HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2005, SS 6 - REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE council °' °�
July 5,2005
j ac cn as nEpoizt " S LV
C I T Y OF SAN LU IS OBISPO
FROM: Jay Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Peggy Mandeville,Principal Transportation Planner
Robert Horch,Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO
PARKING STRUCTURE
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive and consider information regarding potential alternatives and options for the Palm-
Nipomo Parking Structure and identify Site Plan Design Option D4 or H2 as the preferred
site plan design.
2. Provide direction regarding next steps in the development process for the project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Palm-Nipomo parking garage project was established by the Council as an important objective
with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. Last year the Council reviewed a variety of
conceptual design options and directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs:Option D,
one a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design. Now five variations of Option D and
two of Option H have been developed and staff recommends that Council identify Site Plan Option
D4 and H2 as the preferred designs at this time. Both of these options provide for or preserve some
area for residential components and the SLO Little Theatre or other cultural facility.
In addition to identifying a preferred design alternative, staff is seeking direction from the Council
regarding how to proceed with this project. The next parking structure the City builds will likely be
the last for a very long time so the critical decision is whether or not Palm-Nipomo should be that
structure.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Palm-Nipomo parking garage project was established by the Council as an important objective
with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan calls for the development of a
conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first
step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The
proposed parking garage site (see Attachment 1) is currently occupied by City-owned surface
parking lots and five residential units (one single family residence and one duplex on Palm Street
U! � 1
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 2
and two single family residences on Monterey Street). All of these dwellings are owned by the City
with the exception of the single family residence at 614 Monterey Street.
As a first step of the design process, Chong Partners Architecture (formally Gordon H. Chong and
Partners) was hired by the City to develop a variety of conceptual design options for the City
Council to consider (see Council Reading File, City Council Staff Report of May 25, 2004 for
details). At that meeting, the Council reviewed the various options and then directed staff to
proceed with Site Plan Option D, a self-park design, and Option H,a mechanical parking design, as
the "baseline" design options for further study (see Attachment 2, Brochure on mechanical
parking). The Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of these two
options-
1.
ptions:1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land
area on Monterey Street to build the SLO Little Theatre or some other cultural facility and
leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing.
2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the SLO Little Theatre can be built.
3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street
4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project.
5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground.
6. Proposing other possible uses (i.e. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events)
for the roof of the structure.
7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its dripline.
With this direction, staff has been working with the architect during the past year to further develop
these options and conduct an initial environmental site assessment.
Site Plan Options
As part of this stage of project development, staff along with the architect developed six (6) new
alternatives of Options D and H each utilizing a variety of the seven additional considerations
mentioned above. The six alternatives are described in detail in Attachment 3 and site plans are also
attached as Attachment 4.
Five variations of Option D (self park alternatives D1-D5) and two of Option H, the mechanical
parking option, have been developed. All options locate the parking structure entry and exit on
Palm Street, maintain the large oak tree on Monterey Street and allow portions of the site to be
developed by "others" when the timing may be appropriate. In essence the structure could be built
first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in
place.
Recreational, residential and public uses, such as a public meeting space, were added to various
alternatives to Option D (self-park) to determine the merit, functionality and potential issues
associated with their incorporation into the project. In general, it could be concluded that each of
these uses could be incorporated into the project if so desired by Council. However, each of the
various mixed uses has issues, most notably significantly increased construction costs due to
�p _a
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 3
different loading and occupancy requirements, which would need to be addressed if they are
incorporated into the project. Such added costs would be General Fund costs, since they would not
be parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions could come into play if the Council
opts to include some uses, such a tennis courts on the upper deck and any additional uses will create
a requirement for additional parking for that use, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for
general public use in the parking structure.
Structure size, positioning and height all affect the gross number of deliverable parking spaces as
well as property available for other uses. All six of the options preserve an area for the SLO Little
Theatre or other cultural facility, with some having larger areas for this purpose than the others. It is
not surprising that the mechanical parking option provides the most net space available to other
uses due to its compact design.
Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features
No. Summary of Key Features Building Building #of Average Net New
Footprint Size Levels Height* Spaces
D-1 Self park structure behind other 34,320 s.f.. 117,650 s.f. 3 1/2 30 ft. 287
uses on Palm and Monterey
Streets.
D-3 Self park structure at corner of " 117,650 s.f. 31/2 32 ft. 287
Palm and Ni omo Streets
D4 Same as D-3 + an additional 153,170 s.f. 41/2 42 ft. 399
level of pazkin
D-5 Same as D-3 + Recreation " 142,170 s.f. 31/2 50 ft. 287
Center on roof
D-6 Same as D-3 + Conference 141,650 s.f. 31/2 55 ft. 287
Center on roof
H-1 Mechanical structure behind 20;500 s.f. 91;350 s.f. 41/2 33 ft. 336
other uses on Palm and
Monterey Streets
H-2 Same as H-2 + an additional " 111,850 s.f. 51/21 41 ft. 436
level of parking
* Average height is measured at the existing grade near the center of the structure in Section A-A
and does not include the added height of elevators, mechanical equipment, or fencing for tennis
courts.
Staff has reviewed the design options and recommends that Council consider Site Plan Design
Options D4(self.park) and H2 (mechanical) as the preferred designs at this time. Neither of these
designs incorporates mixed uses into the parking structure itself. In reviewing the issues associated
with the mixed uses, it is difficult to justify the additional costs associated with them, particularly
when knowing that the likelihood of funding from the General Fund (or some other source) is
highly unlikely to materialize. Both of these options provide for or preserve some area for
residential components and the SLO Little Theatre or other cultural facility. If the consensus of the
Le -3
Palm-Nipomo Parking Simeture Page 4
Council is to include mixed use as part of the structure, identifying the specific use is critical for the
next stage of the development design and environmental process.
The Parking Numbers
The consultant was originally given a goal of creating 400 parking spaces on the site. They were
also directed to incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
(Downtown Plan) as mentioned above. Due to concerns regarding the likelihood of obtaining
exceptions, they were asked to be mindful of the City's height regulations for the various options.
The design options reviewed by Council last year provided 300-500 gross parking spaces. After
accounting for the 79 parking spaces lost due to the elimination of the surface parking lot, Option D
equated to 300-430 net new parkingspaces and Option H provided 295-400 net new parking
spaces. For the most part, the range of parking spaces for each option is determined by the number
of parking levels provided. Therefore, if the goal of the project is to place the maximum density of
parking possible, height of the structure could be a potential issue.
As depicted in the above table, total gross parking spaces delivered by the current options vary from
approximately 365 — 515 spaces. These numbers do not include factoring in new parking space
demand that would be caused if mixed uses (such as the conference center) were incorporated into
the project, nor the loss of surface parking spaces.Just accounting for the loss of the current parking
lot the various options would yield 287 — 436 net new parking spaces, depending on the option
chosen.
Site Development Criteria
The Zoning Regulations call for the Office zoned site to have a maximum building height of 35 feet
and minimum building setback of 15 feet for street yards and 5-10 feet for other yards with the
provision that use permit approvals for parking structures "may include deviations to otherwise
applicable setback requirements and building height limits". In addition to possible height and
setback exceptions, development of the site with a parking structure will require approval of a
variance for lot coverage to allow a building that exceeds the 60% lot coverage requirement.
Removing residential units entirely could be a consistency issue as identified by the Planning
Commission earlier this year. Other General Plan consistency analysis was provided in the previous
Council Report(see the Council Reading file for details).
Similar to other parking structures in Downtown, these issues would need resolution during the
design and environmental phase of the project.
Initial Environmental Site Assessment
To identify any potentially significant environmental constraints that could affect the construction
of a multi-story parking garage at this location, an initial environmental and geotechnical site
assessment was conducted. Three soil samples taken from the site were analyzed for possible
contamination and nothing was found in the borings that would necessitate removal of the soil from
the site. As the Council may recall, removal of soil contamination was required at the site of the
(2 ,�
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 5
new County Government Center at a substantial cost. While this sampling is not exact, it does give
us some idea that the site is not overly polluted. Depth to groundwater was also tested earlier this
year after the record winter rains. Groundwater was encountered 30 feet below the surface in one
boring and not encountered with the other two borings that reached depths of 20-40 feet below the
surface. This finding reduces concerns for constructing a level of parking below grade. Finally, a
record search of the property was conducted and it did not identify any previous uses or activities
that should be of an environmental concern to the City. As in most properties in the Downtown,
cultural and historical issues are assumed to be present at the site and will need environmental
consideration at the planning and construction phases of the project.
Palm-Nipomo: Where to From Here
At this time there are two key decision paths for the Council to consider:
1. Is Palm-Nipomo the right site for the next parking structure?
2. And if so, which of the design options should we focus on?
As Council is aware,recent issues have developed that affect consideration of what the next steps in
the Palm-Nipomo project should be. At its June 2, 2005 Parking Fund Review meeting,the Council
discussed in-depth some of these issues having to do with long term funding: new projects coming
on board, such as Chinatown; the potential sale of City parking lots for private development; and
impacts resulting from the occupancy of the County Government Center and Court Street projects.
It was also identified, that based upon current revenue and expenses, even with agreement on the
implementation of some additional revenue enhancements, it is likely that the next parking structure
will probably be the final parking structure the City builds for a very long time unless some
significant new source of revenue is enacted. Therefore, the critical decision needed to be decided
by Council is: Should Palm-Nipomo be that structure at this time?
If the answer to that question is "yes", the Council should focus its efforts at this study session on
determining a preferred alternative and give direction as to what, if any, mixed uses should be
considered for the project. If the answer is "no", then Council should consider the alternatives
discussed below and conclude what other issues need to be resolved prior to proceeding with the
next steps in the project development phase: Regardless of these issues, a preferred site plan design
option for the project should be identified at this time, if possible.
So What Options are There to Moving Forward Now?
If Council opts not to move forward with one of the site plan designs at this time, the following
options should be considered.
Option 1: Defer Decision for 3-6 months.
This option would allow for some of the potentially significant issues to become clearer or be
resolved. These issues include physical and financial issues resulting from the Chinatown project,
additional understanding of how the possible sale of City parking lots may affect Downtown
� r�
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 6
parking demand and supply, a longer running history of the impacts of Court Street and the County
Government Center, and resolution to possible revenue enhancement issues. During this time, the
City could also consult further with the County about a possible partnership north of Santa Rosa
Street. The down side to this option is that the deferment may cause the project to lose momentum
and be delayed. There is also no guarantee that the timeframe will be enough to resolve all of the
significant issues. For example, the feasibility of a project north of Santa Rosa Street would likely
require far more than 3-6 months to identify and resolve significant issues.
Option 2: Proceed with Environmental and Preliminary Design Only.
Assuming that a preferred option for the structure can be agreed upon and what components should
be included, this option would allow the project.to continue in order to resolve some of the critical
issues such as environmental impacts, better design renderings and cost estimation. The location of
the Palm-Nipomo Structure will continue to be one identified as a public parking facility in the
City's Downtown Plan, and therefore, money spent on clarifying what the ultimate project should
be should not be considered wasted money. However, a downside to this option could be if Council
ultimately decides not to pursue Palm-Nipomo as the next structure, environmental work often has
a temporary shelf life and future Councils may want to change the preferred alternative making
current design costs a waste of money.
Option 3: Defer Decision on Proceeding for 12 Months or some future time.
This option would defer the ultimate decision of moving forward with the project until enough
issues and information can be gathered to make a fully informed decision as to where the next
structure will go. Environmental work on the Chinatown project should be completed within this
timeframe and full impacts of Court.Street and the County Government Center should be known.
More time would also be available to consult with the County about a project north of Santa Rosa
Street. This option would definitely cause the project to lose momentum and be delayed in the
City's project development process.There is also no guarantee that the timeframe will be enough to
resolve all of the significant issues.
Property Owner/Public Input
The property owner at 614 Monterey Street has been contacted and given copies of the site plan
options and City Council staff report. Public notice of the study session was sent to owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the project boundary. Additionally, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce, Downtown Association, and authors of the Downtown Plan have been notified of the
study session and encouraged to comment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Directing staff to proceed with further study of a site plan option does not have a direct fiscal
impact because the Council has already budgeted $150,000 for study and design services; and
$300,000 for environmental review. Approximately $80,000 remains available for completion of
conceptual design services; and all of the funding for environmental review remains.
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 7
While $1.2 million has been appropriated for design in 2006-07, no funds have been appropriated
for construction. However, based on a 400-space structure, $12 million is estimated for
construction in the 2005-09 Capital Improvement Plan (see Attachment 5, excerpt from Plan).
Acquiring the final property along Monterey Street, if needed, would increase this amount and
would depend on a public appraisal (yet to be performed) to determine the cost of acquisition.
ALTERNATIVES
As detailed in the discussion section approve, the following alternatives actions are available to
Council:
1. Defer decision on proceeding for 3-6 months and direct staff to Council with specific
information requested by the Council.
2. Proceed with environmental review and preliminary design.
3. Defer decision on proceeding for 12 months or some future time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location/Property Ownership Map
2. Mechanical Parking Brochure
3. Description of Design Options
4. Site Plan Design Options
5. 2005-09 Capital Improvement Plan Excerpt
PROVIDED TO COUNCIL
11x17 copy of Site Plan Options D1-5 and H 1-2
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL READING FILE
City Council Staff Report of May 25,2004
I:\_Council Agenda Reports\2005 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review (Bochum)\Parldng
(Horch)\PALM_Nipomo v2.DOC
ATTACHMENT-1
PROPERTY LOCATION/OWNERSHIP MAP
j Properties currently
owned by City �A
~®I
V�
• ' Attachment 2'
Mutt•paricer 7®o Series.;
�
O Automated parking systems for 2-20 Parking levels,
configured above or below grade
O Entry/exit locations at any level
O Designed to accommodate vehicles of various heights t r
O Muth-row arrangement entry/exit
O Quick-change pallet system=short access times
O Integrated turntable
O can be free standing or attached to a facility a Multiparker provides space-saving and
economical parking options by stacking
cars side by side and on top of one another in
a fully-automated high-rack shelving system.
One or more entrance areas provide access
into the system.
U
The storage and retrievaL unit is equipped
with an integrated quick-change pallet.
CD system and a turntable that turns the
vehicle during transport and brings it into
I the exit position. The entrance area(s) can
1 be arranged at any level The storage and
m o
j — retrieval technique allows faster access times
j which makes the Multiparker.an attractive
i alternative to conventional parking facilities.
The Multiparker dispenses with.the need
tsoa —
Ism 78.04• ,�' for ramps, aisles, stairwells, elevators,
55.Tr lighting, HVAC, etc. and offers security
s.7r
' against theft and vandalism. When.compared
°inens1Om 0 eradoets for stmap and to conventional garage buildings,itis envi-
` ` NI umt( ronmentally friendly in terns of its compact
construction, and helps reduce emissions.
m
=company
o SpaceSaver
Parking
i . °
820 N. Wolcott Avenue, Chicago, IL 60622
� 77,3/486-6900 Fax 773/486-2438
space of at teat&SV x 9."x 7.8r(W x L x H)must � ppC Qverput rtg.com
be available nem the transfer area for the waW uft inravw cesaverparkiligXOM
ATTACHMENT
Site Plan Options
Of the eight site plan options originally developed, Council directed staff to move forward with one
self park design (Option D) and one mechanical design (Option H). Mechanical parking is a
relatively new concept in parking design using an existing technology; elevators. Mechanical
parking allows vehicles to be stored in approximately half the space of a self-park garage because
there is no need for drive aisles, ramps or space for people. The system operates with a series of
elevators moving vehicles vertically and horizontally into storage bays.
Five variations of Option D and.two of Option H have been developed. All options locate the
parking structure entry and exit on Palm Street, maintain the large oak tree on Monterey Street and
allow portions of the site to be developed by "others" which is less complicated (financially and
legally) than working in partnership with other parties. Each site plan option is described below
and the consultant is prepared to discuss the pros and cons of each option at the study session.
Site Plan Option D1 locates the parking structure roughly centered between Palm and Monterey
Streets and provides for office and/or residential uses fronting Palm Street and cultural and/or
residential uses fronting Monterey Street. A total of 287 net new parking spaces are provided
within 3'/2 levels of parking. All existing structures on the site need to be relocated or demolished
with the construction of the parking structure. The parking structure's heights from existing grades
are as follows:
Monterey Street= 25 feet
Nipomo Street 30 feet
Palm Street= 35 feet
Center of Site Plan Section A-A= Approximately 30 feet
Site Plan Option D2 locates the same parking structure design at the comer of Palm and Nipomo
Streets. The two existing residences on Monterey Street can be retained with this design
permanently or temporarily, however these properties are reduced in depth from 140 feet to 90 feet
and removal of trees and the detached garage at 610 Monterey Street are necessary. A total of 287
net new parking spaces are provided within 31h levels of parking. The parking structure's height on
closest to each street frontage is approximately the same as Site Plan Option D1, however the
height near the center of the structure is two feet higher from existing grades because less of the
structure is built into the sloped portion of the site.
Site Plan Option D3 is the same design as D2, with one additional level of parking provided. A
total of 399 net new parking spaces are provided within 41/z levels of parking. With the additional
level of parking, the structure's height increases by 10 feet as show below.
Monterey Street= 35 feet
Nipomo Street= 40 feet
Palm Street= 45 feet
Abutting residential to the north= Approximately 40 feet
t
ATTACHMENT
Site Plan Option D4 is the same design as D2, except there is an additional deck to be used as a
recreation/senior center and tennis courts. A total of 287 net new parking spaces are provided
within 3'/2 levels of parking. Parking for the rooftop uses have not been accounted for, however
with the granting of shared use parking reductions, staff estimates that between 60 and 80 parking
spaces could be required for the rooftop uses. This may reduce the net new parking gain to
approximately 207-227 spaces. With the additional level of recreational uses on the roof, the
structure's height increases more significantly to accommodate the transition from a sloping deck of
the parking structure to a flat deck for the recreational uses. The multi-use structure's heights are as
follows and do not include netting needed to capture stray tennis balls:
Monterey Street= 43 feet
Nipomo Street= 41 feet
Palm Street= 41 feet
Abutting residential to the north= Approximately 50 feet
Site Plan Option D5 is the same design as D2, with the addition of a conference'center on the roof
of the structure. A total of 287 net new parking spaces are provided within 4'/z levels of parking.
Parking for the conference center has not been accounted for, however with the granting of shared
use parking reductions, staff estimates that between 200 parking spaces could be required for the
conference use thus reducing the net new parking gain to approximately 100 spaces. The multi-use
structure's height closest to each street frontage is as follows:
Monterey Street= 52 feet
Nipomo Street= 44 feet
Palm Street= 44 feet
Abutting residential to the north= Approximately 55 feet
Site Plan Option Hl is similar in design to Site Plan Option D1 in that the parking structure is
located in the middle of the site. Because the parking structure is mechanical in design, the size of
the structure is reduced and office and/or residential uses fronting Palm Street can be provided
within. a depth of 70 feet and cultural and/or residential uses fronting Monterey Street can be
provided within a depth of approximately 90 feet. A total of 336 net new parking spaces are
provided within 4-5 levels of parking. With this design, the three residences on Palm Street are
relocated or demolished and the two residences on Monterey Street can be retained temporarily or
permanently, however the rear yards of these properties would be reduced and removal of the
detached garage at 610 Monterey Street is necessary. The parking structure's height closest to each
street frontage is as follows:
Monterey Street= 19 feet
Nipomo Street= 33 feet
Palm Street= 33 feet
Abutting residential to the north= Approximately 33 feet
ATTACHMENT
Site Plan Option H2 is the same design as Hl, with one additional level of parking provided. A
total of 436 net new parking spaces are provided within 5-6 levels of parking. With the additional
level of parking, the structure's height increases by 8 feet as show below.
Monterey Street= 27 feet
Nipomo Street= 41 feet
Palm Street= 41 feet
Abutting residential to the north= 41 feet
Heights do not include elevator towers or mechanical equipment.
ATTACHMENT _
q � r
Z m
,
i
. .
a b i
`
z
V
x ` a ,e
n e
p T
•lY OilOdQl ��, N �-
G � p
ATTACHMENT
lz
W 4J VJ m t�
i
SI
2�
,o
wU
b I
I
F.K
I
AI P� I
I
�e till, U
o- . k• o-
a jw
8
C
L� l
1.01�
m
p P-pt� yA P-.w J
At-1 Y�1N 1c1;
Om�
N
ATTACHMENT _
44A
fSQ.< e � V]
n VJ nl IL O A tr .w ( Is s
53
tri Gtl g a a tli m e
z �
A4 U
I
b i
f
_.K
Z � �
o- ° k• o- � b
+`1 Al
b
4 b 4 ^"'8
co
b_
A A•.PLI kA A-.W
O
•u aroad '''°'� -�
4-4N
�. ATTACHMENT
RRRI
m o.
h
d Im f W
ZrA
LO
IS 1
AIRF `
i
I I g
Ir
aU a'
I
m -k ONOd01 ✓1 .
�.. _'_.._,_. '- �N fir• °°
- ATTACHMENT
am �
Q � 6
a
I
I;o
• � bA
8='
m m
l
I'91�I '�jl�llll�� I romt¢
G;II I� ISI IOCB, naso,
it
� m I
I
`\ o- • �\ o-1 __ __��� // � lid
a_
Al A K a
A�-F A-.uE 21-t O
m ONOM
�
•it
��! N
l� ^ I
Dd0
ATTACHMENT
ass v
jig P16
CIL
17.
=_Qeee
•
n
Coll
-74-F •
ATTACHMENT
:
- n
■ate
AA A zw -
1! 0.1
ii
to
.n onom
•
s
i
TRANSPORTATION
PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT-9
Project Summary
Developing the Palm-Nipomo parking structure will cost$1,200,000 for design in 2006-07 and$12,000,000 for
construction ($11,000,000) and construction management($1,000,000)in 2008-09.
Project Objectives
Satisfy the demand for more parking downtown.
Existing Situation
The proposed parking structure site at Palm and Nipomo, as envisioned by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the
City's Center, is currently occupied by City-owned surface parldng lots, a City-owned five-unit apartment
building fronting on Palm Street,and a single family residence fronting on Monterey Street.
Last year, the Council unanimously directed staff to proceed with a self-park design option and a mechanical
design option with several considerations on the site for the approximate cost of$9000. The Council has directed
staff to work with our consultant to determine more in-depth architectural options and proceed with
environmental investigations on the site.
Once the design studies and environmental assessments have been completed, the Council will have the choice to
approve one or two preferred site plans as a guiding document for property acquisition,design and redevelopment
in the area.
The draft Pedestrian and Downtown Access Plan identified this site as third priority for additional parking
structures following the higher needs at: a) near the intersection of Palm and Morro and b) east of Santa Rosa
Street. The Copeland Palm-Morro Structure will fulfill the needs of the first. The second priority was reviewed
by Council as part of the deliberation and discussion of the NARF project. Council tabled that project for the time
being due to property impact issues, funding and the unknown impacts of the County Administration Building.
Given the long time frames it takes to get all approvals and build a new parking structure in our City, this is the
appropriate time to finalize the conceptual design phase/environmental review aspects of the Palm-Niporno
project to meet the estimated 2012 timed need anticipated by the PDAP study. Parking impacts from the
Chinatown project, assumed to be coming in the FY 2005-07 period, may need additional parking supply to meet
its demand and the Palm-Nipomo structure may be one location to mitigate that.projects impacts.Depending upon
demand and mitigation needs of Chinatown it may be necessary to advance construction of the Palm/Nipomo
Structure into FY 08-09.A final needs assessment(and cost estimate) is currently underway however preliminary
construction costs are currently estimated at$12.0 million ($30,000/space at 400 spaces)
Goal and Policy Links
1. Downtown Concept Plan(1994)
2. Adopted Access and Parking Management(2002)
3. 2003-05 Financial Plan
4. 2003.-05 Council Goal
Project Work Completed
The Council has reviewed conceptual level architecture drawings of eight alternatives and has directed staff to
pursue additional investigation and design for two alternatives.A contract to complete this work is currently
underway in FY 2004-05.
TRANS
m • m •
PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT
Environmental Review
Given the project location in the downtown and past history with other highly visible projects, an EIR will be
needed for this project.
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Project Costs by Type
Project Costs
To-Date 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Total
Design 150,000 1,200,000 1,350,000
Construction 11,000,000 11,000,000
Construction management 1,000,000 1,000,000
Environmental review_ 300,000 300,000
Total 450,000 1,200,000 _ _. _ 12,000,000 13,650,000
Project Funding Source: Parking Fund,Debt Financing
Department Coordinator and Project Support
1. Department Coordinator. Robert Horch;Parking Manager
2. Project Review and Support:
Project management—Transportation Planning and Engineering Program
Project coordination—Parking Program,Public Works Administration Program
Environmental Review—Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development
Alternatives
Defer or Deny the Project. This project has been identified as.a Council goal to study the options to construct a
parking facility at this location. The timing could be deferred to future years depending on other projects and
funding available for this project
Project Effect on the Operating Budget °
Staff Resources:
CIP Project Engineering Program: 40 hours total
Parking Program: 200 hours per year(Parking Manager)
Public Works Administration: 100 hours per year(Deputy Public.Works Director)
Development Review Program: 100 hours total
Thisproject.will have significant,but um-estimated,future costs for operations and maintenance.
RED FILE
ME NG AGENDA
DAT ITEM ITEM # �S (o RECEIVED
��Iv � � 2G3:i
council MCMORAnbu CLERK
Date: June 28, 2005
TO: City Council ! UNG'L' "CDD DIR
!� AO J_�,=1N DIR
I'f�] ACA0 /FIRE CHIEF
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer TTORNEY :cPW DIR
CLERFVORIG -Er POLICE CHF
SUBJECT: July 5 City Council Meeting ❑ D T HEADS crREC DIR
Study Session#& 1 eUTIL DIR
L HR DIR
Staff Report Correction
The CAO recommendation #1 should read, "Receive and consider information regarding
potential alternatives and options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and identify Site Plan
Option D3 or H2 as the preferred site plan design."
The Report-In-Brief (page 1) and Site Plan Options (page 3) should also refer to D3 as the
preferred option, and not D4. Option D3 is a 4'/z story self-park structure.
The chart listed on page 3 of the report shall read as follows:
Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features
No. Summary of Key Features Building Building #of Average Net New
Footprint Size Levels Height* Spaces
D-1 Self park structure behind 34,320 s.f. 117;650 s.f. 31/2 30 ft. 287
other uses on Palm and
Monterey Streets.
D-2 Self park structure at corner of 117,650 s.f. 31/2 32 ft. 287
Palm and Ni omo Streets
D-3 Same as D-2 + an additional 153,170 s.f. 41/2 42 ft. 399
level of parking
D-4 Same as D-2 + Recreation 142,170 s.f. 3 1/2 50 ft. 287
Center on roof
D-5 Same as D-2 + Conference 141,650 s.f. 31/2 55 ft. 287
Center on roof
H-1 Mechanical structure behind 20,500 s.f. 91,350 s.f. 41/2 33 ft. 336
other uses on Palm and
Monterey Streets
H-2 Same as H-1 + an additional 111,850 s.f. 5 1/2 41 ft. 436
level of parking
RECEIVED RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
' JUL 0 5 1005 DATE 7/"OrITEM # .�
MEMO
ISLO C;iY COUNCIL
July 3,2005
To: Mayor Dave Romero and Councilmembers Paul Brown,John Ewan,
Christine Mulhol and Allen Settle
Copies: Ken Hampian, alter,Tim Bochum,Peggy Manderville,Robert Horch
From: Ken Schwartz
Re: Proposed paz g structure for Palm and Nipomo Streets
Council Agen Item SS6,July 5, 2005
I have studied your agenda materials with staff recommendations and offer the following
recommendations with rationale for you consideration.
1. The Palm-Nipomo-Monterey site is the best and most appropriate site for the next
parking structure and it should be constructed at the earliest time possible.
Rationale: (a) This site conforms to the criteria established in the "Downtown Plan"for
locating parking structures on the Palm, Nipomo, Marsh and Santa Rosa circumferential
loop around the 'core'of downtown; (b) the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace project
generates an absolutely essential need for the Downtown to accelerate development that
will enhance its unique identity and at the same time expand the downtown's potential for
being a stronger center for commercial and cultural activities; (c) competition from sister
cities as well as outlying shopping areas dictate that downtown must improve it's
physical assets post-haste; and(d) adequate parking is an essential asset and a parking
structure at this location can best achieve these essential objectives.
2. The City should opt for an automated mechanical parking garage such as
described on page 6-9 of the staff report and identified in schemes H-1 and H-2.
Rationale: (a) the space saving aspects of mechanized parking structures become
increasingly important as future expansion of commercial-retail activities in the
downtown become more compressed—again due to an unwillingness of voters to expand
C-R zoning elsewhere; and(b) the impressions of Councilmembers and staff to their visit
to the N.J. mechanized parking structure were uniformly positive.
3. The City should acquire 614 Monterey and integrate this property into the total
site design for the parking structure and this quadrant of Mission Plaza
extended.
Rationale: (a) The PalnvYipomo/Monterey quadrant is too important in the long-term
commercial-cultural future of SLO to accept a design that has been constrained by a
reluctance to acquire this entire parcel—especially so when certain of the design
schemes show the acquisition of the rear of this property! ('Phis ti m_r1l anted
given the long-term potential of this entire quadrant. CDD D I R
FIN DIR
FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
f CL POLICE CHF
REC DIR
UTIL. DiR
_ CII HR DIR
Page 2 of 3
4. The size and parking capacity of the garage delineated in Scheme H4 should be
accepted, but not the site development layout! I offer a modified design labeled
"H-3" that I believe is more appropriate to the site.(See page 3.)
Rationale: (a)1 agree that exceptions to height limits and street setbacks for parking
structures should be granted where appropriate and 1 believe both are warranted for
Scheme H-3; (b)1 believe that the parking structure positioned in a traditional layout
with sides parallel to Palm and Nipomo Streets is insensitive to more desirable spatial
considerations of this neighborhood especially the tight relationship with the adjacent
Latimer historical adobe it abuts; (c) by positioning the garage on a diagonal as per
H-3, the corners of the site are opened up visually and ifat a later date, a Little Theater
and a small commercial structure were to be added to this site, the architectural
character of these two buildings could be made much more in keeping with the scale of
neighboring buildings.
5. Two opportunities to assist the project financially have not been discussed: One,
the small parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo was initially acquired with the
thought that it would ultimately revert back to Commercial-Retail use. This
would be the appropriate time to sell or lease that site for CR uses—once again
to generate more retail floor area at the Nipomo end of downtown and to
enhance sales tax revenues as well as outright construction revenues. The site is
an ideal site for lower level CR uses,a mid-level office use and even possible top
floor residential uses. The City should ask for proposals as part of its larger
attempt to invigorate this end of downtown. No less than two floors should be
devoted to sales tax generating CR uses. Two,given the difficult financial times
the City finds itself in,the garage roof top should not be put to any use that
requires General Fund financing. I suggest that the rooftop be developed in a
fashion that will generate rental/lease income such as private offices or what
could be a spectacular restaurant site. I would not support rooftop housing at
this location.
Rationale: Once again, the defeat of the Dalidio Marketplace calls for Downtown
Development/redevelopment to occur vigorously utilizing the land areas within the CR
District to generate shopping opportunities (supported by needed parking) and the
resultant sales tax revenues to support necessarypublic services.
6. Design critique: I believe that the design consultant could have been much more
positive about the potential represented in the downtown Plan for a more
cohesive overall design of this significant site and how this parking structure
could be an integral part of that overall development. The plan as presented
does not show how the users of the parking structure are expected to flow as
pedestrians into the downtown either by enchanted sidewalks along Nipomo or
by access through the Mission Plaza Extended area(Monterey Street)which
f .
Page 3 of 3
could have directed them—especially those who were visitors to the city—to the
Art Center,the Historical Museum or to the Mission and Mission Plaza much
less into the downtown commercial area itself. How do children and their
parents get from the parking structure to the new Children's Museum? I think
the designers fell short on opportunities to generate for the Council and our
citizens any urban design excitement in their proposals.
7. Alternate site plan proposal,H-3:
µISS�ON F1&I.D
PA L-M
V
9L 4
i_
`-f
Pit
�lTM L'TL
p�.t16 Q FUT M A1708$
U.TTt.F-
"C1fE8`T�R.
a 51IT&
r
Z I
rnoWMMP-v
c1-u�p�'s
NWSBu�x
N N
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo Chamber of CommerceDATE shrITEM # ss
1039 Chorro Street•San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
July 5, 2005 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255 •TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re:Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure, Study Session,July 5
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce supports parking in the downtown and particularly
development of parking in those areas as indicated in the Downtown Concept Plan. It does not
seem prudent, however, for the Council to move forward at this time with a design for the
proposed Palm-Nipomo structure.
There are several reasons for our position. First, current usage of the site as a surface parking lot
does not indicate a strong demand at that location at this time. Second, there has not been time to
track the effect of Court St. on parking demand in the existing structures nor can the new Palm-
Morro structure yet be factored in. Third, ongoing transition in downtown surface lots including
"Chinatown"and Lots#2 and#10 should be farther along before moving ahead on a new site.
And, finally, since the next city structure is likely to be the last publicly funded one for a long
time, it would be wise to take more time to evaluate the advisability of this location.
It is our recommendation that the Council defer their decision for nine months until staff can
collect sufficient data on the existing and evolving parking situation in the downtown and that a
report on their findings be made to Council by March 31, 2006.
We recognize the importance of public parking to a vibrant and economically vital downtown
and want to re-emphasize the importance of using Parking Enterprise Funds for this purpose.
Nonetheless, it is important that a decision on the location of the next structure in the downtown
be made with all the facts in hand and not on a"build it and they will come"philosophy.
Sincerely,
ocl t' i IR
1 'FIN DI
R
i F CA00 u FIRE CHIEF
Bob Wacker }] ATTORNEY I PW DIR
C] 0LERK1ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Chairperson of the Board C7 DE-P T HEADS a REC DiR
ICI T �� ❑ UTIL FIR
I SCI " 1_� n DIP,
___.._h -__
JUL 0 5 1005
SLO CITY CL i : sl chamber@slochamber.org websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com