HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2000, C3 - CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99684 MEQ IG AGENDA
_ �- -
T '„ DATE3-2-A-00 ITEM #--3_
E'NV iR0 V\4 ENTAL
• c . A'COUNCIL ..!'TCDD DIR
RTAO ❑FIN DIR
Ja%CAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
;MORNEY .B'Pw DIR
B'CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE C:'F
❑MGMTJ M ❑REC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
❑PERS DIR
TO: Allen Settle, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Subject: Agenda Item C3, Marsh Street Garage / Council Meeting March 21, 2000
Honorable Mayor and Council,
On tonight's consent agenda item C3 is a recommendation to approve 4 issues relative to the Marsh
Street Garage Expansion project. Because of the short notice of a possible hearing and considering
"he controversial nature of this project, EDC is respectfully requesting that your Council pull this item
om the consent agenda and continue discussion and action to a future Council meeting.
EDC has received a copy of the comments submitted to the Council by Save the Downtown and we
find their arguments compelling on policy and financial grounds (see Mr. Jud's comments 4.1, 4.4,
and 4.5). Therefore our request is that your Council direct Staff to return with verifiable responses to
the questions and issues raised by the Save the Downtown letter at a future date for full and open
discussion.
We are confident your Council will be sensitive to the public interest in this very important decision on
the shape the downtown will take as a result of this project. FMAR
ED
I�.a c�-u�c�
Sincerely,
5 :aL?M 000
L ERK
Gordon R. Hensle , RECEIVED
Environmental Analyst
MAR 2 1 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
J64 OSOS ST, STE A, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 781-9932 FAX: 781-9384 E-MAIL: edcmal@west.net
906 GARDEN ST, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805) 963-1622 FAX: (805) 962-3152 E-MAIL: edc@rain.org
31 N. OAK ST, VENTURA, CA 93001 (805) 643-6147 FAX: (805) 643-6148 E-MAIL: edcvent@west.org
Council Agenda Report—Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 3
Changes Needed in the Project Budget
Current Additional Proposed
Budget Needed Budget
Design $359,700 $25,000 $384,700
Construction 3,700,000 1,798,000 5,498,000
Construction Management 379,600 107,000 486,600
Public Art 37,000 0 37,000
$4,476,300 $1,930,000 $6,406,300
Construction management includes the following contracts:
Construction Inspection $329,000
Construction Administration 142,600
Archeological Monitoring 15,000
$486,600
Funding Sources
Original Funding Required Increase Revised Total
Debt Financing $3,900,000 $1,500,000 $5,400,000
Budget reallocation 43,200 43,200
Fund Balance 576,300 386,800 963,100
Total $4,476,300 $1,930,000 $6,406,300
Sources for Additional Budget Needed
Additional debt financing $1,500,000
Remainder in Land Acquisition Budget 42,800
Remainder in Study Budget 400
Parking Fund Unappropriated Balance 386,800
$1,930,000
FinancingStrategies
The 1997-99 Financial Plan originally anticipated that$3,900,000 of the Garage
Expansion project cost would be debt financed. With the additional costs as discussed
above, that amount is now $5,400,000.
The City has applied for a$5,400,000 loan from the California Infrastructure and
Economic Development Bank Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program to cover a
portion of total project costs. If the loan is not approved, $5,400,000 of the total project
C3-3
Council Agenda Report—Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Page 4
cost will be financed with revenue bonds. The remainder of project costs above
$5,400,000 will be covered by worldng capital in the parking fund.
ATTACE[MEWS
Exhibit A--Design Contract Amendment
Exhibit B--Parking Fund Working Capital
Council File—Plans and Specifications
CARmssconstructionplans C
C3-4
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT NO. 4
AGREEMENT WITH PHILLIPS METSCH SWEENEY MOORE ARCHITECTS
The AGREEMENT dated July 7, 1998 between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and "Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore
Architects",hereinafter referred to as"Contractor",is hereby amended to as follows:
A. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
2. Workscope
Provide construction administration for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion as outlined in
Attachment A.
These services are to be performed at the hourly rate shown in Attachment B and shall .
not exceed One Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred One Dollars($142,501).
All other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT remain the same.
Both CITY and CONTRACTOR do covenant that each individual executing this
addendum on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute
Agreements for such part.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed on this
day of 2000.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Municipal Corporation
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
/Y/.ktto ey .
Print Name:
G:Icmtz els&RFPs/AnxndmenWAn=dr nt4Phill M MNseh Swaney,Moore
C3-5
ATTACHMENT A
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES:
Review submittals
Assist with deferred government approvals (if any)
(12) Site visits—review progress of work and attend project meetings
Respond to requests for information(RFIs) and issue clarifications
Review contractor quotes and make recommendations only as needed per City request
Review test and inspection reports
Coordinate color selection
(1) Preliminary inspection
(1) Final inspection
Make recommendation for filing Notice of Completion
Structural observation by Structural Engineer as required by code.
Record drawings
ADDITIONAL SERVICES (As Needed Basis Only)
Review contractor's request for substitutions (beyond specified time period)
Prepare cost request bulletins for changes requested by owner
Warranty enforcement
Claims analysis/dispute resolution
GJCanhaets&RFPs/Amendments/Amcndo=t4-AmwhA-PhMip&Me sc4 Sweeney.Moore
C3-6
ATTACHMENT B
PHILLIPS METSCH SWEENEY MOORE ARCHITECTS
City of Son Luis Obispo
aMh Stmet Garage
CA Phase Fee Budget Revised 2/mo
Iask Personnel Hours Bate Amount IDUS
i Pre-Construction Conference Sweeney 6 $125 $750
Hendricks 6 $85 $510
2 CA Q 6 hoursfweek x 44 weeks Hendricks 264 $85 $22,440
2 hourshveek x 44 weeks Admin 88 $45 $3,960
® 1 hour/week x 44 weeks Sweeney 44 $125 $5.500
2 Submittals 3 hours avg./submittal x 27 Hendricks 81 $85 $6.885
submittals
Admin 27 $45 $1,215
to Site Visits 6(tours x 16 visits Hendricks 96 $85 $8,160
Peat Mesdnp 1 teporla 6y CM 0 $0
4 Piefbninary Inspedlon by CM 0 s0
s Fmellnspec4on Hendricks 6 $85 $510
Sweeney 6 $125 $750'.
Admin 2 $50 $100
e Close out Doc urwnfs review by CStf 0 s0
7 Subtotal PMSM CA Phase $50,780
e Consultant CA'Phase Services:
Walker.Struchrral Q 3 hourstweek x44 132 $165 $21,780
SVuGhaal submittals(10)x 8 hours avg. 80 $165 $13,200
Site Visits-6 A&dap p/as per diem 6 $1,350 $8,100.
Walker:Mechanical® 1.5 hanshueek x 44 66 $93 $6,138
Mechanical Submittals(5)x 8 hours avg. 40 $93 $3,720
Site Visits-2(rough,>iW 2 $750 $1,500
Walker.pectrical® 1.5 hou %%eek x 44 68 $93 $6,138 .
Ekx&lcaI"mftls(2)x 8 hours avg. 16 $93 $1,488
Site Visits-2(rough,fma4 2. $750 $1.500
e Walker subtotal: $63,564
Wallace-Ctd 64 $85 $5,440
Site Y�slts-2(rough, hoar) 4 $340 $1,360
firma 16 $85 $1,360
Site Visits.3 r1rrigadw,plard bm t m,lfnaO 3 $260 $760
io Subtotal Consultants CA Phase Services 474
11 PMSM coordination mark up®10%
1z Total CA Phase Services -44 weeks $130401
13 Add for Record Drawings from accurate as bulls $]2Qi10
14 Total with Record Drawings $142,501
C3-7
EXHIBIT B
coo Ok coca O c c o 8 O O O O O o
000 cc. � O 000 coo o 0 O O
t<
�> %O h O O v1 vi N in O _h ^ N �0 O% 00
M O, M0% N O M 00 V1 h N h O\ O N
pro- h D\ rn ^ ^ N N et O\ 00 M N O N to
Of�jp� N N N P1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
e.+ O O O pp 8p O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
�O 0 0 0 8 0 0 �O S O �O rn to O O et � 00 a ID
u O ^ O O vj W rV V7 O t` % O h 0 �D M v1 M h
h ^ D` M O, N O M 00 .-� N \O 00 O h o 7 to O
O 1 V 00 M .� ^ N 00 00 M ^ M O V1 v N in
,CC en
C M
O O O O O O O O O 000080 c O O O a O
�.j, O O O pp O
to %0 O ^ O to in N " O h N O N %0 00 00 M
..y,-y', V 0 M O\ M m N O M 00 O to kn h N 00 h
A ^ ^ c N r- 00 M -+ O N t, N
N�;M N N
y.. ip
cc 8 0 § $ 0 0S 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 c O 0 0 8 O
O to o to -- 00 O. v v h to to M to 00
O kn to pN h O h T 0� 00 N_ %0
000 M O� M O� N O N v h frnn
O ^ C4 C4 '+ ^ N M M
o 0
88 § 80 8 co os 08 0 0 $ � 0 O N O S S o
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O% ON 00 ^
ql j to ^ O �D V1 kn to h in O N h a r` O m h M M '+ to
&. d 3O 0,'00 N 01 N �O M00 00 to N00 N R Vy
Ch'.. 00 N O\ N v �O h M O ^ %0 00 00 00 %0
94" ^ N ^ N el;
ScOpccOaa 00 888888 888 8 8 S
h VY r- r` 0� W of N N r` O o0 %K O Ch N T C N R
ODr- 9 h N O M M " N %O N 00 �O to
V h N ^ ^ ^ 00 N to �0 h M O 00 �0 %0 IV M in v 00
�<Qa
p p 0 S p
0 8 8 8 0 0 8 O 1 S 8 pp 0 8 0 8 cc 0 S S 0
N h M O 'it M 00 %n m O mt M O M rn en m to %O ^
O\ P M h N O N N M 00 N ..w C R ...i 00 O\ h h
h h ^ m N 00 9 m M O ^ N �O 0% to �D N
M h N ^ ^ r: N en -V h M0 Rt NO O M O C
N M M
oQ, �
is p
a C. ° O != O
+ U 01 d 6 f0 Q
QI0p N 00 N C .•V 6� ppd r7 ',Wy
Q ° ° c E ` a a
U IL t o, W Cd
o U �+ a°! E p, e_ E E ° a� m a1tli
;,:.. d
d m a = c y r w, ,o > a C k 4 O o i�
a m = .arGa n
W ` H e^ O Cc
o
d ° °° v °' E .L ° ° O
� a a � -3a. 0 o� eF eF0 „ F "° a a
W V
_ G y N rn u •C: C y W W
QQ
v a w o 3
MEER._ AGENDA
DATE 3 ai-W ITEM &3
Memorandum j
city of san Luis ostspo community development aepaetment
TO: John Dunn, C
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Glen Matteson Associate Planner
DATE: March 17, 2000
SUBJECT: CHC Review of Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Steven McMasters, Chairman of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC),has written to
the City Council concerning the CHC's lack of involvement in review of the Marsh Street
Garage Expansion. The absence of CHC participation in the project's environmental
review may be raised as an issue in the Council's upcoming consideration of construction
plans.
When this project was conceived, there was one structure on the site. Removal of that
structure,which housed the Recreation Department offices at 860 Pacific Street,was
considered by the CHC in 1996. The CHC determined that the building was not
architecturally, historically, or culturally significant. That determination was reported in
the Initial Environmental Study and the Environmental Impact Report(EIR), which the
Council certified in December 1997. Previous surveys had classified the building as
contributing to the neighborhood character, but not being architecturally, historically, or
culturally significant. If the previous surveys or the CHC had determined that the building
was significant, according to City code it could not have been removed until the
Architectural Review Commission(ARC) approved plans for a replacement structure that
was at least as compatible with the neighborhood as the existing structure. Under our
current procedures in such circumstances, the CHC would review plans for the
replacement structure and provide a recommendation to the ARC.
The Initial Study had identified the potential for cultural resources other than the then-
existing building. In preparing the EIR;a cultural resources consultant conducted
additional research, including excavations, and found no significant resources on the site.
The EIR also discussed project impacts to the"urban design" setting. Planning staff
believes CHC members were notified of the public workshop on EIR scoping(along with
members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review
Commission, and the public at large). However, since the previous CHC consideration
and the EIR investigation found no significant resources,the project was not taken to the
CHC as a body.
MCOUNCIL DD DIR
G?•CAO O FIN DIR
WCAO O FJRE CHIEF
D4MRNEY 0 PO DIR
LERKIORIQ ❑POLICE CHF
❑wml TEAM O REC DIR
crl
C3UTIL DIR 14
Iy1C1--V&W1IW O PERS DIR
I AA. l., ,•Ilo \ Y
Memorandum
CHC Review of Garage Expansion
Page 2
Following certification of the EIR, several project changes were proposed. The primary
change that could have affected historical or architectural character of the neighborhood
was the pedestrian bridge across Marsh Street. A Supplement to the EIR was prepared,to
take another look at urban-design and architectural-setting issues. A consultant specialist
in historic buildings and districts evaluated the revised project's relationships to the
Presbyterian Church, the Post Office, and the Masonic Lodge, and concluded that impacts
would not be significant. In certifying the Supplement,the Council agreed.
The project site is not in an historic overlay zone, though the landing for the pedestrian
bridge would be adjacent to one.None of the project changes required referral to the CHC
under our policies or regulations.
There was no deliberate effort to avoid further CHC involvement in project review. In the
considerable time between initial review by the CHC, circulation of the EIR Supplement,
and now, CHC membership changed. It may be that current members are not aware of
previous involvement. We did provide substantial public notification of, and
opportunities for participation in discussing,the policy and esthetic issues raised by the
proposed garage expansion. We are not aware of any member of the general public or of
the CHC asking that the CHC as a body review the EIR, the Supplement, or the project
plans. We would have accommodated such a request, to err on the side of being inclusive.
marshstr\memo CHC
March 15. 2000
Mayor and City Council
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA
Mayor Settle and City Council Members:
At the Cultural Heritage Committee's February 28, 2000 meeting, Eugene Judd
spoke during the public comment period regarding the Marsh Street. Parking Garage
Expansion. The CHC has not been part of the ongoing controversy regarding the
proposed garage, however Mr. Judd did raise a pertinent issue regarding historic
resources. Mr. Judd pointed out the CHC had not had the opportunity to review either
the Draft Environmental Impact Report or the Supplemental EIR regarding potential
historic resource impacts. Consequently, he questioned the accuracy and validity of the
EIR's conclusion that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on historic
resources.
Unfortunately, the CHC was not consulted during the preparation of the EIR nor
notified during the public comment period on the Draft or Supplemental EIR. The CHC
was unable to respond adequately to Mr. Judd's question. As the Council's primary
advisor on historic resources, this situation raises questions as to the appropriate role of
the CHC in reviewing City projects. Since the City Council will soon be considering plans
and specifications for this project and may hear testimony on this issue, I wanted to clarify
that the CHC was never consulted as to the project's potential effects on historic
resources, nor requested to comment on the Draft or Supplemental EIR.
Please telephone me at 541-9168, or e-mail me at: smcmasters@.aol.com if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Wl�
AMcMasters
Chair
Cultural Heritage Committee
Cc: CHC Members
John Dunn, City Adminstrator
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Mike McCloskey, Public Works Director
RECEIVED
MAR 1 7 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
ME' :," G AGENDA
DATE 1-2-b-00 ITEM #
������uiiillllllllll�lll��lllllll
council memoizanbum
.. _ L
March 20, 2000
TO: City Council ❑ 'r re ,:.1
.2. O UTIL DUl
PIAI ❑PERS DIR I
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Agenda Item C-3 Request for clarification
Council member Schwartz called asking about the hourly rates for inspection services
quoted in the construction administration contract amendment.
The architect has submitted a revised fee budget (attached) clarifying the rates quoted in
the original fee budget. The previous rates were for the entire task (on-site visits) that
included one or more persons along with travel costs when applicable. The actual hourly
rate for the individual subcontractors were substantially lower and are reflected on the
revised fee budget. These .hourly rates are competitive by industry standards for the
professional services being performed by the various disciplines.
Attachment: revised fee budget
I:admin/ccm/ksr/ksr00-01
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
EXHIBIT B
PHIWPS METSCH SWEENEY mooRE ARcHrlECTS
City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Sttlaet Garage
CA Phase Fee Budget Revised 3/16100
EML
Iagk
Paramnal Hom ftt M Amount lois
i Pre-Construction Conference sweeney a $125 $750
Hendricks 6 $85 $510
z CA 0 6 hours/week x 44 weeks Hendricks 264 $85 $22,440
2 hourslweek x 44 weeks Admin 88 $45 $3,960
@ 1 hour/week x 44 weeks Sweeney 44 $125. $5,500
s Submittals Q 3 hours avg./submittal x 27 Hendricks 81 $85 $6.885
submittals
Admin 27 $45 $1,215
se Site Visits 0 6 tours x 16 visits Hendricks 96 $115 $8,160
Pecked MeaUng Reporls by CM 0 $0
4 Prellmhrary k"pecdorr by CM 0 $0
s Final Inspection Hendricks 6 $85 $510
Sweeney 6 $125 $750
Admin 2 $50 $100
o Clause out Documents review by CU 0 $0
7 Subtotal PMSM CA Phase $50,780
e Consultant CA Phase Services:
Walker:Structural®3 hourstweek x 44 132 $165 $21.780
Structural submittals(10)x 8 hours avg. $0 $165 $13,200
Site Visits-6 tuff days plus per diem 6 $1,350 8100
Walker.Mechanical C 1.5 hours/week x 44 66 $93 $6,138
Mechanical Submittals(5)x 8 hours avg. 40 $93 $3,720
Site Visits . 2(rough.fineO 2 $750 " $1500
Walker.Electrical®1.5 twurslweek x 44 66 $93 $6,138
Electrical Submittals(2)x 8 hours avg. 16 $93 $1,488
Site Visits-2(rough,Nud) 2 $750 $1.500
9 Walker subtotal_ $63.564
Wallace-CMI 64 $85 $5,440
Site Visits-2(rough,finaq 4 $340 $1,360
fimia 16 $85 $1,360
Site Visits-3(urrgation,plaint bcabbnS,final) 3 $250 $750
i9 Subtotal Consultants CA Phase Services 2,474
ii PMSM coordination mark up C 10% $7,247
12 Total CA Phase Services -44 weeks $130,501
.13 Add for Record Drawings from accurate as butts $12,
U Total with Record Dravvbw $142.50' 1
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
PH GIPS METSCH SWEENEY MOORE ARCHITECTS
• Walker's"Rate"Is$165 hour
Wafimes site visit rate breaks down as follows:
3 hourstvisk @$165= $485
1 houdderical(report)CP 57lhour $57
Estimate travel $200
$752 [750)
• Wallace's site visit cast breaks.dovm as falkmrs:
3 hoursM3it @$90= $270
1 hotffkWical 04&bour $45
Estimate travelImisc $25
$340
• Wallace structural engineer visit
6 hours @$13Mour $1.0
1 hour derical @ 57/hour $57
Transportation $25
$1,347 [1350)
' Fvma's site visit cost breakdown as follows:
(pr ndpal)2 hours $90 $180
(Assodate)1 hour®$70 $70
$250
Page 2of2
14 ,'ING AGENDA
DATE 3=ITEM G3
From: David kastner<dkastner@calphotoslo.com>
• To: <sstendahl@slocity.org>, Deborah Holley<dholley@downtownslo.com>-- - -
Date: 3/21/00 11:15AM
Subject: Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members:
I want to repeat once again the absolute necessity of the Marsh Street
Parking Garage Expansion.
1. Customers already complain about lack of Parking. Non-complainers
just shop elsewhere.
2.The Coplelands development will further reduce available parking
while greatly increasing demand.
3. Sidewalk widening to accomodate cafes and public art will furthere
reduce parking or be slowed to avoid parking losses.
4. Lack of convenient parking hurts the elderly and people with small
children. These groups do not qualify for the few handicapped spots
downtown. That is why the AARP came out in favor of this expansion at an
earlier city council meeting on this subject.
5.The planned site is already an ugly parking lot.The planned
development with art and offices would be a vast improvement.
Thank you for your consideration. 9000NCIL 0CDD DIR
1?CAO O FIN DIR
MACAO O FIRE CHIEF
1117 ORNEY Eft DIR
Dave Kastner &tLEFWORIO E3 POLICE CHF
Cal Photo ❑NG tTh ATEAY 1 O REC DIR
r3 RAE — O UDL DIR
la� O PEAS DIR
RECEIVED
MAR 2 12000
SLo CITY CLERK
MEETING AGENDA
RICHARD SCHMIDT, , itect =:ATE 3 - I- oU IiEfiW
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
• email: rschmidt@calpolv.edu
March 21, 2000 ET
CDD
U CDD DIR
❑FIN DIR
Re: Item C-3, Copeland Garage VIA FAX
❑FIRE C;::--
Er I
NEYI'�P4V DIR
IORIG ❑FOLIC=C::"To the City Council: TEAM ❑REC D11
AuNF- ❑uTILRi,6tt;M4 ❑PERS DIr ;.
I urge you to nix the pedestrian overpass portion of this project.
There are many reasons why this overpass should never be built, including among others:
1. MONSTROSITY. This will be San Luis Obispo's equivalent of San Francisco's old
Embarcadero Freeway, unwisely built only to be wisely torn down several.years later. It
blocked views of the waterfront just as this MONSTROSITY will block or detract from views of
our environment, our lovely small-town streetscape, the nearby historic buildings. Like
Embarcadero, this bridge will be a hated object, and the council that approves it will live in
infamy till it's removed. DONT APPROVE THIS MONSTROSITY!
2. PUBLIC SAFETY. The MONSTROSITY is being proposed as a way to improve public
safety. It will do nothing of the kind. In fact, IT WILL ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY for many
reasons, including becoming a nest for crime afid assault. Look at the history of such
structures-- a long, non-visible from off-premises chute extending from the garage to the
other side of Marsh Street. My hometown, Cincinnati, won great praise from ARCHITECTS
and PLANNERS, fools that both can be, when it built "skywalks" all over downtown so
pedestrians could circulate "indoors" at second story level. There were "unanticipated"
results. Pedestrian traffic was split between street level and the skywalks, thereby leaving
both feeling poorly populated. The skywalks weren't visible, as sidewalks are, and became
havens for predatory crime. Today, that multi-million dollar investment in raised pedestrian
ways lies abandoned, and some portions have been demolished. Look at your one
experience thus far with this sort of raised walkway -- the Jennifer Street bridge, SCENE OF
A MURDER WHEN IT WAS LESS THAN A YEAR OLD. Don't repeat this error.
3. UNNEEDED. A properly designed garage would unload drivers onto adjacent streets,
where they can proceed to traffic signals at Morro and Chorro to cross Marsh. Along their
way, they can enjoy the mural of the view the garage itself has obscured.
4. CRONYISM. Let's face it: the ONLY reason for this bridge is a payback to Tom Copeland.
It's bad for the city, but has merit for dumping pedestrians into a private developer's mall.
5. BIG CITY SOLUTION. This sort of skywalk is a big city solution for a podunk town. It's
totally out of place here.
PLEASE DUMP THE.MARSH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.
Richard Schmidt
mason 1% MEET isiu AGENDA
Lal-00 ITEM # C3
SA'VE SLO DATE.�- —
a L
0 IN DIR
E CIJIEF
RECEIVED a' h AO ❑FlRDIR
... ,(DPW DIR
DOWNTOWN ba ❑POLICE CHF
p RTC DDR
2.300 30 ❑UTIL DISLO CITY COUNCIL �IJ ' '�
i ❑PERS DIR I`f
21 March 2000
To: The City Council,San Luis Obispo,California
Council meeting, Tuesday, 21 March 2000
Re: Agenda item C3, Marsh Street Garage
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Further to our conversation of 20 March with Mayor Settle we would like to comment on the
above agenda item as follows:
1. Our motivation - positive solutions
We have a far-reaching vision of the future downtown transportation that is different from
the semi-official"Downtown Concept Plan."Our transportation plan is summarized in the
senior project of Michael Sallaberry, civil engineer, Sept. 1998(sent to City Hall in 1998). It
contains a transportation plan in three phases,up to the year 2028,including parking garages
and parking lots.This project is available also on microfiche at the Cal Poly Reserve Library.
With 1,000 signatures requesting them,it is difficult to understand why during the last
several years City Council has consistently side-stepped public workshops having to do with a
downtown transportation concept.Now that even architect Peter Calthorpe hinted that the
aforementioned"Downtown Concept Plan" appears to,be a product of the 1960s, we should
move urgently for public strategic planning before pushing through piecemeal brick and mortar
solutions.
2. Our critique of the process
For years citizens have been subjected to a systematic disinformation campaign about this
parking garage emanating from city politicians and staff. For example, despite promises, no
consultant was ever allowed to evaluate the need for an expansion of the Marsh Street Garage.
A steering committee for the Meyer Mohaddes Study was"temporarily dissolved" but never
reinstated. Consultant reports were produced which contradict the Circulation Element policies
but were adopted by the City Council. EIRs did not answer most of the questions posed by
citizen commentators,but were nevertheless certified.by Council.
In August 1999 the Council sidestepped its own zoning regulations,which may not be
technically illegal, but appears to send a very problematic message to the public. Several times
important agenda items have been hidden in the consent agenda and passed unnoticed—or had
to be pulled by vigilant Council members or citizen watchdog groups.
Today's attempt to put a 2-hour agenda item on the consent agenda is especially disturbing,
considering financial and other implications.This is a highly sensitive issue. For example,
Page 1
interviews with some 800 people in spring 1999 revealed that nearly 60%of those interviewed
were opposed to the Marsh Street Garage expansion(Appendix 1). In The Tribune, 3/19/00,
Parking manager Keith Opalewski calls today's vote"the major vote" on this issue.
Yet city management sees this as a consent agenda item! We would appreciate a clear
explanation of this procedure.
Concerning the inadequacy of certain reports, professors in our group are willing to risk
their academic reputations and debate anyone in any location on our following confusions:
2.1 -The Marsh Street Garage EIR and Supplemental EIR contain many internal
contradictions, erroneous traffic forecasts and calculations.
2.2-Even Meyer Mohaddes hinted in an unpublished draft report that Marsh Street is the
wrong location for a garage expansion.
2.3-The Meyer Mohaddes report produced valuable statistics but its parking forecasts are
fatally flawed because it assumes no change of travel behavior(modal split). This is in full
contradiction to clearly stated measurable objectives of"The Circulation Element,"page 10.
2.4-The Parsons Group EIR gives extremely superficial responses to citizen commentators.
2.5-The "need" for brick and mortar parking spaces is not supported at all by statistics.All
we need at this time is better parking management, especially P+R for commuters, which
according to Meyer Mohaddes is twenty times less expensive than actually building garage
spaces. This frees several hundred parking spaces for shopper,in downtown.
2.6-The current garage project is wrong from the following points of view:
• city planning(location)
• transportation planning(access routes)
• traffic engineering (irreversible permanent access from the wrong side, Marsh Street)
• structural (Steel.construction is considerably cheaper.)
3. Please! no final vote this evening...
We urge you to not take any vote on this item for the following reasons:
3.1 -The public was definitely misled by the placing of this item on the consent agenda
3.2-Staff reports were not available to the public at the city/county library(as prescribed by
the Brown Act).
3.3-Three historic buildings (Masonic Hall, US Post Office and the Presbyterian Church)
are visually impacted by the garage—and especially by the proposed pedestrian bridge. This
question was not satisfactorily addressed by professional experts. Our Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC)was completely bypassed by this particular process. Their letter on this issue
is on your desk, awaiting a response. Before the garage project is moved ahead, it is appropriate
that the public see a written statement by the San Luis Obispo CHC.
The Post Office is a federal building thus the National Historic Preservation Act, section
106, may apply. This would lead to an Independent Review Agency(ACNP). Because the
Council plans to build on federal land an EIS instead of the existing EIR might be necessary.
These two legal questions should be reviewed by an independent attorney specializing in
historic and environmental matters.
3.4-The staff report is incomplete because it does not reveal the easement agreement with
Copeland Enterprises. Why should Council members approve a document that they and the
public will never see?
3.5-The garage plans and staff report need clarification according to the following
paragraph.
Page 2
4. Staff report
Please provide the following clarification in written form
4.1 -The current garage plans of the ground floor appear.to forever cast in stone the
entrance to the garage from the wrong side,ie., Marsh Street.This is a serious design flaw.
4.2-"Pay on foot"fee collection should be integrated.
4.3-Copeland's Enterprises.
The statement on page C3-2 that the"pedestrian bridge has full support of Copeland's" is
misleading. Mr. Tom Copeland told us, in the presence of witnesses, "I do not mind if you
eliminate this bridge."This bridge is not a critical component of the project; in fact, it destroys
the Circulation Element's concept of a downtown where the pedestrian is king on the ground
level, and cars are re-routed out of downtown—mostly towards the freeway.This pedestrian
bridge is not needed for safety reasons as the city's map, "Pedestrian Downtown Collisions"
since 1984 shows. The bridge only adds horrendous costs.This eyesore is not the express wish
of the Copelands, but the"hobby" of other persons who appear to have their special definition
of pedestrian ambiance and preservation of historic buildings.
4.4-General"need" for more parking?
Does more physical parking space in downtown guarantee more sales tax?As
Appendix 2;partA,shows that in 1979 the downtown had 4,300 parking spaces and many more
were considered"needed" at that time in order to avoid economic backlash. In 1997, Meyer
Mohaddes shows 3,700 parking spaces (600 fewer).Therefore,the downtown should be
bankrupt. Why is the downtown booming?This question has not yet been answered by the
Public Works Department—after several months.
Meyer Mohaddes presents a chart showing that even during the noon parking peak 1,100
parking spaces (of the 3,700) are empty(Appendix 2,part B). Could the Public Works
Department please
• explain these figures;
• prove convincingly that we need more physical parking in downtown; and
• prove that this huge investment in the Marsh Street Garage expansion will be paid off by
higher sales tax income.
Many other towns collected similar statistics and have drawn their conclusions regarding
downtown parking policies, for example:
• Avila Beach plans to have three times more tourists in the future, but keeps the number of
parking spaces stable.
• San Francisco has a similar parking policy.
• Portland, Oregon,has a policy of reducing the number of parking spaces by 1096 in the
coming years.
• Aspen, Colorado, discusses a reduction of 500 parking spaces once better public
transportation is available.
• At least 70 European cities have parking reduction policies in place or in planning.
4.5-Construction costs per parking space.
According to The Tribune, 3/19/00, each parking space in the garage now costs $32,750,
approximately three times more than original estimates. When finance costs,land value and
staff input from general funds are added, each space may easily cost$70,000! Note that a
parking space in an above-grade structure normally costs a maximum of$14,000 according to
the 1999 Transportation Planning Handbook of the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(Appendix 3). No private parking enterprise would even dream of building such a loser, why
should we?
Page 3
4.6-Financing method.
We really do not have the money for this garage, but are spending the inheritance of our
children. The existing garages are not even paid off, and we are willing to go into further debt in
a time of prosperity when we should be paying off existing debts.
San Luis Obispo parking garages per se do not pay for themselves.The annual costs per
parking space in the new garage would be approximately
$ 500 for cleaning, maintenance, etc.
J1,500 for interest rates, etc.
$2,000 total/year
Current annual income per space, to our knowledge, is three-to four times less. What feeds
the parking fund is income from on-street parking meters.Unless parking fees are raised
dramatically, the financial future for our garages looks bleak indeed. It could well be that the
State Revolving Fund program will not consider the Marsh Street project for their bonds.
4.7-$1,500,000 debt increase.
Could staff please itemize this amount.
5. Conclusions
5.1 -Unless staff proves a convincing cost benefit ratio for the building of this garage
expansion, the project should be dropped as a financial boondoggle.
5.2-If Council wants to continue the project, please consider the following mitigation
• Drop the pedestrian bridge (unnecessary).
• Provide car entrance and exit from/to Pacific Street.
• Use steel construction (up to 50%less expensive).
• Make upper floor a senior center(under design by Cal Poly students).
Thank you for your consideration.
SAVE DOWNTOWN
PO BOX 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Eugen Jud Jean Seay (545-9 3)
Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers ecretary
Appendices 1-3.
Page 4
CAL POLY
-_ CALIFOR.NIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis OBISrO,CA 93407
June 21, 1999
Twenty-three students of Civil Engineering 222 (labs in Transportation engineering,) conducted eight
hundred and sixty four interviews near the Marsh St. Parking Garage and the Palm St Parking Garage,
along with extended traffic surveys and downtown design exercises. The interviews were taken
between Wednesday May 19, 1999 and Monday May 24, 1999 during the hours of 11:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m.
Survey results, in the appendix, include the data taken as well as a comparison with a similar survey in
March 1996. It should be noted that the recent survey covered the weekend while the 1996 survey
was administered only on workdays. The recent survey covered a more car oriented crowd as it was
taken near garages, while the 1996 survey covered a less car oriented crowd as it was taken
throughout the whole downtown. Although it should be recognized that this is a student exercise the
results should still be of interest.
They can be summarized as follows:
Two thirds of the people who came by car did not have any cKiculty finding a parting space. This
number has been proven through several surveys, including the Meyer Mohaddes study. Since
1996 more thantwo thousand people were interviewed in downtown on this subject
• On a workday, thirty percent of downtown visitors came by alternative transportation while on
weekends the percentage is considerably lower as bus service is reduced.
The average visitor(who came by car)walks nearly five blocks through the downtown.
• Nearly two thirds of the people interviewed would like to see the downtown more pedestrian
friendly.
Nearly sixty peroent oppose the idea of the double twin garages (Alternative A), namely Marsh II
and Palm II. They would rather see two new garages on opposite sides of the downtown
(Alternative B).
People are highly sensitive to our cultural heritage. Around eighty percent object to the destruction
of Palindromes and the Antique Shop in connection with a possible Palm II garage.
Anyone interested in further processing the interviews is welcome to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eugene H.Jud, Cal Poly 756-1729
Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
S
THE CALII-ORNIA NATE UNJ�ER<ITY
Cal Poly,CE 222
Summary of Survey Results, May 19-24, 1999
864 interviews were conducted from the hours of 11: 00 am to 4: 00 pm
near the Marsh Street Garage and the Palm Street Garage.
1. Are you a resident of San Luis Obispo? 2. How did you get to downtown today?
Yes 700/6 Car 76 %
No 30% Bike 7%
Bus 6 % Tot. 24%
Walk 9 %
Other 2 %
3. Did you find it difficult to park in downtown today? 4.Please estimate how far you will walk in the downtown
today
Yes 35%
No 65% <2 blocks 24%
2-6 blocks 46%
>6 blocks 30%
5. Would you like to see the downtown more 6. if more garages were needed,which plan would you
pedestrian friendly? prefer
Yes 64% Expansion of Marsh and Palm(Alt. A)? 41%
No 36% Two new garages on the opposite sides of
Downtown(Alt.B)? 590/0
7. If you are for the additional Palm Street garage, 8. If you are for the additional Marsh Street garage,
do you support the destruction of the"Palindromes" do you support the pedestrian bridge proposed
and the"Antique Shop"as proposed with this garage? with this garage?
Yes 22% Yes 50%
No 78% No 50%
Comparison with Survey of March 1996
How many people surveyed were residents of San Luis Obispo?
1999 70%
1996 80%
Form of transportation to reach downtown.
1999 Car 76% Alternative Trsp. 24%
1996 Car 70% Alternative Trsp. 30%
7 .
� T
Did you experience parking difficulty? Walking Distance:
1999 35% 1999 <2 blocks 24%
1996 40% 2-6 blocks 46%
>6 blocks 30%
1996 <2 blocks 20%
2-6 blocks 50%
>6 blocks 30%
Plan in connection with question 6:
City Council Pla_n_e.'
l'�cc 4,a
swsfi�'
PALM ST. ,
p 5 e-" PALM u"
Mu.�rsRST sT• H
M
s
LxR S Lf ST•
P- •� ppos L "MAM i "
Alternative Plan^ Fr cc `y
i
PlrGM sr
i
/faNTE/ZC ST,
O �
P� P..P.*eef
7.
�ir�p ec/ l COrT>4�
P-faNr< 2222
IWESi° # s
a�_Tje-
j
P-Pa
Q
FALL 98 JUD
First Name: Last Name: Section _
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
How much parking space do people need?
Homework, due in one week
In transportation planning,a lot is just common sense. But there are paradoxes. For example in an official
brochures) published in the year 1979 the city of San Luis Obispo, says the following, based on
recommendations of a traffic consultant:
"There are 4300 parking spaces in Downtown...
a) About 400 spaces are needed right now to serve downtown stores and county government offices.
b) If more stores and offices are built downtown (which was done), possibly as many as about 900 more
spaces will be needed by 1990.
c) If new county government offices are built downtown(which was done), about 700 more spaces may
be needed by 1990."
Therefore (4300+ 400 +900 + 700=) 6300 spaces would have been needed by the year 1990 (and even
more by now!) in order to avoid economic loses for the merchants etc.
In reality,according to another report, in 19972)we had only 3700 parking spaces in Downtown.
Therefore Downtown should be in miserable shape economically. However,the contrary is true. _ (�
Downtown sales are growing 4% annually or more and rents are climbing higher.
A) Explain this phenomenon in 10 lines
B) Give your recommendation to the City Counsel about the future transportation policy for
Downtown SLO.
C) Mention on which official documents you base your conclusions.
d
Q �.
Lo se
3M. P
r
w �
C
F
7711e
Time
1)"Goals for Downtown," Oct. 1979, p.6. Department of Community Development, 990 Palm St., SLO
(still available)
2)"Downtown Access and Parking Study," Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. !st Report, Spring 1997,
Figure 89 (shown above)
9
/'t G f �c•r Gc i X � .
Table 14-23 Construction Cost per Parking Space
Sq Nvspace 25.0 27.5 30.0 323 35.0 37.5 40.0
Sq Ft/Space 270.6 297.7 324.7 351.8 378.8 405.9 133.0
Cost/Sq NI Cost/Sq Ft
Surface Lots
S 50 S 4.62 S 1.250 S 1.375 S 11500 S 1.625 S 1,750 S 1,875 S 2.000
S 75 S 6.93 S 1,875 S 2,063 S 2,250 S 2.438 S 2,625 S 2.813 S 3.(00
$ 100 S 9.24 S 2.500 S 2.750 S 3,000 S 3.250 S 3.500 S 3,750 S 1.000
Above Grade Structures
S 200 $18.48 $ 5,000 5 5.500 S 6.000 S 6.500 S 7,000 S 7,500 S 8.000
S 225 $20.79 $ 5.625 S 6,188 S 6.750 S 7.313 S 7,875 S 8.438 5 9.000
S 250 523.10 S 6,250 S 6.875 5 7500 S 8,125 S 8,750 S 9,375 $10.000
S 275 525.41 $ 6.873 S 7,563 $ 8,250 S 8.938 S 9,625 510,313 511.000
$ 300 $27.72 S 7,500 S 8.250 S 9.000 S 9.750 510500 511.250 512.000
S 325 530.03 $ 8,125 S 8,938 S 9.750 S10563 $11.375 512.188 513.000
$ 350 532.34 S 8,750 5 9.625 SI0500 $11.375 512,250 $13,125 514,000 h
Below Grade Structures
S 300 $27.72 S 7.500 S 8.250 $ 9.000 S 9.750 S10,500 S I L250 S12.000
S 400 $36.95 $10.000 S11.000 S 12.000 S13.000 S14.000 S15.000 S16.000
S 500 $46.19 $12,500 513,750 $15,000 SI6,250 $17,500 $18.750 520.000
S 600 555.43 $15.000 $16500 $18.000 $19500 521.000 522500 521,000
S 700 564.67 $17500 519,250 $21.000 522,750 524,500 526.250 528.000
S 800 $73.91 $20,000 522.000 521.000 $26.000 S28,000 530.000 532.000
S 900 $83.15 $22,500 $24,750 527,000 529,250 531500 533.750 S36.000
$1,000 $92.39 $25,000 $27,500 $30.000 532.500 535.000 537300 S40.000
i T t lr-r p. /2( f7`aj.6r! 6)M,4 /159" 73Z
�o