing a future parking threshold is one that, in staff's
number of parking spaces needed at opinion, is easy to comprehend but very difficult to quantify or
the projected YR 2010 level, substantiate. This dramatic change in parking management would be a
promote Park n'Ride facilities, and significant shift from past,present and recommended parking management
introduce a different approach to practices and was not a part of the scope of this project. The Plan is
parking management culture similar demand driven and responsive to that demand. The Plan allows for changes
to that employed in Aspen, and should the City wish to pursue the Aspen approach in the future the
Colorado (i.e. eliminate single Plan could be so amended.
parking meters and use parking
guidance systems.)
The City should conduct public The preparation of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan was a City
workshops to introduce alternatives Council initiated activity which took almost two years to complete. Its
to the Downtown Concept Plan, preparation involved a "design team" and a representative"review team"
which has proven to have undue that interacted throughout the process. The Plan was subject to an intense
influence on the Parking and public review process which included public hearings before the Planning
Downtown Access Plan. Both the Commission and Council and was given conceptual approval by the
Downtown Concept Plan and the Council. It is primarily used as a guide for evaluating private and public
Parking and Downtown Access development proposals.
Plan are heavily car-oriented. Staff believes that the Downtown Concept Plan is a valued and valid guide.
We also believe that the initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access
Plan has made a significant attempt to "balance" the needs of pedestrians,
motorists,bicyclists and transit riders.
RIDE-ON TRANSPORTATIONMANAGEMENT'ASSOQATION(TMA) .--
Issue StaffRevponse ;
The Plan fails to take advantage of Staff believes that Ride-On Transportation Management Association
the many Ride-On/TMA services (TMA) will play a significant role in both the acceptance AND
available: sustainability of the PDR program proposed by this Plan. In Appendix B,
• Vanpool Services, Ride-On is a major contributor to the success of three of the seven major
• Guaranteed/Emergency Ride PDR activities.
Home Service,
• Airport/Amtrak/Greyhound
Service,
• Lunch time Shuttle,
• Medical Shuttle,
• The HOP,
• Business Outreach.
CxAMMEROFco�nvcE 1 ;-
>lssae Staff Response - - -
1. The Parking Enterprise Fund Certain elements which contribute to the Parking Fund are restricted to the
should will only be used to fund construction of new parking spaces. The rest of the Parking Fund is used to
measures resulting in the administerthe program and provide for construction or creation
construction and maintenance of of new parking spaces and the maintenance of those spaces. Since the
parking spaces. purpose of PDR measures is to create additional parking spaces by freeing
up the use of existing spaces,use of the Parking Fund for their creation via
a PDR program is viewed as legitimate. 5-13
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Pagell
h
2. Regarding PDR Measures the The Plan recommends the creation of a half-time position to implement and
Plan should reflect that administerthe PDR program. Staff does not feel that this will create a new
• No new bureaucracies should bureaucracy and is needed if the program is to be successful. This position
be created to enact these is discussed elsewhere under Fiscal Impact.
programs;
• Funding for these programs The Parking Fund is currently used to support all Parking Programs. All
(both short and long) should components of the Plan are parking programs including the PDR program.
come from the General Fund. Thus far the General Fund has not subsidized the Parking Fund and vice-
versa. The City's General Fund is more than fully committed and cannot be
used without taking money from other approved programs. Long range
projections do not show substantially increasing revenues for the General
Fund,and if Diablo Canyon closes,the challenge could be major.
3. The Plan should include the With City Council approval, parking for the 27 employees at 955 Morro
following Parking Management Street was reassigned to the Palm I Garage. The Kozak structure(which
Strategies: was paid for by the General Fund) where employees used to park was
• No free city employee parking, renovated into a new public parking lot. Progress Report#2 identified that
• Identified neighborhood areas Palm I was a preferable location for employee parking and Palm 11 was a
become permit zones with 2 hr preferred location for customer and visitor parking.
zones for non-residents,
• Simplify present permit process The Plan has provisions for addressing neighborhood concerns that are
for van and carpools, somewhat different from what is suggested but will still address the issue.
• Explore "valet parking" to use Staff has reviewed the criteria for van permitting and believes it can initiate
under-utilized parking lots, a simpler process. Ride-On services could be contacted for valet service on
• Charge for parking seven days behalf of businesses desiring such as a part of the PDR program.
a week,
• Look at contracting out the The BIA parking committee can begin discussions of a seven day a week
parking operation. parking program and make a recommendation to the full BIA Board for
their recommendation to the City Council. The staff would support
charging for Sunday parking.
Given the mix of currently contracted services that the Parking Program
already employs,it is doubtful that an operator would bid for what's left of
the program. However, the Public Works Department does assess such
opportunities and will research such a program when it is timely and
opportune to do so.
FISCAL IMPACTS
1. Cost of Parking Expansion and Parking Demand Management
One of the more central points of"debate" has been comparing the cost of creating a parking space
"through construction" versus "through PDR activities." The Consultant has use a pro forma method
(net annual cost per space less average annual revenue per space)to estimate parking construction costs
and the combined capital and operating costs of spaces created through PDR activities. The results of
this analysis are shown in the following Figure #4 which shows that costs will vary depending on the
rate of growth of access demand. 5-14
Council Agenda Report—Parldng and Downtown Access Plan
Page12
x,�gure
#&-C6 of jnnal.Cost Pei Spa_ce,Cr
Growth Scenario Cost per Space through PDR Net Cost per New Structure
Space
Low Growth $1,022 --$1,237 $1,100— $1,370
Moderate Growth $971 -- $1,176 $1,100- $1,370
High Growth $511 -- $619 $1,100- $1,370
Source: Table C-1,Page C-1,Initial Draft of Parking and Downtown Access Plan
As shown above, in the low to moderate growth environment, the cost of constructed spaces versus the
cost of PDR-created spaces are comparable. In the high growth environment, construction costs stay
the same but PDR costs drop because of higher capital costs associated with building more facilities.
However, after the 30 years the bond debt for parking garages is retired and net revenues experience a
dramatic increase as compared to the on-going costs for PDR measures.
It should be noted that the above figures:
• Are only planning estimates for creating parking spaces. The actual costs for creating parking
spaces will vary and be influenced by a number of factors such as initial capital outlay, parking
demand,costs of funds, grant funding,parking rates, and opportunities for joint development
• Do not account for the "external" costs and benefits associated with either parking strategy. For
example,the analysis does not attempt to quantify air quality, traffic management, energy, land use
and neighborhood quality benefits or impacts of PDR programs vs. constructed parking. While
beyond the scope of this fiscal analysis, these external issues suggest that an approach that balances
expanding parking supply through constructing parking garages and lots and controlling parking
demand should be taken.
Given the demand-driven aspects of the Plan, evaluation of the most cost effective actions and
measures will be essential at each phase of the Plan.
3. Program Income and Implementation Costs
Based on current cash reserves and revenue stream in the Parking Fund, the Marsh Street Garage can
be expanded, another site can be purchased, and an additional structure could be built through
additional debt financing. Any parking expansion beyond this will require additional funding. The
draft Plan calls for the identification of a long-term funding plan for parking expansion (beyond the
Palm II structure)as a"near term"action(reference Table 2,page A-12).
The Consultant estimates that projected parking demand at moderate growth rates could not be funded
beyond an expansion rate of 250-300 spaces every five years based on historical pattern of moderate
increases to parking meter rates and fines. Since it is difficult to accurately predict what will happen in
the next 5-10 years, this supply of spaces may prove to be sufficient. Conversely, the rate of growth
and intensification in the downtown may not demand parking expansion at or beyond what can be
funded out of current and projected Parking Fund, thus negating the need for any additional
construction and subsequent financial contributions.
5-15
Council Agenda Report—Parldng and Downtown Access Plan
Page13
If high growth rates occur, revenue enhancements and additional funding contributions will be needed
to support higher parking construction levels. New revenue enhancements could include:
• Sunday operations(meters,garages, and enforcement).
• Joint development,whereby the developer bears a larger portion of the financing.
• Assessment districts(property owner participation)
• BIA surcharge(merchant participation)
• Additional reduction or elimination of"free parking time"in garages.
• In-lieu fee increases beyond Consumer Price Index(CPI)adjustments.
A factor that could affect the "revenue stream" is the source of funding for the PDR programs. The
consultant's recommendation is to reserve existing Parking Funds for exclusive use of maintenance
and expansion, but use the"new funds"from the parking management strategies(reduced free time and
higher daily maximum) to fund the PDR program. The ramifications of this policy could affect the
expansion component by reducing the required revenue stream to meet future bond payments and/or
escalate the need for higher parking rates and contributions from merchants. Previous sections of this
Agenda Report have addressed the PDR funding issue with staff's recommendations differing
somewhat from what is recommended by the Consultant in the draft Plan.
3. Cost of Implementing the Plan's Three Primary Components
These costs are detailed in Exhibit C and summarized in the following table.
'Figure#S:Annual Implementation.CosfEstimates
Plea Component P._cog`ram;Cnsts ti -
Parking Management $50,000 start-up, but would generate approximately $170,000 from the
reduction in free time in the garages and a higher daily maximum charge.
Parking Expansion $370,000 to $570,000 for the first years (2003) if growth rates are
moderate and $700,000 to $950,000 in later years (2008) for additional
construction in a high growth rate scenario.
Parking Demand Reduction $125,000 for the first two years and$60,000 a year for long-term operating
costs.
The above costs are "illustrative" and represent what may be needed to implement the Plan if parking
and access demand continues to increase over next 10-15 years. An on-going cost analysis will be
needed as part of the implementation plan.
4. Program Staffing
To meet the workload required to implement, monitor, and administer all three components, the
consultant-recommended Plan recommends 2 '/z positions of additional staffing as follows: Done full-
time position for the parking management and expansion component; 2)one full-time enforcement
5-16
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Pagel4
person to ensure the parking strategies are successful; and 3) one half-time position for the PDR
coordination component. None of the positions are considered in the overall costs of implementing
the Plan. Full implementation of these positions could range from $100,000 to $120,000 depending
on the classification for the parking management component. However, staff feels that all components
of the Plan could be accomplished with 1 '/: new positions with the following actions:
• The parking management and monitoring and expansion requirement could be met by using
existing staff augmented by contract services when large-scale projects are being considered. (This
would be done with the understanding that"other"duties as normally performed will be deferred or
not be done.)
• Interns and temporary help could be used to conduct field work associated with parking
management and monitoring.
• A new enforcement position would require additional funding from the Parking Fund. However,
the cost of this position would be more than offset by the revenue produced from additional
citations being written and is critical to achieving the objectives of the Plan.
• The half-time position for PDR management could be created from an existing half-time
transportation technician vacancy in the Transportation Division.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Stop the Planning Process. The City Council may decide not to adopt a Parking and Downtown
Access Plan.
Evaluation: The current Parking Management Plan 0 99) would continue to be the policy document
for parking management and expansion in the commercial core. This document does not include a
method for gauging parking expansion needs nor does it commit the City to constructing additional
parking structures. It is likely that parking expansion and management would be pursued on an
incremental basis. The current plan also does not include parking demand reduction measures.
Stopping the planning process would eliminate the need for preparing a focused EIR. However,
future actions to construct additional parking or significantly change the management of existing
parking resources may trigger the need to evaluate "cumulative" impacts. Parking demand reduction
measures could be independently pursued and they are frequently considered environmental mitigation
measures. However, their physical impact would also have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Because of the reasons stated and the need to look forward to maintain a vital downtown area, this
alternative is not recommended.
2. Modify the Initial Draft of the Plan. The City Council may decide to modify the initial draft
plan. There are a variety of changes that the Council may consider including:
• Eliminating parking expansion provisions.
5-17
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page15
• Eliminating parking demand reduction(PDR)measures.
• Modifying policies that deal with program funding.
• Modifying the phasing of various implementing activities.
• Changing the"triggers"(parking demand thresholds)for parking expansion projects.
Evaluation: Staff and the Consultant will be prepared to discuss alternative provisions that are of
interest to the City Council at the October 28'meeting. Of the options listed above, only selection of
the first one might limit the need for preparing an EIR. However,parking expansion is one of the three
key components of the Plan. Its elimination would require further reliance on parking demand
reduction (PDR) measures -- which may not be sufficient to meet the increasing access demands of an
expanding downtown economy. Conversely, eliminating or significantly reducing the scope of PDR
measures could further increase the potential environmental consequences of pursuing a parking
expansion strategy.
Staff will be prepared to comment on the likely environmental status of the project based on desired
Council modifications to the initial draft of the Plan. The Community Development Department may
need additional time to critique the resultant Plan document and provide a formal revised
environmental determination. However, given the public controversy surrounding the content of the
plan and its environmental consequences,justification for preparing a focused EIR is likely to remain.
NEXT STEPS
The recommended process for proceeding with adoption of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan is
presented in Figure #6. Staff estimates that it will take about one year to complete the environmental
process and adopt a Plan. This is about the same length of time that it has taken to complete the
environmental review process for the Marsh Street parking garage expansion. As shown in Figure #6,
staff has provided for public input at the beginning of the EIR process (holding an EIR scoping
meeting) and at the end of the process (setting a 60-day public review period). This level of public
involvement adds time to the overall schedule. Given the public controversy associated with this
project, staff does not recommend limiting the scope of public input. After public input, the scope will
be developed and Staff will return to Council with a recommendation to approve the scope of work and
solicit firms to perform the work.
FIGURE #6: Suggested Plan Adoption Process
ACTIVITY COMMENT
Council Reviews Initial At its October 28' meeting, the Council will be asked to
Draft Plan: the result of this allow public input, modify the initial draft of the Plan as
meeting will influence the appropriate, and direct staff to schedule a public hearing to
subsequent plan adoption consider adoption of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan
process. after completion of the EIR process.
Given the array of public opinion of this project, staff
Staff Sponsors a Public EIR recommends that a public meeting be scheduled to allow
Scoping Meeting: target for individuals and groups to comment on the proposed scope of
the third week in November, the focused EIR. Public input would help frame the eoaepp
1997 before the Thanksgiving of the impact analysis for purposes of preparing the regd's18
break. Request for Proposals(RFP).
Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan
Page 16
FIGURE #6: Suggested Plan Adoption Process (Continued)
Council Approves RFP for Council will be asked to approve the work scope for the EIR
Preparation of EIR: target and authorize the Staff and CAO to:
for the second Council
meeting in December or the •Distribute Request for Proposals(RFPs);
Council meeting of January.6 *Approve a contract with a Consultant to prepare the EIR;
1998. •Allocate Parking Fund revenues to pay for the EIR.
EIR Consultant Begins The advent of the upcoming Holiday season will impede
Work: with consultant consultant completion of proposals. Staff does not
proposals due by late January, anticipate returning to the Council for approval of the
early February, 1998, target Consultant's contract and requests that this authorization
consultant to begin work by be provided to the CAO (see preceding step). If Council
March 1. 1998. wishes to review and approve the Consultant contract, add
one month to the process.
Publish Draft EIR and Set This schedule provides for three months to complete the
Public Review Period: analysis and prepare administrative and public drafts of
target June 1. 1998 for the the EIR. Collection of data and resolution of methods of
publication and circulation of analysis could extend this process. As suggested, it is an
the Draft EIR for public optimistic production schedule. Although CEQA allows a
review. 30-day review period, given the public attention to this
project, a 60 day public review period is recommended.
It is possible that more time may be needed,however.
Council Meeting to Take This study session would be scheduled during the EIR's
Public Input on Draft EIR: public review period (see previous step). It enables the
target study session for the council and public to provide comments on the
second Council meeting on accuracy and completeness of the EIR that will be
July 21. 1998 or set a special responded to in writing by the consultant team and
study session date. become part of the final EIR. This is an optional but a
recommended step.
Within this time frame, the Consultant will be required
Complete Final EIR and to provide written responses to all comments received
Hold First Public Hearing: during the public review period and include them in the
target Council consideration "Final EIR." About 2-3 weeks are allocated for this
of Final EIR and Plan for task. Additional time may be needed depending on th5-19
September 15, 1998. number and complexity of comments received. The
Council must certify the Final EIR and review and
Council Agenda Report: Parldng and Downtown Access Plan
Page 17
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Initial Draft of Parking and Downtown Access Plan(previously distributed under
separate cover.
Exhibit B: Letter from Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director concerning the
environmental status of the draft Plan.
Exhibit C: Attendance sheet form the October 6, 1997 Coffee Klatch held at the City-County
Library.
Exhibit D: Implementation Cost Summary Table
Exhibit E: Correspondence from individuals and organizations (available in Council Reading
File)
Exhibit F: Copy of Progress Report#1 and#2 (available in Council Reading File)
5-20
EXHIBIT C
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY,OCTOBER 28, 1997-7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER,990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members Kathy Smith,Dave Romero,Dodie Williams,Vice Mayor Bill
Roalman,and Mayor Allen Settle
City Staff
Present: John Dunn,City Administrative Officer,Jeff Jorgensen,City Attomey;Bonnie
Gawf, City Clerk;Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer,Arnold
Jonas, Community Development Director; Bill Statier, Finance Director,Jim
Gardiner, Police Chief; Bob Neumann, Fire Chief; Mike McCluskey; Public
Works Director; Nell Havlik, Natural Resources Manager; Keith Opalewski;
Harry Watson, Transportation Manager; Terry Sanville, Transportation
Planner,Al Cablay,Public Works Manager.
Mayor Settle announced that Representative Waiter Capps passed away today and he asked for
a moment of silence.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
PCI. Torre Houluate-West asked Council to read Lois Capps'address into the record: 1724
Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, Ca. 93101. She requested a postponement of tonight's meeting
because of Waiter Capps'death. After discussion,Council Members agreed that the meeting should
be held as scheduled.
CONSENTAGENDA
Moved by Roalman/Smith to approve the Consent Agenda as recommended by the City
AdministrativeOfficer;motion carried(5-0).
C1. MAIN STREET AWARD (File No.474)
Council considered supporting the Business Improvement Association's application for a National
Main Street Award for the Downtown Centre.
Moved by Roalman/Smith to adopt Resolution No.8734 supporting application; motion carried(5-
0).
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
CLR1. Council Member Williams announced that the EVC will host an economic development
workshop.
COMMUNICATIONS
5-21
City Council Meeting - Page 2
Tuesday,October 28,1997-7:00 p.m.
Comm1. Mayor Settle noted that three of the eleven permits for creek repair are expected from the
Army Corps of Engineers this week.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN (File No.554)
Council considered the initial Draft Parking and downtown Access Plan.
Council Member Smith stated that as the co-owner of a downtown bed and breakfast she has and
will continue to step down from consideration of the Marsh Street Garage expansion, but that the
broader policy issues being addressed tonight in the Downtown Parking and Access Study will
have no material effect on her interest in the Garden Street Inn. She noted that she has made a
good faith effort to get a written opinion from the FPPC prior to tonight's meeting,but that the
FPPC has not yet issued a response to her request. She said that based on a thorough review of
the conflict of interest laws,she will participate in tonight's discussion.
Council Members supported her decision to participate in tonight's important policy decisions and
directed that letters received prior to tonight's meeting that relate exclusively to the Marsh Street
Garage be re-issued to the Council for the November 18'hmeeting.
CAO Dunn introduced the item by giving a brief history of the Downtown Plan.
Public Works Director McCluskey presented the staff report and noted two areas where staff
believes additional flexibility over what is recommended by the consultant is needed: location of a
future lot at the southerly end of town and that consideration should be given to purchasing
properties when they become available,even before the need for expanded parking.
Larry Patterson, Meyer, Mohaddess Associates, Inc.,provided the Council with an update of the
plan and the responses to concerns raised at the July 8'"meeting. He reviewed the relationship of
the proposed plan to the existing Parking Management Plan.
Vice Mayor Roalman reminded the audience that the Marsh Street Garage expansion will not be
the subject of the testimony taken tonight,and asked that speakers comment only on the
Downtown Access study. He then opened the floor to public testimony.
Ron Yen, Cal Poly Student,stated that the vibrancy of the downtown depends on pedestrians and
recommended that vehicle traffic be routed around the core of the downtown and create
pedestrian corridors through the town.
Mike Sallaberay.Civil Engineering Student at Cal Poly,supported Mr.Yen's plan and explained
details. He said that he favors using more PDR measures rather that adding parking spaces.
Peg Pinard,Old Town Neighborhood Association,stated that the effect on neighborhoods were
not addressed in the proposed plan,and that it must be addressed in the study.
Craig Anderson,1052 Islay,stated that getting employees out of the downtown spaces will create
additional parking for shoppers. He said raising parking fees will help accomplish that. He
distributed a list of formal comments regarding the plan's components.
Eugene Jud.743 Pack St.,suggested that a process be used where more public participation be
used to develop a plan.
Ira Winn,SLO,stated that the plan is flawed because the Marsh Street Garage is already planned,
and he noted that TDM measures cannot work as long as additional parking is built
5-22
City Council Meeting - Page 3
Tuesday,October 28,1997-7:00 p.m.
Pat Veesart.U46 Morro,said he is displeased that the Marsh Street Garage expansion is not being
considered in conjunction with the plan. He said the increased traffic in SLO is destroying
downtown neighborhoods,and asked Council to give TDM a chance to work before adding
parking spaces.
Larry Allen.APCD,supported the recommendation for an additional staff person to manage the
TDM measures and adoption of policy option 94,which allows for using the parking fund for TDM
measures. He asked for a more public process to develop the plan.
Steven Devencenzi.SLOCOG, noted that SLOCOG is addressing ways to use van pools and
busses to bring people into the downtown without the use of vehicles. He encouraged that city
busses be run at 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours.
Mike Soanaler. BIA Parking Committee Chair,stated that more capacity in parking structures takes
cars out of the streets,and is absolutely essential to the viability of the downtown. He asked for a
clarification of whether the document Is a study or a plan. He asked Council not to use the
Parking fund for TDM,but to create a separate enterprise fund for TDM.
Deborah Holley,BIA Administrator,asked that Council make a decision regarding the study,and
that the parking fund be protected.
Dave Kastner,Cal Photo,stated that additional parking structures are necessary to keep the
downtown viable.
Laura Adams.745 Buchon Street,stated that there is already too much traffic in her downtown
neighborhood and asked Council not to increase traffic and parking.
Robert Griffin.President of the Chamber of Commerce,stated that the issue is to keep the
downtown compact and viable,and that parking structures will allow the elimination of surface
parking lots and putting the land to better uses.
Jim Burcheri,977 Buchon Street,stated that he is concerned that an expansion of the Manch
Street Structure will increase traffic in his neighborhood.
Richard Ferris.365 Branch,stated that the report is unbalanced,and that the growth throughout
the County affects the need for more parking. He said that it is necessary to build additional
parking to keep the downtown viable.
Dick Cleeves,SLO,stated that over 50%of the downtown property owners support the parking
enterprise fund concept,but that if Council does not support this view,that no further in lieu fees
should be collected.
Mark Schaffer. Ride On Van Pools,stated that TDM measures can encourage employees to car
pool to the downtown.
Tom Fulks.SLO Regional Ride Share Program,stated that there was a problem with the process
of developing the plan,but that there are a number of things within it that can be implemented. He
recommended any PDR position be augmented with a budget to do the job. He supported a
residential parking district for downtown neighborhoods.
Sam Blakeslee.Treasurer of the Chamber of Commence,stated that there are many areas of the
plan that should be implemented. He said that the Chamber supports cost effective method of
bringing employees into the downtown without using their cars, but does not support using the
parking enterprise fund to pay for PDR measures. He said the surface lots should be migrated to
structures and the Court Street site should be a focus.
Debbie Nicklas, Chamber of Commerce, noted that a letter has been submitted asking for fie7i$
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday,October 28,1997-7:00 p.m.
changes to the plan. She summarized the Chamber's position on the plan.
Pierre Rademaker,SLO,stated that the Downtown Concept Plan is in fact in compliance with the
General Plan. He said Council should consider the vitality of the downtown as well as the
economic viability.
Marty Tangeman.Downtown Center,stated that the center only works because there is a parking
structure nearby. He said a commitment has already been made to use parking in lieu fees solely
for parking.
Jim Sargen.SLO,asked,since government Is the major employer in the City, if the City or County
has done anything to set an example by sponsoring van or car pooling among their employees.
Richard Kranzdorf.SLO,said that just because the city has been working on this study for along
time is not a good reason to move forward.
John French,3942 Hollyhock,stated that additional parking is necessary now,and that alternative
plans should be considered as a business decision.
Megan Fidell,Cal Poly Student,stated that the plan Is a compromise and should be adopted.
Brett Weaver, Kennedy Club Fitness,stated that more parking Is needed downtown.
Louis Verduno,SLO,stated that the City should encourage employees to leave their cars at home.
Vice Mayor Roalman returned discussion to the Council.
Staff clarified that the plan sets forth a process where residents can petition the Council for a
residential parking district and that the in lieu fees are committed to parking garages, but are only
a portion of the parking fund.
After discussion, moved by Roalman/Smith to amend policy 5.1 as follows: "existing Parking
Fund revenues will be used exclusively to maintain and expand parking operations and repay
bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. To the extent possible,the City
will pursue grant funding to support the ongoing costs of PDR projects and activities. If grant
funds are not sufficient to fully support the PDR program then to the extent additional revenues
are generated through implementation of this Plan,the added revenues may be used to fund any
component of this Plan including PDR; motion carries(3-2, Romero,Williams voting no).
There was unanimous Council consensus to change Parking Demand Monitoring locations(page
21) to near Santa Rosa on the NE and near Nipomo on the SW and to include City Hall and
Creamery lots.
Moved by Romero/Williams to change'will"to"should"under Parking Structure Expansion
Component Triggers(page A-2); motion carried (4-1,Roalman opposed).
There was unanimous concurrence among Council Members to add a new Policy 2.4 on Page 13,
"To meet the need for future parking structures and to avoid the use of eminent domain,if at all
possible,the City should consider the purchase of property for those structures when they
become available,"and amend Action 2.2-2 to read,"The City will evaluate.. .and a site in the
southerly portion of the downtown (possibly the Wells Fargo,Palm-Nipomo sites unless a more
desirable site can be identified)."
There was consensus among Council Members to direct staff to draft language to be included in
the plan to exempt structures built to consolidate existing surface parking lots from meeting the
trigger mechanisms.
5-24
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday,October 28,1997-7:00 p.m.
There was unanimous Council consensus for amending language on page A-3 to change targets
and add,1110 hour on-stmet meters."
There was unanimous Council agreement to clarify language in the third paragraph on page A-6 to
include"Employee"analysis,and on page A-7 to not specify which days to make the counts, but
to leave the days used for counts to the discretion of staff,and to be consistent on the days used.
Moved by Roalman/Williams to eliminate the dates and order of sites on page A-8 and A-9; motion
carried(5-0).
There was consensus among Council Members to clarify previous Council actions regarding
bicycle paths and to change references on page 63 to"Bikeways."
There was Council consensus to replace specific time frames(i.e.,Winter 1997198)with specific
time references(Le.III quarter)on Appendix B.
Moved by Romero/Smith to leave dates and sites as examples on page A-8 and A-9,but clarify
language to indicate that there will be a review of changes in land uses and reevaluate the
quadrant in which the next structure will be built; motion carries(4-1,Roalman opposed).
There was Council consensus to delete bulleted items four and five from existing Summer 1998
actions and move to become bulleted items four and five in existing Winter 1997/98.
There was unanimous Council consensus to amend Appendix A under"On Street Parking
Utilization"to require actual utilization surveys of curb parking rather than using tracking meter
revenues generated by zone.
Moved by Williams/Smith to initiate the EIR process with the amended Draft Plan providing the
requisite project description; motion carried (3-2, Roalman, Romero opposed).
Moved by Roalman/Williams to direct staff to consider guidelines for implementation of the
Council approved TRIP program at its January 6, 1998 meeting and to then initiate the City's Trip
Reduction Incentive Program(TRIP)for an 18 month trial period,monitor its performance and
amend the program as needed;and direct staff to provide a copy of the City's TRIP guidelines to
the County and request that it consider similar programs for its downtown work force and enlist
the help of Ride-On Transportation,as needed,to facilitate PDR activities with the County; motion
carried (5-0).
There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Settle adjourned the meeting
at 11:30 p.m. to Tuesday, November 4, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:12FB97
BG:dr Bonnie L.Gawf,City Clerk
5-25
DzQ
0
0
O \l
00
O P
O
O
o /
1o� i' F
HiGa
HIGUERA HIGI''WAY TOl B 0
I
L._._. ._._._._.� _ o•,y �� .off �
I G
I �
SANTA FE
m i
n O�
i
J i s ;
_.J
I I �
- I HIGHWAY 101
l
o /
z
c
0 W r N Cn
a) T W
N m V]
on
m O O
M M W
H
C'1 Cn
a m 07 °H°
rr H x
En
Cn rt
rr rS
�'S N
m N
N r1
n
W
bd r
ro -
Mr
E1 iNG AGENDA
DATE -4-- ITEM #.�-
M«TIN AGENDA
E ==ITEM #_5
Steve and Helen Yung
P. O. Box 1380
Atascadero, California 93423
May 3, 1999
y' Hon. Mayor Allen K. Settle,
Hon. Vice Mayor Dave Romero, IrCCUNCIL DD DIR
Hon Council Member Jan Marx, ticao ❑ FIN DIR
Hon. Council Member John Ewan and VcAo ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNE'( ❑ PW DIR
Hon, Council Member Ken Schwartz PICLERKIORIG [3 POLICE CNF
Cit of San Luis Obispo ❑ MT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
City p � D �G ❑ UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street E3 E3 PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Palm II Parking Structure
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
As a fourth generation member of the Gin family and property owners in the "Chinatown
Historic District", we would like to share with you our historic roots in San Luis Obispo's
Chinese community
1.) Our ancestors, the Gins, settled in San Luis Obispo's Chinatown in the last
century, Great Grandfather Gin Koon Leung started a laundry shop before 1900.
Grand uncle Harry Gin owned and operated the original Shanghai Low
Restaurant during the 1920's on a site now covered by the present Palm Garage
is now located. (Exhibit 1)
2.) In 1946, Grandpa George Gin took over the restaurant from Uncle Harry Gin. He
put all his saving into his restaurant. In 1950, the City of San Luis Obispo
confronted him with a relocation order. His restaurant along with a row of shops
stretching from Chorro to Morro Streets were to be tom down to make room for
construction of a City owned, surface parking lot on the site. The city did not
compensate him for the loss of his business. His restaurant was bulldozed to the
ground. All that remains of original Chinatown is the Ah Louis Store and Mee
Heng Low Chop Suey Shop.
Page 7 of 3 RECEIVED
may 0 3 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Steve and Helen Yung to the City of San Luis Obispo,CA—May 3,1999 Page 2 of 3
3.) In December 8, 1950, Grandpa George did not want to leave the Chinatown, he
want to stay, live and do business in Chinatown. He rented a Auto Repair
Garage and Doll Shop from David Muzio at the east side of Palm Street and
turned the structure into the Shanghai Low Restaurant. In 1976, twenty six
years later, he bought the buildings from Muzio Family. This is on the site of the
proposed Palm II parking structure. (Exhibit #2.)
4.) In 1956, the City wanted to expand the surface parking lot to the east side of
Palm Street. They took away the back yard of the restaurant to make room for
the parking. George Gin had looked forward to purchasing this space for
possible expansion from David Muzio.
5.) In 1982, the City Council undertook condemnation proceedings for the Shanghai
Low Restaurant. The city wanted to demolish the restaurant and make room for
a 445 space parking structure on the proposed location of the Palm II facility.
This proposal sparked a series of hearings and legal proceedings. These
proceedings brought both pain and disruption for our family. Ultimately the City
and the family reached an agreement that would move the restaurant back the
across street from where it was forced to move in 32 years earlier in 1950.
6) In July 1985, Mr. Paul Lanspery, then city Manager wrote to the family that the
City was no longer interested in the property. The City withdrew from the
Exchange Agreement of May 17, 1983.
7.) In a November 1983 referendum, City of San Luis Obispo voters rejected a
parking proposals by a margin of 61 percent.
8.) In 1997, the City Council declared the 700 and 800 blocks of Palm Street as the
"Chinatown Historic District."
9.) In September 18, 1997, the Chinatown Public Art Committee dedicated a mosaic
mural to recognize the contributions and struggles of our early Chinese Settlers,
for which we are most grateful.
As I walked up and down the Palm Street every day, I see how the rich Chinese
heritage was replaced by rows and rows of parking stalls in an garage. A further
decline in Chinatown's precious heritage would result from tearing down the Shanghai
Low building to build the Palm II structure.
This course of action seems utterly lacking in vision. Currently, the existing Palm Street
structure is a frightening place at night. The loud echos of shouting teenagers
reverberate and make many people fearful of being in the vicinity after dark. It is
Steve and Helen Yung to the City of San Luis Obispo,CA—May 3,1999 Page 3 of 3
foolhardy to double the size of this attractive nuisance. Doubling the vacant nightie
space is an invitation to violence.
Instead, why not transform the parking lot into a Chinatown Plaza with a Chinese
Culture Center, open marketplace, shops and museum. The museum could showcase
the Chinese and Chumash artifacts that abound beneath the surface of the old
Chinatown section.
Please bring back the charm and wonder of Chinatown, not only to preserve our
Chinese heritage but also will bring more visitors to downtown area.
My family and I have visited many Chinatowns in the United States, Canada, Australia,
Argentina, Belgium and Far East. They are booming with the 24 hour presence of
human activity—the best deterrent to urban crime and violence.
Please don't perpetuate the lack of vision that occurred in 1950 by planning an empty
and lonely feeling of San Luis Obispo's Chinatown.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly,
Steve Yung
cc: Robert L. Gong, MD
Dan Krieger, Ph.D.
Professor Alice Loh
Lynne Landwehr, San Luis Obispo County Museum Staff
Craig and Cheryl McCollum
Dolores Young
John S. Gong - Chinese Professional Association
John Parker, Ph.D.
vim- -r.. - - .yr -'t '`''ihotey.. +�:�•��:
111 / l� A•� py�y r�'$...,-
T::4F164 z _
• ' AM 6
a
EK
a
1 •
•
s
� � � ' 7v 1� Rel• al`SLf'at
a.
9 � I
• � ;xr �Y`.'T"C .� !j iii I,
f
I �' S .y..f S {Yh�-QTY^3T'wKH. � � ; � ��'•. "hr�
4 Jif 75 �`yX ti
_ 3
p t
-
�
- �-t-.I� '•` - 'ri4f -ate,• u x �g � �� � kt�-�"--,�� ("€'3� � �*
l a'yb
S
1
c 4.
(F vi
im
4� Y
b
J
v r�.
�.-
mr.ETING AGENDA
DATE S=ITEM # 2
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
May 4, 1999
MWUNCIL D DIR
eCAO 0 FIN DIR
CACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
ErATTORNEY 0 PW DIR
DeLERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF
❑ GMT TE 0 REC DIR
0 UTIL DIR
Mayor Allen Settle 0 0 PERS DIR
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Review of the Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan and Draft EIR
Dear Mayor Settle:
For the benefit of the new Council members, and as a refresher to continuing members, on behalf of the
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce I wanted to convey our position on the Draft Parking and
Downtown Access Plan.
Historically,the Chamber has not been involved in parking issues in San Luis Obispo. We have left this
issue to the expertise of the Downtown Association. However, in 1997,the Chamber was asked by City
staff to examine the Draft Parking and Access Study.We formed a task force and examined the issue in
detail.
Our focus has been, and continues to be on keeping our downtown compact, viable and accessible to all
modes of transportation,We consider parking to W part of this goal,We feel that policies contained in the
Downtown Concept plan which advocate for a compact urban form are the community policies which
should be implemented through the Parking and Downtown Access Plan. In keeping with the policies set
forth in the Chamber's Response to the Downtown Parking&Access Study(a copy of which is enclosed)
there are a few areas of the Plan which we feel need modification prior to Council's final adaption.
Construction Of Palm II Should Be Planned For Now
The Chamber believes that the construction of Palm II should not be dependant upon the triggering
mechanisms set forth in the Plan. Rather, Palm II should be planned for and designed now, in response to
existing demand as well as future demands which will arise when the Higuera Street Bridge is retrofitted
and the Court Street surface lot is transformed.
RECEIVED
M ay 0 4 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www. i so.com
1
The Chamber selected Palm II as the ideal site for a new parking structure in the downtown for a variety of
reasons. First, its location is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. Second, it will reduce urban
sprawl by directing vehicles to the perimeter of downtown. Third, it offers possibilities for business
retention and expansion with the potential addition of retail and commercial office space in the structure
itself. Last, it will serve as a replacement parking area for those parking spaces lost when the Court Street
surface lot is put to a better and higher use, such as a pedestrian friendly park, plaza, outdoor eatery or
shopping court
The Implementation Of Two Policies Could Have Detrimental Effects
• Triggering Mechanisms
As presently drafted in the Plan,the triggering mechanisms in Appendix A are potentially too
restrictive. While we agree that maintaining accurate data about the use of our current and future
parking supplies will result in better long term planning,the thresholds for triggering new parking
construction are very rigid and may not be realistic estimates for our community. We hope that the
final Plan allows for some variance and flexibility in these thresholds. For instance,the final Plan
could require that two of the three thresholds be met, instead of all three, prior to acknowledging
there is a need for additional parking.
• In-Ueu Fees
In reviewing the funding mechanisms for the Plan,we hope that Council is mindful of the
detrimental effect retroactively adjusting in-lieu fees will have. One of the purposes of the Plan was
to ensure that our downtown remains compact and pedestrian friendly. Increasing in-lieu fees will
cause new businesses and expanding businesses to locate outside of the downtown core,
resulting in sprawl and the loss of its pedestrian friendly charm.
Alternative Transportation Is A Critical Component To The Final Plan
A seamless regional transit system,which utilizes existing successful transportation demand management
programs, is the most fiscally sound parking demand reduction ("PDR") measure. In order for reliance on
PDR measures to increase,their quality and accessability must be improved. Improvements will be
achieved if our surrounding communities'existing PDR programs are better utilized by the City. The City
should not create new programs and new bureaucracies. A sound regional transit system will allow
alternative transportation to become a way of life for many of our residents, a goal we all share.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I look forward to your reasoned decision on May 4'h.
Sincerely,
Deborah S. Nicklas
Chairman of the Board
Response to the Downtown Parking & Access Study
A Position Paper of the
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
September 1997
Bob Griffin STAFF:
Chairman of the Board Dave Garth
Sam Blakeslee President/CEO
Chair, Parking Task Force Shelly Stanwyck
MEMBERS OF THE PARKING TASK FORCE Director of Governmental Affairs
Tom Fulks
Deborah Nicklas
Pierre Rademaker
Anita Robinson
Mark Schaffer
page 1
Background
The San Luis Obispo Downtown area is the social, cultural, and economic heart of San
Luis Obispo. Adequate parking in the downtown is essential for it to survive and
prosper as a retail trading center. Currently, there is a shortage of convenient customer
parking in the downtown area. The City Council is being presented with a unique
opportunity: the chance to solve this shortage in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Over the years many studies and reports have concluded there is a parking shortfall in
the downtown area and they have presented different recommendations as to how to
solve it. In the summer of 1997, a study entitled the Downtown Parking&Access Study
Progress Report No. 2 (the "Mohaddes II Study")was released to the public and Council.
Upon reviewing the Mohaddes 11 Study, the Chamber found that some of the findings
needed further exploration and review.
The Chamber believes that a well-thought-out downtown parking and access plan will
result in the following: less traffic congestion in the downtown core, improved
accessibility to the downtown core,less urban sprawl, a healthy and vital business
environment, and a scenic and pedestrian-friendly downtown core. This response to
the Mohaddes R Study is intended to identify actionable recommendations which are
economically sound,politically realistic, and implementable within a two year period.
Assumptions
In crafting this response to the Mohaddes II Study, the Chamber assumed and supports
the following:
• The expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure has been
approved by Council and will proceed in a timely manner.
• The Parking Enterprise Fund will only be used to fund measures
resulting in the construction and maintenance of parking spaces.
page 2
c
Parking Supply Options
The downtown area bounded by Palm,Nipomo,Pacific and Santa Rosa streets
presently has over 50 surface parking lots,both publicly and privately held. Surface
parking lots are an inefficient, unsightly, and counterproductive use of space in the
downtown core. They result in more automobiles in the downtown core searching for
parking. This creates a less inviting environment for pedestrians seeking to use the
downtown core to socialize, recreate, shop and work.
Whenever possible, opportunities should be explored to replace surface lots with
pedestrian friendly parks, plazas, outdoor eateries and shopping courts. This
replacement strategy has been utilized recently in San Luis Obispo with the Mission
Plaza,Marsh Parking Structure/Retail Site,Downtown Center, and the Firestone
Corner. Each of these conversions have significantly enhanced the overall appeal and
vitality of our downtown.
Obviously,when converting surface lots to a higher and better use their parking spaces
cannot simply be eliminated. Instead those spaces must be relocated to centralized
facilities on the periphery of the downtown core.
Finding a suitable location for a parking structure in the downtown area is a difficult
task. Fortunately, the authors of the Downtown Concept Plan spent over two years
addressing difficult issues such as this and found excellent locations for centralized
structures. The Downtown Concept Plan has been accepted as policy by the City and is
supported by the Chamber. The Chamber makes the following recommendations that
are consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan:
• The next parking structure constructed should be located on the
existing surface parking lots between Monterey and Palm Streets
between the Palm theater and the City/County Library ("Palm II").
• Palm II should provide an opportunity to improve the overall
circulation pattern around the periphery of the downtown core and
significantly reduce congestion on Monterey Street
• Palm II should include retail space which could be leased at
competitive rates, thereby providing income to offset the
structure's bond and maintenance costs.
• Upon the construction of Palm II, and in conjunction with the retrofit
of the Higuera Street Bridge, the Court Street surface parking lot
should be transformed into retail space or other higher use.
page 3
i
• The decision to proceed with Palm lI should occur immediately
and the funding necessary to construct it should not be
encumbered.
Transportation Demand Management Measures
The Chamber has long supported the use of alternative transportation. Transportation
Demand Management(TDM) measures are policies, activities, or programs which
reduce the total number of vehicles traveling into the downtown core. Individuals who
work in the downtown core and students would most likely benefit from increased
reliance on TDM measures. Increased reliance on TDM measures should reduce the
demand for additional parking.
In order for the reliance on TDM measures to increase, their quality and accessability
must be improved. The present use of TDM measures is analogous to recycling 20
years ago. Although everyone knew about the benefits of recycling back then,it took a
great deliberate effort to actively recycle. As curbside pickup programs were
implemented,it became easier to recycle. Today, recycling is a way of life because it is
convenient.
To increase reliance on TDM measures,resources should be dedicated to those
measures which have a track record of success. The Chamber makes the following
recommendations regarding TDM measures:
• New TDM programs with new bureaucracies should not be
created. Instead the existing successful TDM programs should be
better utilized and if necessary local transportation systems should
be consolidated into one seamless regional transit system.
• Funding for TDM measures over the short term should be from the
General Fund and over the long term should come from those cost
savings achieved through the consolidation and streamlining of the
existing systems.
page 4
Parking Management Strategies
Parking management strategies are an integral component to any downtown parking
and access plan Like TDM measures, parking management strategies can reduce the
demand for additional parking. Parking management strategies can also increase the
use of TDM measures and often raise additional-revenue which in turn can pay for
additional parking. Sound parking management strategies result in the optimal use of
the various parking options provided in a given area. The Chamber feels the following
strategies will increase the available convenient customer parking in the downtown
area:
• 60 minutes, instead of 90 minutes, of free parking should be
provided in the parking structures. The impact of this reduction in
free parking should be re-evaluated at a later time to determine if
an additional reduction is necessary.
• The maximum daily charge for parking in the structures should be
increased to $5.00.
• City employees should not receive free parking passes.
• The neighborhoods, as identified in the Mohaddes II Study as
being affected by long-term parkers, should become permit zones
and a two hour limit on parking for non-residents should be
enforced. Residents of these areas must receive free permits to
park in their neighborhoods.
• The present permitting process for carpools and vanpools should
be simplified.
• A valet parking program,with drop-off sites in the downtown
core, should be explored. Other cities have found valet parking
concessions to be an excellent way to increase the use of
inconvenient and underutilized parking spaces.
• Due to the heavy utilization of the downtown area on Sundays,
regular parking fees should be charged for parking on Sundays.
• The financial benefits of contracti::g-Gut the parking operations
should be examined. If they are favorable, a timeline for
implementation should be examined.
page 5
Conclusion
The shortage of convenient customer parking in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo
can be rectified. The Chamber has presented a three-pronged solution to this problem.
However, all of the components presented in this paper must be implemented together
in order to successfully solve this shortage.
The social value of downtown to our community should never be overlooked; this
value will be increased, if the solutions to our parking shortage create new uses for
inefficient surface parking lots. The solutions presented in this paper will create a
pedestrian friendly downtown that is socially and environmentally beneficial to our
community. Finally,by easing our present parking shortage, the economic vitality of
our downtown will be maintained. The Chamber supports and encourages all of the
City's efforts which ensure a successful future for our downtown.
page 6
O Z � m fn < T. r PAID ,� fn
CD o o 3 W d 0. c CD d m o ,
m CD d o W p CD Pr a fD o m z l
3 31 � O � °' °o c � � �cd 0 '
.. WIm! W S < — m m m 3
IN CL
CD I l
k1 H
CA
. i 8C3 3 i i i 1
A V O O CA p N O T A W (D
W A N N O O w A CD N I co N 00
CA co
N CA W i "DI n•,' n
i
i
OV A NwOOCc" N �V D I Co ml i to N0) o m w 0vC41r•
M
V OIV V V O A O V N (DI
-+ -+ I W V W V.O CA' A A i CJI -41(O co i
•Itoiw1 ICA
;0 (04 OINIOco
ICA N 0 (WA I0ICN77I0 [CO.
i
LI Jy
i, W -.
N
N CT A O N i D I
V CA i CO O N CWT CA CA N M CA 000 I
O
DCA z
A ii C
O co co-4
VD r 0 CA N V CA 0 (bw W i co O CA 0 N co CA O N co
N i L
CDi
V
CT w CO 00 W A 1%01
O co W CO W
-� Co -+ V O O NCA A i V CT 001 .7.
N
a 0 i
OI '°
A i o w i A i 1
CA W CT w i 0 O A i (D A O
N CT CA co O m N N co N co W co
i[}I is (TI (DEW i.i
i ICT A' OI i 01m W (D O CA Ifo.
VIA NICA O CAIM 0 00 co CO N i0i i
i
_ v
r��CR7 m CD�a`Y E3 R V"'l p R v i A co f11 i N i n
m a n n O W V CT W w W CD co A (C ...�
cn O i cn O CA CJI W N V w w CO m
CA m
r-
0
-+s pppZ
rzi`
0Za9-mG Wm W w A i A i W CO (A CD
-+ O A 0 0 CA CT O V A W N CDm TIWi i aimimo�MEW cavil w A v o o W o� w . m w ((OD
Nr n r O m v C
52 m
S fn N i W co .w N i 3
T T CTN N N CA (D N CA (A A CO
(A M MIN
O m N CA O N O W [D
ii Or V
O i V CA p0 i N i 41
t0 w m T i V w V (D CA
R A N O O A O V N (D W N
___
4 N fA CT O W W 0 -+ 0 w A
TRANSPORTATION -; ride-on transportation
Meering au ofSLo County's
MANAGEMENT.... reeerional transportation needs .
-
ASSOCIATION -
TMA Steering Committee
Agenda for the April 29, 1999 Meeting
City/County Library, Conference Room
9 am- 10 am
1 . Introductions
2 . Review the Minutes
3 . Old Bus ' ess
,Ridershi.p Review
W!J�u esta Grade Mitigation N►� /�•O�C
��unding for Safe Ride Home
cM ,2pring Newsletter
e-' Transit/Runabout Bidding Process
4 . XommuniEy Transportation Needs- Steering Committee members can
identify unmet transportation needs .
5 . Membership Update (James)
441"Membership Recruitment
b4-�'ETC Luncheon
6 . TMA Bud t Review (Shaffer)
Review of current budget
7 . New Busi�Pess
SBE Shuttle
Hearst Castle Shuttle
c) Future Guest Speakers
8 . Adjournment y.,..:..
$tide-On Transportation-Management Association•. 1160 Marsh Street,Suite 105•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 -(805)543-7862
' MNG . AGENDA
b. :y-,t-qq ITEM #
ADOBE REALTY
A4 Chorro Street • 805/543-2693 • San Luis Obispo.California 93401•fax 549-0894
I �
LE
FIN DMDD DD DRB
O FFI&f CHIEF
, �W DIR
S�/99 G O POLICE C - p .
1 Q�u O REC DI '-
City Hall G UTIL
990 Palm St., 13 PERS DIR ;
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Councilman Schwartz,
In the historic sauenAdams Adobe Gra 1860_
The headline in the Telegram reads today"Council Ready to Revisit Parking".
I am sure I have no need to remind you of the efficacy of Unamuno's observation:
"He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it".
Although I will no doubt contact other council members later,my main hope is to find in you early on,
an ear on the council who will listen and give thought to our concerns about the plan, as currently drawn.
I own the Sauer-Adams Adobe,depicted above, located at 964 Chorro St.,actross from the
Mission,and a historic part of Block 14,site of the new proposed garage.
Under the broad brushstrokes of the recently done study(Parking and Downtown Access Plan Draft EIl ,
completed November 1998)for the proposed Palm H site,the new structure Will take up about 2/3 of the
block and will abut our property,preventing long-established pedestrian access from the back of our
property and several others who back up to the current parking lot/alley.
Aside from any legal issues that may arise,this plan is totally out of sync with the Downtown Plan for the
city done 10 years ago. Please review Area 12 in the extensive study,which you were a part of,and as laid
out in"A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center". This plan envisioned a much more modest
parking structure along Palm street,with a mixed-use complex incorporating parking,retail and residential,
along with ample pedestrian access in the core of the block.
The new plan puts retail along the perimeter of the block but is mute as to the configuration of
the center of the block,and pedestrian access and mixed use does not appear to be part of the plan.
If I may remind you,in the early 80's the city tried to build a parking structure in Block 14. As in today's
plan,the middle of the block was given short shrift.Ultimately the city was forced by public opposition to
move the structure across the street to the site of the Palm 1. I personally withdrew my opposition once
some thought was given to the center of the block and public walkways and retail space were incorporated
(as in the 1988 study).
Unless similar thought is given to this most significant chunk of downtown real estate I cannot sit on the
sidelines and see yet another assault on our block go unopposed. I do recall leading about your idea of
digging into the bill,and keeping present elevations,which seemed to me to have merit.
And have all alternatives really been looked at? What about expanding Pali 1? What about utilizing
the old Blackstone Hotel? Will Pac Bell stay forever in its building at the comer of Morro and Mill?
With your long established record of positive planning and preservation I hope I can count on you
to help us preserve what needs to.be preserved,and when we build,to build pnly the best.
Yoursex cou RECEIVED
Mev 4 4 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
V E
ZVI
!�a1�P.�I���RRp��irfk �\�� Irr� w?.` 4 •iF,t.r J �..1 �✓" "� •�'�i�I�i t+�
�''�III;' �I�tr�' � :'S.G 11 .._� .-rte.. . ,d. 'v r ,' n•E �_'r i� -it
I
`wL �.I
La
J^";;�a'fF�1�.}'�t�� �-��, �, -.�®1♦®®0�4e-'c. ���?'• go� �.
P MIN
CCis ' I� i � ��s '•�tfiiy���11V]^ ®[`o , � v ' �;el: �.,�`.�,%
Am
,
►� ,Z tktrva0l9�', ��wr;�c11W1�1<�+d t {�1- w
+ '.Lurr®elf► .�. ..n.-,-. gushy
FlU
• r> ,iy-ai r°.
7 R. Ptellw.WJF9-
lf:�'vr�.�
/� C��- `' ` .l ..� w' � 1 `.I 1^I. � ``1.�/j�r�ll•'I�1r1�1`l.J r}Yi'�r f S M. � .t.:� ,
r _ 4 t (F''' .� `irk q®A�,` • ► A �'
i' ff
'4 F5' rrl' t �• r�u' 1r ;c c-
tt1l ' 0."0' 69,
����a � •'�t� 61�,iS `ire. q I _ ��"
� I 't�V L•.uYrL�II ���.b-.I..... ®I I� �� 1•,.y ��. �i•,
6��ean�s{m I I .-.. '- fc..� rao w .uc.,..rr•w
ll
S Idem sa -•gym }4., liv �¢1;?}i1 ,� n r
x�
fqpr
;
J � T��i�•, / plj v� sr Jlti? 2
�;�rl 1 � ` � � __fir I���-L.P® ny�d rli`W�• `..
` "' r`4t�¢ '.C:ij;i Qi•3 It L.'' r r Ij�. J f�p.� &Z110'vm
I _ lin,ft4
a
•� 7�a.�trA -:@lfil � `le
ru wf.;•. _ 1 �,.�... F,.-i.n- r
I� {tiy � • �'tl1i.�A � �
airy
ment part 'ed at some time in the process. part/ -in Santa Rosa between Monterey
Consulting__;port was provided by Crawford, and ara.
Multari&Starr. 2. Government center expansion. The
A Oreview committee"was also formed recommended priority among office =
consisting of people who represented various expansion options is the following:
city commissions or community organizations a. A new building across Monterey Street
interested in or affected by downtown planning. at the site of the existing county parking
About every three months,the review facility and extending to the corner of
committee met with the design committee to go Monterey and Santa Rosa.
over the work to date. In the early sessions,the b. A multi-level addition to the old court
review committee was broken down into small house,in conjunction with its seismic
groups and asked to draw solutions to specific rehabilitation. The middle section could be
planning problems. The design committee as tall as six stories.
would then take the ideas and integrate them
C. Anew building to replace the Sperry
into a concept for a specific area. At later big =_
meetings,the review committee commented on e
and critiqued the developing plan. The design With each option discussed above,the =_
committee continued to refine the concepts county should also consider expansion of the
based on feedback from the review committee. existing courts toward Santa Rosa,above the
to meet new needs &ids first level.
3. Expansion of the County Historical Museum. _
The physical plan is not a static document. Incentive ms
It is a concept of how downtown should look and $ _
function in the future,from today's vantage. The city should establish incentive programs
U There maybe future changes in economics,trans- to encourage private developers to implement
portation technology,retailing,and community the guidelines. These may include density or =
C tastes,among many other variables,which may intensity bonuses,relief from fees and/or
affect the vision of the downtown over time. standards,use of city property(e.g.:surface
Thus,constant monitoring,regular reviews and parking lots),and permit review expediting.
changes to adjust to new ideas must occur n keep ���o fa fit
the plan current. Furthermore,experimentation
should be encouraged downtown;the downtown
must remain dynamic and exciting. The City should encourage the formation of a
non-profit foundation whose purpose would be
to support the downtown and to help implement
the physical plan. This foundation would be =
able to accept gifts and donations,raise money
and build community support for downtown
projects.
te�siv,ENr�,4t_
• rOsZX1cnrnp/-
s
-
:�f'AR/G//vrr a•' •. ! o =
T amvID R£TAfL _
- _
o =
\, PARK/NC-
9,1992Brian SWr —
i Conceptual cross section of the razzed-
lex between Palm and a
PARK/lVG Monterey.Note how upper story
�..� residences orient toward the center of the
block looking down on a public paseo.
o IB92 Charles CrtAstr
II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
14 11111111 1111111111 1 I I 11II 1 T1 111111 I I I 111I I111111111111111IIIIII—111 1—11 J I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111-1111-1111111-111-111 TH I I I I11111111111 I 111 IIMII IIIIIIIIIII III1111111111111II1111111111111111111111111111 I I I I11111I I I I I1111111 i.1:
w ` ,
FAXED
SGU�l9.P�q-(RTS
O a3 m99 ^ V
m m
O
aH p e n 7 O•R 8'n G'd$ &� R G.� de
0 y ^eg s6gN 3„fig
w�E.� �_ 3 -.�-1$ w." ^ = 3
�m
•mv> °` i' �`-9or � 'a
NO S._.r a�.- fib ey� ^n ...gE.$
. rEn � a �° y eg Fr b8 C m rC omF' $ - s YA'�6•g
c ¢A gg b _
Go� �n > S�j n79$^ aLe°b ^ Cgs � ae $ `�r� a�' �Nbb �.b 5•�
6 ^ ° W ° e$b $ te3o. �{ o �yC S%S nmmg .oE a�=A. mn0�- Q
pi
F�Ws -8•_. $� � •n� a ski r
c n �- clg�• pp°oo6.Cg° W ;' .�'R 8 <w-e
o� v�E'��' �i Al g- n arAr22.aWe
1-1.
- 4D.
3 2 p m ! b ^S .1 .o n^ v
11-
e ° B s'- $ ° C �m m.� eF'Oam
x .i� .. ° IFo^12Ir
p � �`
3 S• Room(�7i � F E 6'C 3C+C'�T$E� '• Ea a.� �A,°o^S 1
^m T�` ° 2 '0,2 "m °o'.?•
Rouge —F o fi °p 8 s��'dyeP' ,�': ° a83 ce.°
w sy m 6' . 6 c•��."R ; `..'� ° O �n Q. � ,��.' F 7
CY ^Cy ' 6 7' �g tl�'�.'�b � ��S �ee`Z�
j ,i Ivol JI
c�a y
�� � �� 00 h� ��