Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2007, SS 1 - REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE council M D� q19-q1071 j ACEn6A Report C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager Peggy Mandeville,Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and consider information regarding potential design options for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure and identify Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park design) 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 structure project was established by the Council as an important objective with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Council has met on several occasions to discuss the Palm-Nipomo site and designs for a parking structure at this location. At its last Palm-Nipomo meeting held in 2005, the Council reviewed a variety of conceptual design options and directed staff to proceed with refinements to self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 (an option submitted by Ken Schwartz) and provide a cost comparison for the constructing and operation of the three different options. This report includes the information requested by Council and recommends that Council consider Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) as the preferred design given the current significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures. However, the more fundamental underlying question before Council is: If we build it at this location, will they come? This is a reasonable question, given that it is very likely that the next parking structure will be the last one the City builds for a very long time. Staff believes that circumstances have evolved such that it is appropriate to complete this project. Given that completion will take at least five more years, factors supporting this conclusion include: (1) major planned development/redevelopment projects in the overall downtown; (2) present and future cultural facility development in the immediate site vicinity; (3) added development that may be sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo (e.g. Creamery redevelopment?); and (4) the likelihood of a downtown parking district in the coming years that will shift parkers out of neighborhoods and into structures. Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The Palm-Nipomo parking structure 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 comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site (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 and two single family residences on Monterey Street). With the purchase of property at 614 Monterey Street last year, all of these properties are now owned by the City. The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79 surface parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (see Attachment 2, "Conceptual Physical Plan"). They were also asked to be mindful of the City's height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits when parking is the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking structures: a self park structure, like the City's current parking structures; and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay. May 25,2004 City Council Direction Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures (see Attachment 3 and previous staff reports for designs and information regarding mechanical parking structures). In the report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and Option H, a mechanical design as the"baseline"design options for further study. Council also directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options: 1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing. 2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built. 3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street. 4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project. 5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground. 6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events)for the roof of the structure. 7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line. SS-2 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 3 July 5,2005 City Council Direction On July 5, 2005,Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff(see Attachment 4,Excerpt from Council meeting minutes) to proceed with self park site plan Option D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 (see Attachment 5, a concept submitted by Ken Schwartz at the July 5 meeting)specifically excluding optional uses on the roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the following additional components: 1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street. 2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street). 3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on project plans. 4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design. 5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe detached"Dwelling over Garage"). 6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City's Zoning Regulations and note where exceptions are needed. 7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level, off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on- site dwellings. 8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site. 9. Identify location of access/servicing area for"Future Use by Others"- if office use is developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street. 10. Provide financial analysis-general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass. In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following additional refinements to Self Park Option D3: a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible. b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access. c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey. To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and determine building heights. Ss-3 o Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 4 Other Rooftop Uses? In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other uses on the roof, such as a senior center,tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than overbuilding an already expensive parking structure. Current Site Plan Options In response to Council direction described earlier, staff and the consultants have refined the three site plan options (see Attachment 6, 2007 Site Plan Options). Each site_plan option is described below and the consultants are prepared to discuss the pros and cons of each option at the meeting. All options locate the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan), maintain the large oak tree on Monterey and allow portions of the site to be developed by "others" when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre,could be built later when funding is in place. Structure size, positioning, and height all affect the gross number of deliverable parking spaces as well as property available for other uses. It is not surprising that the mechanical parking options provide the most net space available to other uses due to their compact design. Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped, however much of the residence's rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of parking(totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure's roof top level (see Section B-B for details)-to step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required. Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and waterproofing the structure. The parking structure's height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers. Monterey Street= 33 feet Nipomo Street= 36 feet Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 5 Palm Street= 44 feet Adjoining"Dwelling over Garage"= 21 feet Table 1 -Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3 Summary of Key Features Self park Mechanical Mechanical structure with structure with structure portions of portions of oriented to upper levels upper levels reduce building removed to removed to height impact. reduce reduce building building height height impact. impact. Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f. Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. _ _ . 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f. No. of Levels 41/2 5 '/2 6 Building Height(35 ft.) 39 ft. 41 ft. 37 ft. Height exception needed? Yes Yes Yes Building Setback** Street yard (15 ft.) 8-10 ft. 0 ft. 0-10 ft. Street yard exception needed? Yes Yes Yes Other yard (10 ft.) 10 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. Other yard exception needed? No No No Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565 Net New Spaces 366 412 486 Remaining Available Land Area for Future 11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f. 19,800 s.f. Use by Others 12,700 s.f. Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. * Per the City's Zoning Regulations, building height is measured as the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof (structure). The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building and dividing by two. The building height does not include the elevator towers) which can extend ten (10)feet above the maximum building height. In the Office zone, the maximum building height is 25 feet; 35 feet with the approval of an administrative use permit. ** Per the City's Zoning Regulations, a minimum street yard of 15 feet is required. Other yards range from a minimum of five feet to ten feet, depending on-building height. Because a self park design is less space efficient than a mechanical design, this design provides the least amount of new parking spaces (366) in 4 '/z levels and the smallest amount of remaining land area(approximately 11,400 s.f.) for a future use by others. ss-�s- 0 L� Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 6 PA"sIN I • (� i w C♦ ��� Figure 1 - Site Diagram for Option D3 Site Plan Option H2 locates the parking structure mid-block between Monterey and Palm Streets leaving room for other uses (residential, office and/or cultural) to be constructed on Monterey and Palm Streets in front of the structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Because users do not enter the mechanical structure, direct access is provided to the nearest public right of way, but not directly through the site to Monterey Street as desired by Council. A total of 412 net new parking spaces are provided within 5 1/2 levels of parking, approximately two of which are located below grade. Additional parking levels have not been located beyond 20 feet below grade due to added costs for waterproofing the structure. Council may recall that groundwater was encountered 30 feet below the surface in one boring taken a few years ago. With this design, the five residences are relocated or demolished. Parking spaces (totaling 70 spaces)have been removed from the upper levels to step the structure height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building height as seen from Monterey Street and the adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe. As an option, one less section of parking could be removed from Section B-B and Section A-A, which would add 39 spaces to the structure. The parking structure's height is measured as follows: Monterey Street= 25 feet Nipomo Street= 43 feet Palm Street= 41 feet Adjoining"Dwelling over Garage" = 14 feet SS - 6 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 7 MI r J i I W S * •'� 'Fr°`w _. �1 v Figure 2-Site Diagram for Option H2 Site Plan Option H3 locates the parking structure diagonally on the site providing the widest separation between the parking structure and adjoining residences. With a separation of a minimum of 40 feet between the parking structure and adjacent residences, the upper floors of the structure do not need to be stepped back to reduce visual impacts. This design results in the most efficient mechanical design providing the largest number of new parking spaces (486) within 6 levels. Again, additional levels have not been located beyond 20 feet below grade due to added costs for waterproofing the structure. With this design, two public spaces (totaling 3,000 s.f. and 7,000 respectively) are created at the property corners of Palm/Nipomo and Monterey/Nipomo Streets and direct pedestrian access can be provided through the public space to Monterey Street. The single family residence at 633 Palm could remain until the 19,800 s.f. "Future Use by Others" area is redeveloped. The parking structure's height is measured as follows: Monterey Street= 33 feet Nipomo Street= 43 feet Palm Street= 41 feet Adjoining"Dwelling over Garage"= 30 feet Considering only design features, Site Plan Option H3 best fulfills the City's goals for a parking structure at this location. S5- 7 0 0 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 8 err K fid Ar oiy �. ,i 1 `l��y�`', e •4 P M'yYrF�A"ii ay, • MW J P A y }t Figure 3- Site Diagram for Option H3 Mechanical vs.Self- Park Cost Comparisons As requested by Council, a cost comparison for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the three site plan options was developed. Table 2—Construction Cost Comparison Construction Cost Comparison D3 H2 H3 Initial Capital Cost/Net New Space Self park Mechanical Mechanical structure structure structure with building orientation Construction $24,800 $47,800 $46,500 Soft Cost $8,700 $16,700 $16,300 (Design/Construction Mana ement/Ins ection/Permits/Fees Total per net new space $33,500 $64,500 $62,800 Number of spaces x 366 x 412 x 486 Total Construction Cost $1292617000 $2695749000 $303520,800 Ss--0P- i r Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 9 Table.3—Operational Cost Comparison Operation Cost Comparison D3 H2 H3 Annual Expenses/Gross New Space Self park Mechanical Mechanical structure structure structure ( per Ken Schwartz) Routine/Preventive Maintenance $140 $500 $500 Operation $425 $240 $235 Utilities $55 $180 $175 Security $67 $36 $35 Insurance $18 $18 $18 Miscellaneous $85 $85 $85 Total per space $790 $1,059 $1,038 Number of spaces x 445 x 491 x 565 Total Annual Operating Cost $351,500 $52090001 $586,500 Notes: 1) Construction costs are in current dollars and derived from recently developed projects including the 919 Palm Street structure. 2) Maintenance costs assume mechanical systems will be maintained by a mechanical service provider adding additional cost to routine maintenance. 3) Assumes central cashiering for self-park and pay-on-foot revenue collection for mechanical. 4) Equipment/structure long-term repair and replacement costs are not included. 5) Soft costs computed @ 35%do not include land,financing,contingency,or escalation. 6) Initial software costs are included in construction cost. Software updates should not add costs to the annual expenses. Standard maintenance associated with software is a part of the Routine/Preventative Maintenance line item Ownership of the software should be factored into the initial contractual agreements between vendor and client. 7) At least one additional full time staff person will be needed for a new structure regardless of its type. As expected, the mechanical structures are more costly to construct and maintain because of the mechanical parking systems, however there are additional reasons for the cost difference. Other cost factors include: 1. Site Constraints. The Palm-Nipomo site offers ample space to build an efficient self-park structure. If the size or dimensions of the site were substantially constrained, it would cost more to build a self park design. Because a mechanical design can be accommodated in a much smaller footprint than a self-park design, the efficiencies of a mechanical design improve when size constraints limit a self-park design at the same location. 2. Construction Components. A short-term mechanical parking structure for public use requires twice as many portals (entrances and exits) and associated mechanical equipment than a long-term private mechanical structure such as Hoboken, New Jersey (see Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures). 3. Software. A software program to operate the structure is required and needs to be updated to operate the mechanical features. Ownership transition of the software needs to be ss-9 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 10 considered during the contract development to avoid later disputes should the vendor go out of business or change business practices. 4. Preventive Maintenance. The mechanical design requires maintenance of numerous mechanical components that are not included in a self-park design. A mechanical service provider is needed to maintain the mechanical components. 5. New Technology. Because the concept of mechanical parking is relatively new to the United States, there is not a lot of competition and therefore companies selling and maintaining the mechanical systems can charge what the market will accept. The consultant researched existing and proposed mechanical structures throughout the world (see Attachment 7, Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures) to learn more about the pros and cons of mechanical parking from other projects. All research shows that the mechanical parking sites were constrained in such a way that made the cost of mechanical parking more feasible. Additionally, the structures were designed to accommodate the demand for residential use (not general public use) thus requiring fewer portals which reduced the cost to build and operate the structures. All constructed and operational examples were also much smaller in scale with the exception of the Hoboken structure that was designed to accommodate 320 vehicles. Finally, the consultant learned that projects that included a partnership between the mechanical system provider (vendor) and the mechanical service provider had fewer operational problems. Although land cost was not considered in the comparison, it is also a factor. If land cost or availability was as constrained as it is in other countries, we would have fewer options to consider (such as purchasing neighboring properties)when developing a parking facility. Staff Recommendation in Light of Significant Cost Differential As of the date of this report, no public agency in the United States has opted to build a mechanical structure. It is staff's hope that once the technology becomes more mainstream, the costs to construct and operate a mechanical design will decrease, making it a feasible option for future City parking facilities. Until then, it is difficult for staff to support a mechanical design because of costs and the potential for other uncertainties. Given the current significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff recommends that Council consider Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) as the preferred design at this time. Although the mechanical design (H3) is a much more efficient use of space, has the least amount of visual impact to the adjoining residential uses, and provides the largest remaining land area for a cultural facility, the costs of a mechanical structure are far too high to pursue at this time. Palm-Nipomo: Where to From Here,or, "And if we build it,will the come?" There are several outstanding issues which remain unresolved at this point that could affect the . consideration of the next steps in the Palm-Nipomo project should be. Those questions are as follows: Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 11 1. Will there be sufficient demand? Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking structure. However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots. In addition, parking spaces on the street are being eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years. Further, because .the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district. To meet these new demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years. 2. Will there be "new"demand sparked by a structure at Palm-Nipomo? The uses surrounding the Palm-Nipomo parking area are changing and increasing cultural activity opportunities. Many of the neighboring properties to the parking are not "developed" to their full potential. If past history is an indication in San Luis Obispo, parking structures can have a revitalizing effect on their "neighborhood." After the Marsh Street Garage was constructed many enhancements occurred nearby, ranging from Dr. Morton's Dentist office to the Downtown Center. With the Children's Museum project, possible remodel of the Art Center and the Marpomo residential project all happening in next few years, uses are increasing in this general area. For many years, it has also been thought that redevelopment would be encouraged at The Creamery, and possibly other nearby properties, if added parking were available. 3. Can the utilization of parking at Palm-Nipomo be enhanced? Presently, the City does not have an incentive based program to encourage users to park at this location. Staff believes that as part of the next step in the process, strategies to attract users to the Palm-Nipomo location as a long term parking location should be developed. One potential new user group could be County employees. There have already been initial conversations with the County Administrative Officer indicating some County interest in participating in this project in exchange for parking spaces for County employees. Staff will follow-up on this preliminary expression of interest if Council directs staff to proceed to the next step. Taking the Next Steps Based upon current Parking Fund revenues, expenses, and limits on funding sources, it is very likely that this parking structure will be the final parking structure the City will build for a very long time. The critical questions therefore are: Should Palm-Nipomo be that structure at this time? If we build it; will they come? At its July 5, 2005 meeting, Council answered"Yes"to Palm-Nipomo being the right location for a new structure. With Council identification of a preferred site plan design option for Palm-Nipomo, the next step in the process will be to prepare plans and applications for environmental review, architectural review, and use permit review by the various advisory bodies (see general timeline below). This step follows the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan which calls for design to occur in 2006-07 and construction to occur in 2008-09. Before proceeding, staff would like confirmation from Council SS —� Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 12 on the timing of the next steps. Other timing alternatives are included in the Alternatives section of this report. Task .. - Palm Nipomo Parking Structure 1. Prepare RFP for architectural review plans,select consultant. 7/07 2. Submit application for architectural and environmental review. 12/07 3. Prepare RFP for environmental review,select consultant. 2/08 4. Complete draft environmental document. 2/69 5. Project review by Architectural Review Commission. 6/09 6. Project review by Planning Commission. 10/09 7. Project review by City Council,authorization to prepare plans and,specification. 1/10 8. Completion of plans and specifications. 7/10 9. Council review of construction bids. 10/10 10. Construction commencement. 1/11 11. Construction completion. 6/12 Public Input during this Most Recent Phase of Analysis Public notice of the study session was sent to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project boundary. Additionally, staff presented the design options to subcommittees of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association. The Chamber's response was not available at the time of this report but will be provided to City Council as a red file before the Council meeting. The Parking Committee of the Downtown Association voted to support moving forward with the staff recommendation (see Attachment 8, Public Input). Finally, authors of the Downtown Plan have been notified of the study session and encouraged to comment. FISCAL IMPACT Directing staff to proceed with 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 $53,000 remains available for completion of conceptual design services; and all of the funding for environmental review remains. Additionally, the City's 2005-07 Financial Plan appropriates $1.2 million for design in 2006-07. On February 21, 2006, Council approved several parking revenue enhancements that would fund the debt service and operating costs of the Palm-Nipomo structure. These revenue enhancements Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 13 were anticipated to provide adequate revenues to build a parking structure at an approximate construction cost of$11,000,000. It was assumed that the operating costs would be similar to the City's present self park structures. The approved revenue enhancements are being implemented incrementally so,it is too early to confirm whether they will generate enough revenue to build and operate a self park structure. If Council decides to proceed with a mechanical structure, the City will need to look at significant revenue increases or other funding to pay for it. As mentioned earlier, the County is one potential partner worthy of further exploration. ALTERNATIVES The following alternative actions are available to Council: 1. Defer decision until after parking demand in the area increases. Because it will take a minimum of five years before a structure could be available for use, staff does not recommend waiting for the parking demand to increase, rather, the time should be devoted to researching innovative ways to increase the initial demand for and subsequent use of the structure. 2. Defer decision until after hearing from mechanical vendors regarding their interest in building a mechanical structure that could be leased back to the City. Given the difficulties Hoboken, New Jersey has had with their vendor, staff does not recommend that the City "partner"with a private company to fund a mechanical structure. 3. Defer decision until mechanical costs become more feasible. It is unknown how long it will take for mechanical parking structures to become financially competitive with self park structures. The self park structure costs will continue to rise if we wait. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location/Property Ownership Map 2. Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center 3. Article on Mechanical Parking 4. Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes of July 5, 2005 5. Ken Schwartz's Design Comments to City Council 6. 2007 Site Plan Options D3,H2, and H3 7. Comparison of Existing Mechanical Structures 8. Downtown Association Comments PROVIDED TO COUNCIL: 11x 17 copy of Site Plan Options D3,H2, and H3 AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL READING FILE: Previous Palm Nipomo staff reports TAPW CAR\CAR PALM_Nipomo v2.DOC ss - i3 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPERTY LOCATION/OWNERSHIP MAP V Properties currently wt " armed by Citi w� ti G� ' V a- i �, hr h J SS - Jy V' • ��\, .yam� • `I l @F r •(�.a�. Asia �•' ` ��\S�'`~ d 'H.� 4:i, -�� '■+_ I��!�.' i''�+ - �� Apr` . )- S •......X. �" � .�, tj:�- .,may`� �;._.p,i T.....p'�,. _ _ :rmT ,itL'. `.� .J� •nuu IT vd ME zz YAM • u, r :. �.��' �... �sn:lii ss�•� .S>.ASa' r- ,�f.rixJ�n�: � .. Sc•.� .RS «�rr:.:_.E. __�_:�...:�_ - --- ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 Chapter 18 AUTOMATED PARKING FACILITIES Donald R. Monahan and Richard Beebe Henry Ford has generally been credited with Early elevator systems (mechanical-access the development of the motor car as we garages) employed an attendant who drove know it. He may also be credited with the automobile onto an elevator, operated creating the parking space shortage. The the elevator from the driver's seat, and drove history of 20" century urban planning and the car into a parking space on an upper transportation management indicates that level floor. major parking problems began to emerge even before World War I and grew rapidly There was a surge in construction of these thereafter. The increasing volume of mechanical parking systems in the U.S. automobiles in the prosperous post-war years following World War II. Bowser constructed created a demand for parking that soon a mechanical garage in Des Moines in moved from the curbside to vacant lots or 1951 and went on to build dozens of others, structured parking of many types. In , including three garages in Chicago: LaSalle particular, freight elevator systems designed Street consisting of 375 spaces erected in to accommodate parking inside large 1954; Wacker Drive consiting of 718 buildings gained popularity as a retrofit spaces erected in 1955; and Rush Street approach. Even in new construction, the use consisting of 420 spaces erected in 1955. of elevators in multi-level garages pre-dated Among some of the other more notable sloping floor garages (ramp-access mechanical systems were the Park-O-Matin garages), which required larger footprints Washington, DC consisting of 72 spaces and more ingenious structural systems. erected in 1951; Pigeon-Hole in Toronto consiting of 396 spaces erected in 1957 and Speed-Park in New York City consisting Page 1 of 9 S5 —Aa -A 7ACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 of 270 spaces erected in 1961 . Most of parcels as small as the size of two parking these facilities have since been spaces (20 by 20 feet). demolished to make way for more modern and higher-use buildings. Technological advancements now allow computercontrolled machines to operate the Figure ]. Chicago 1937 lifts and horizontal transport devices without human assistance. The machines use integrated electro-mechanical components with programmable logic controllers operating in a solid-state/real time environment. These devices are much more reliable than the older mechanical (hydraulic) parking systems. It is also much ;r- - easier to incorporate redundant components, ID backup power and backup computers pal;- resulting in a system that is virtually 99.9% 'u reliable. Automated Parking Description The automated parking facility consists of a - - large vault with steel racks for storing cars on either side of a transport aisle. The racks are The older mechanical systems required a often 4 to 10 or more levels high. The parking attendant. Ramp-access garages vehicle is transported on a steel pallet with gained popularity because they allowed rollers that slide into guide rails located in the patron to park their own vehicle the storage compartment. Because the without the expense of an attendant. The storage vault is unoccupied, fire exit stairs self-park, ramp-access garages are also and elevators are not required. Also, the less expensive to construct and operate, parking facility is more secure since the and were more reliable in terms of public is not allowed inside the storage vault. retrieving the patrons vehicle on a timely Since the vehicles are not operated during basis. transport, ventilation of vehicle emissions is not required. Lighting requirements and Mechanical garages have been even HVAC system requirements are greatly more popular overseas where land is reduced or non-existent. particularly scarce in major urban areas. Patrons access the automated parking facility A self-park, ramp-access garage requires by driving into a compartment the size of a a minimum land area of approximately 150 feet by 125 feet. This size parcel is single car garage stall. The patron then not often available in downtown areas of turns off the vehicle, sets the parking brake, most major cities, particularly in Europe gathers all of their belongings including pets, and Asia. Mechanical systems are children, etc. and exits the compartment, available that can be constructed on Page 2 of 9 SS-17 - —- -- - - - — ------- ATTACHMEN'b' 5 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 Figure 2. Entry/Exit Compartment of the system. This is the system used at the Hoboken, W automated parking facility. Figure 3. Horizontal Shuttles dF. j Sensors measure the vehicle to determine Fy" that it is not oversized for the system, and PW that the vehicle has no protruding mirrors, racks or other attachments that could be damaged. The patron then Another automated system consists of a approaches the activation station just stacker crane that moves horizontally on rails outside the entry compartment and fixed to the ground floor in the transport aisle utilizes an electronic key card, keypad of the storage vault. A vertical lift is built into with security code or takes an electronically-coded ticket, which then closes the doors to the entry compartment Figure 4. Stacker Crane system and activates the storage process. The computer then records your identity, determines an empty storage location, and maintains that record for later retrieval. The door to the storage vault opens and a motorized transport device slides under the pallet in the entry compartment, lifts the pallet and removes hi ' the pallet with the vehicle on top. The s x transport device then moves horizontallyA ' to a vertical lift where the car is transferred onto the lift and moved vertically to the storage.level. Another horizontal transport device then removes the pallet/vehicle from the lift and transports the car horizontally to the storage compartment. The pallet is then , pushed into the storage compartment. _ Because there are separate horizontal shuttles and lifts, many vehicles can be w retrieved and stored simultaneously, " which speeds the storage/retrieval rate Page 3of9 ATTACHMENT _ Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 this single transport device. It is generally suited for smaller capacity Figure 6. Vehicle Height Study systems (less than 150 spaces), although a second crane could be provided for larger systems. This system is used at the90% - 10 — Summit Grand Parc Condominiums in e0% — Washington, D.C. Quad Graphics in pox Milwaukee, WI also has two, ten story N a0% warehouses that use automated stacker m 50% -- cranes 0%cranes to move pallets of magazines that 2 eo% — 6 are stored between printing and no% — shipping. 10%-- 0% 0%0% Upon returning to the parking facility da sa 60 66 n 78 as lobby, the patron presents their key card Height,Inches or ticket at the parking activation station, pays a fee and the vehicle is Also, the design can include selected floors automatically retrieved within at a higher clearance to accommodate approximately 1 to 2 minutes. SUVs, while the remaining floors are designed for the height of the majority of the Figure 5. Vehicle Retrieval automobile population (see Figure 6). Second, the vehicles are moved in and out of the parking spaces under precisely controlled equipment such that the width of the stall only needs to clear the side view mirrors or approximately 7 feet wide compared to 8.5 to 9 feet wide in a self park garage. Therefore, one can achieve - — -= four parking spaces in a mechanical garage Automated parking facilities can in the same width of 3 spaces in a self-park accommodate two to three times the garage. Automated parking systems can number of parking spaces in the some also accommodate tandem parking stalls, volume as a self-park, ramp access which further increases the parking garage. This occurs for two reasons. efficiency. First, the height of the storage racks for One of the disadvantages of mechanical each level is typically on the order of 7 garages is speed. The capacity in vehicles feet. Therefore, one can get 3 parking per hour is a function of the number of levels in an automated garage compared to two levels at a typical floor-to-floor transport devices and number of entry/exit compartments. A maximum retrieval time of height of 10 feet in cramp-access 2 minutes is a standard in the industry. garage. Manufacturers must then provide enough lifts and transport devices to meet this standard. Page 4of9 -- - - - -- - - ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 automated parking facility. The delay time is The service rate of the entry operation is more noticeable when the patron is not a function of the time it takes for the occupied by some other activity. parking patron to clear the entry compartment, plus the time to remove the If the peak hour arrival/departure volume is vehicle from the entry compartment, plus known or can be accurately projected, the the time for the system to then deliver designer can determine the proper number another pallet to the entry compartment of entry/exit compartments and transport in order to receive the next vehicle. The devices that should be provided in an previous vehicle may still be in transit automated parking facility to serve that inside the storage vault while another volume without excessive delays or vehicle is able to access the entry congestion based upon the service rates compartment. cited previously. However, automated parking facilities are not well-suited for high The time for the patron to exit the volume arrival/departuressuch as special compartment and activate the storage event uses, cinemas, office employees or process is called the dwell time. The other uses that generate a high volume of dwell time averages approximately 45 inbound and/or outbound traffic because the seconds. The dwell time will be higher number of entry/exit compartments becomes for infrequent users than repeat users. excessive and the access design becomes The average inbound service rate of the very complex. Automated parking facilities entrance operation is then on the order are well suited to hotels, condominium of 50 vehicles per hour. buildings or other uses with relatively low arrival/departure rates. The service rate of the exit operation depends upon the vehicle retrieval time Construction Cost plus the time to rotate the vehicle on a turntable to exit plus the dwell time to exit There are two automated parking facilities the compartment. If the average retrieval that have been constructed in the United time is 60 seconds, the time to rotate the States: one is in Hoboken, loll and the other vehicle is 20 seconds, and the dwell time is in Washington, D.C. is 45 seconds; then the average outbound service rate is 2.9 vehicles per hour. Figure 7. Hoboken, W7 Parking Facility If more patrons arrive to retrieve their vehicles than there are transport devices or sufficient exit compartments available, ` then the time to retrieve their vehicle will be longer. Delays of up to 10 minutes may occur. However, if the patron had ; R? to wait for an elevator, walk to their s` parked vehicle, and drive to the exit, the elapsed time would not be any different " than the average retrieval time for an �� Page 5of9 SS �o ATTACHMENT _ Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 The Hoboken facility was constructed in consisting of 64 spaces was planned for the the year 2000 and cost approximately 31-story condominium project at Center City $6.7 million for the entire 7-story at a cost of approximately $2.5 million or building with automated parking approximately $39,062 per space. equipment. The capacity of this facility is 324 spaces for a cost per space of Recent proposals fora 32-space automated approximately $20,679. It has four parking facility on four underground levels entry/exit compartments, two vertical lifts for a condominium project in Bellevue, WA and 14 horizontal shuttles (2 per floor). indicated a cost of $48,950 per space for the automated parking system only. Figure 8. Summit Grand Parc, Washington, DC The optimum size of an automated parking facility is approximately 150 spaces per lift. The cost per space of smaller facilities is high because the cost of the machinery is m v amortized over a limited number of spaces. The construction cost of an above ground, x � stand-alone, open parking structure currently (2006) averages approximately $15,000 7 per stall. This cost can easily double for an underground, enclosed garage. It is difficult to compare the cost of an automated parking facility to a ramp-access garage as automated parking facilities may be the only choice for providing parking for The Washington, D.C. facility was your project on a small site where it is not constructed in 2002. The project possible to do a ramp-access garage. Also, consists of a luxury residential tower the higher land cost of the larger parcel for with 98 rental units and 24,000 sf of the ramp access garage must be taken into commercial/retail space in the adjacent account when comparing the two systems. five-story historic building. The parking However, where the size of the development structure is provided under the residential parcel is adequate to accommodate a tower in a footprint of 60ft by 106ft on standard ramp-access garage, then it is likely four levels within a total depth of 32 feet more economical to do a ramp-access at a cost of approximately $1 .5 million garage. or approximately $20,000 per stall for the automated parking system only and Operating Costs not the building shell space in which the equipment is placed. Automated parking facilities use automatic pay stations for revenue collection so the An article in the Philadelphia Business operating cost should be compared to a Journal dated August 28, 2006, ramp-access, self-park garage that also indicated an automated parking facility utilizes automatic pay stations. Therefore, Page 6 of 9 SS ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 both facilities do not have the expense of approximately $760 per space per year cashier labor. The largest expense for compared to $317 per space per year for a either garage will then be for utilities and cashier-less, ramp-access garage. maintenance. Summary The utility cost for an automated parking facility is approximately $0.10 per The construction cost of an automated storage or retrieval operation. According parking facility is approximately double the to the Robotic Parking website, the cost of an above-grade, stand-alone, ramp- Hoboken garage has handled over half access open parking garage. The a million transactions in its 29,880 hours construction cost difference may not be as of operation since its opening in October severe for an underground, enclosed parking 2002. That equates to approximately garage. 150,000 transactions per year for an electric utility cost of approximately The operating cost of an automated parking $15,000 per year or approximately $46 garage, excluding cashier labor, is per year per space. One must also add , approximately double the cost of a self park, the cost of other electric systems besides - ramp-access garage. However, automated the automated parking machinery which garages are analogous to automated valet may double the electric utility cost. parking. If one accounts for the labor cost savings not to have valet attendants, then the The scope of work and components that operating cost of the automated garage is must be maintained for the automated likely much less than a valet garage. parking machinery is very similar to an elevator maintenance contract. The Automated parking facilities may be the only maintenance contract for the automated viable option to provide parking on small parking system in Washington, D.C. is sites in dense urban areas. For high end approximately $3600 per month or condominium or hotel projects, the higher approximately $584 per space per year. cost may be justified. A survey of 156 ramp-access garages in 2004 indicated a median utility cost of $52 per space per year, and a median maintenance cost of $74 per space per year. Other parking facility operational costs for management, insurance, office supplies, and miscellaneous are likely to be very similar for an automated parking facility versus a ramp-access parking facility. Therefore, the annual operating cost of an automated parking facility is Page 7 of 9 35 ATTACHMENT 3 Dimensions of Parking November 7, 2006 References: 1. Guide to the Design & Operation of Automated Parking Facilities, a joint publication of the Automated & Mechanical Parking Association (www.ampapark.org) in association with the National Parking Association (www.npapark.org), Washington, DC, February, 2003. 2. Safety of Machinery Equipment for Power-Driven Parking of Motor Vehicles, DIN EN 14010, European Committee for Standardization, Technical Committee CEN/TC 98,. Brussels, October 2003. 3. Storage/Retrieval Machines (SIR) and Associated Equipment, ASME 830.13-1996, American Society of Mechanical Engineers A. Automated Parking: Two-Year Report Card, by Gerhard Haag & Larry Byrnes, Robotic Parking (www.roboficparking.com), published in PARKING Magazine, September 2004. 5. Double Your Capacity with Technology, by Rob Bailey, SpaceSaver Parking Company (www.spacesaverporking.com), presented at Parking Industry Exhibit, Chicago, IL, August 2006. 6. PARKING STRUCTURES: PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE & REPAIR, Third Edition, 2001 Chrest, A.P. et al, published by Springer.Science + Business Media (www.springer.com), New York, NY Page S of 9 S5-z3 ATTACHMENT City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday,July 5,2005,7:00 p.m. Public Comments None. -end of public comments— ACTION: Moved by MulholiandlEwan to approve the public artpiece entitled Strong Play Ethic for the Damon-Garda Sports Fields;motion carried 5:0. 5. APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S ENTRY AREA NEAR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY,INCLUDING ALIGNMENT OF A SECTION OF THE BOB JONES CiTY TO SEA BIKEWAY. Natural Resources Manager Haviikprovided a summary of the Concept Plan. He displayed A map showing the area of the project,discussed the improvements that will be made to the souther entrance to the City and issues that will be resolved with the implementation of the Plan,displayed and discussed photographs of the site,and discussed the funding that Is available for portions of this project as well as additional possible funding sources: Public Comments None. —end of public comments— ACTION: Moved by Settle/Brown to approve a concept plan for Improvements to the City's entry area near the Water Reclamation Facility(WRF), Including alignment of the Incorporated segment of the Bob Jones City to Sea Bikeway;motion carried 5:0. STUDY SESSION & REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE. Public Works Director Walter Introduced this Item,following which Principal Transportation_ Planner Mandeville commenced the report She displayed an aerial of the site,explained that this project was established by Council as an objective in the 2003-05 Financial Plan, and reviewed refinements to the options that Council previously directed staff to pursue. Parking Services Manager Horch and Deputy Director Public Works Bochum were present to answer questions. Sam Nunes Chong Partners Architecture,displayed proposed site plans and discussed their key features. He discussed how a mechanical,garage works and responded to Council's questions. Mayor Romero expressed concern about event parking at a mechanical structure. He also expressed concern that the options do not provide for pedestrian access on the eastern edge of the structure on Monterey Street Public Comments ATTACHMENT City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday,July 5,2005,7:00 p.m. Patricia Wilmore.Chamber of Commerce,referenced a letter from Bob Wacker(on file in the City Clerk's office)explaining the Chamber's position that action should be deferred on this matter for nine months. Ken Schwartz.San Luis Obispo, supported the Palm-Nipomo-Monterey site for a parking structure and discussed recommendations contained In his memo to Council(on file In the City Clerk's office). Those recommendations include, in part,building the structure as soon as possible,proceeding with mechanical parking,acquiring property at 614 Monterey Street so that the parcel can be considered as a whole,and redesigning the site plan for Option H2,thereby making it Option H3. Brett Cross,San Luis Obispo,explained why he does not think there Is a parking demand for the Pal"Ipomo site. He suggested that,given the limited resources,sites such as the Wells Fargo property should be pursued. Gary Fowler,San Luis Obispo,concurred that action on this proposal should be delayed, that consideration should be given to other sites,and that It might be feasible to construct an EOC(emergency operations center)on top of the new structure. Dave Hanninas.San Luis Obispo,concurred that this area is currently underused for paMdng puiposes. He expressed concern that the recommended options are too close to his property and too high. Tom Swem.Chairman of the parking Committee for Downtown Association,explained that the Downtown Parking Committee hasn't had an opportunity to review the proposals yet. He suggested that a concurrent financial analysis should be provided for each proposal. He supported the location of the parking structure and the purchase of the 614 Monterey , Street property,but expressed concern about a mechanical structure. He supported Options D2 or D3. Andrew Carter.San Luis Obispo,supported Mr.Cross'and the Chamber's positions. He suggested that a mechanical garage should be used for employee,not transient,parking. He explained why,if this site Is used,the entrance and exit should be on Monterey Street Chuck Crotser.San Luis Obispo,spoke in support of the proposed site and the automated . parking system. He supported,in general,Option H2 but concurred with comments by Mr. Schwartz. He also concurred that access on Monterey Street is important Pierre Rademaker.San Luis Obispo,concurred with Mr.Sehwartes and Mr.Crotsees comments. However,he did not believe the Palm Street.entrance and exit would be a problem. He expressed concern that contextual Issues have not been addressed(Ip-,the Latimer adobe,pedestrian access to Monterey Street and Downtown). He supported an automated structure as well as the acquisition of 614 Monterey Street He suggested that adjacent property owners should be contacted regarding their plans for future growth and development. Deborah Cash,Downtown Association Administrator,explained why the Association supports moving forward with this structure. She discussed the success of automated garages. She said that the Parking Committee will meet this week and will need to consider the proposal,following which additional feedback will be provided to Council. Scott Greenaway,representing the owner of 614 Monterey Street,expressed concern regarding Mr.Schwart es recommendation to acquire the entire site. The family Is willing to consider use of the back portion of the property. SS -2S ATTACHMENT o � o City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday,duly 5,2005,7:00 p.m. --end of public comments-- Council discussion followed during which staff responded to Council's questions. Council Member Mulholland said the Wells Fargo site would be a better location,but supported pursuing the Palm-Nipomo structure since it is owned by the City. She also supported pursuing a mechanical structure. She said she thinks there needs to be a pedestrian connection to Monterey Street,that she would like to see financial implications, and that she supported delaying action on this proposal for three to six months or more because of the changes occurring in the Downtown. Vice Mayor Ewan expressed concern that with potential new projects on existing lots, parking will be needed sooner than later. He was also concerned with the Increasing costs that will result the longer the project waits. He supported moving forward with this project Council Member Brown also supported.moving forward. Council Member Settle supported proceeding in order to determine financing, methodologies,and costs. Mayor Romero explained why he thinks it is premature to move ahead with this project at this time. He also said,however,that a structure should be developed at some time in the future,but should wait until further development has occurred In the area. He suggested delaying proceeding with this project for twelve months. Moved by Mulholland/Romero to defer for nine months a decision on whether to proceed ' with the parking structure at Palm-Nipomo; motion failed 2:3(Brown/Ewan/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Mulholland to direct staff to proceed with Palm-Nipomo parking structure site plan design Options D3 and H2/1-13(the concept submitted by Ken Schwartz)with adjustments to the layout for Option H3;motion carried 4:1 (Ewan opposed Moved by Mulholland/Ewan to consider designs that will allow the house at 614 Monterey Street to remain. Following a brief discussion regarding the need to keep options open; motion failed 2:3(Brown/Romero/Settle opposed). Moved by Settle/Brown to either Include or exclude the houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Street as part of the study in order to keep design options open;motion carried 3:2 (Mulholland/Ewan opposed). During the prior discussion,Council directed staff to provide feedback on the following items: • property values • construction costs • urban design issues/pedestrian access more community group responses In response to staff,Council confirmed that the oak tree Is not a part of the design options; It is to remain. ACTION: 1.Directed staff to pursue site plan options D3 and H2/H3(a concept submitted by Ken Schwartz)for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure,with adjustments to the layout for 1,13;motion carried 41 (Ewan opposed). 2. Approved, ATTACHMENT City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday,July 5,2005,7:00 p.m. to ensure flexibility,including or excluding houses at 610 and 614 Monterey Street as part of the study in order to keep design options open;motion carried 3:2 , (Mulholland/Ewan opposed). 3.Provided additional direction as Indicated above to be included when this matter Is returned to Council. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Romero reported on his attendance at a meeting on June 23id with Supervisors Lenthall and Patterson and staff members of LAFCO,APCD,the County and SLOCOG on the program called"Community 2050,"the June 21P meeting of the Whale Rock Commission,the June 23rd meeting of the Naclmiento Project Commission,and the June 30M meeting of the Performing Arts Center Commission. Council Member Settle reported that the State will approve the budget on July 6th,and that cities will receive the Vehicle License Fee(VLF)refund early. COMMUNICATIONS None- There e.There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm.to Tuesday,July 19,2005 at 4:00 pm.in the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo. Audrey Hoo City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7/198005 J ATTACHMENT _ =RECEIVED RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Dl�T 7/�a ITEM # .SSI MEMO July 3,2005 To: Mayor Dave Romero 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 g structure for Palm and Nipomo Streets Council Agen Item SS6,July 5,2005 1 have studied your agenda materials with staff recommendations and offer the following recommendations with rationale for you consideration. 1. The Palm-Npomo-Monterey site is the best and most appreprWe site for the next parking structure and it should be construded 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 NJ. 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 Palm/Nipomo/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( (This tinFATTORNEY antgiven the long-termpotential of this entire quadrant. CDD DIA FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF PW DIR POLICECHF REC DIA u'rlt,r:. . SS' - 27 0 ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 3 4. The size and parking capacity of the garage delineated in Scheme H-2 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 I believe both are warranted for Scheme H-3; (b)I 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 1fat 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 tag 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 tag 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 rentaMease 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 necessary public.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 Pbum Extended area(Monterey Street)which SS 29 ATTACHMENT 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: µiSStON Fy$I:t7 I FJ! L-A& V , i i A PjE ar•rntisrt... case. f PUMP.& �sDOO& l LAMM& x . . 5VM - � I4tOH'TSfL�Y ' MUSSUAWs (SliiLpRlitil�3 SS -36 O O ATTACHMENT n { U 040 10 m < a F n 8 g $ a aaa w pp 2 r Q JI LL 1.11 �O p6z<se� 8 {3' z w A- 15 OAl AL AL o- - �• o- �'.�' z z z O F F O U U � N N JR w'T /777TP77 54 m I CIO. - o-, - EaIw e Ed 15.CHUN ^ _ Ay TACHMENT �o a p p N ^ N pe f� Cs (00010 CEJ O 0 �N � LL ' N A� U) zfs"ZI W U � � m C Oq 4 eJ m, t')F•�.$i� a n as a m Z m' a m a w nm �!• p•= = 'gigg 4� m s �1 o a.U L z z0 a aw pypy w w yw m gw i y �• Y e e e l _ y U �S Z I m x w I --- ALL \ - I b ¢. \ I \ I � �L►1 ass .- � 2 N N p 6 #i !H N ^1.1S OWOdIN t ^ N SS --3Z. U NN d m C O, F 0 z c� a ri bg n a � ■ �.o m CD m n $ m m 9m J m 4:9 y� 0•y Cao..@##II P h S.C P P�y1�1y pprr Z 6� ,n \O C G F e F A ;j �. d F Q = Z O O J U U w w J N N J Z T �O a 2 6 i i 1 i 17777 m <JL \ y —J O OA s r.m 15 ONOdIN 315 33 ATTACHMENT 7 PALM/NIPOMO PARKING S -tUCTURE STUDY CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APRIL 2007 Mechanical Parking # of # of Cost per Structure Examples Location Use Spaces Portals Stall Neighborhood Hoboken Parking Hoboken, NJ Residential 320 4 $37,500 Summit Grand Parc Washington, DC Condominiums 74 2 $30,000 Chinatown New York City Condominiums 67 F(e 0,000 Proposed Project Bellevue,WA Condominiums 32 1timate WRNS Studio LLP/Walker Parking Consultants April 4, 2007 C ATTACHMENT 114;4& San Luis Obispo 24 March 2007 Downtown Association To: Robert Horch, Parking Services Director P.O:Box 1402 San Luis Obispo Fro borah Cash, Administrator, SLO Downtown Association California 93406 Re: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Recommendation Phone.805-541-0286 FAX 805-781-2647 At the March 13 meeting of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Board of wwv.downtownslo.com Directors, the Board voted unanimously to support the Downtown Association Parking and Access Committee Recommendation to uphold the CAO recommendation (Option D3) as the most feasible choice of construction options for the proposed site. The Board also expressed their satisfaction with the forward movement of this project and how it will serve an area of town that is certain to need more parking as cultural and commercial development occurs, including the new Children's Museum and remodeled Art Center along with Mar Pomo and proposed changes in the Creamery. The (draft) minutes of the meeting are attached; approved minutes will be provided after April 10. Cc: Tom Swem, Chair, Parking and Access Committee Board of Directors Peggy Mandeville J' RECEIVED David W. Hannings APR 2 0 2007 The Latimer-Hayes Adobe SLO CITY CLERK 642 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 20 April, 2007 fI" L'oowEs ,c. City Council Members 1p COUNCIL ZrCDD DIR RED FILE City of San Luis Obispo IRA�AO re FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA 990 Palm Street (j'ATTORNEY 2F PW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 CLERK/ORIG 15 POLICE CHF DATEJI�2�ITEM k S ® C3 DEPT HEADS REC DIR Pi.9 Dear City Council Members, _(3 712�.S ui 0 HR B RIR I own the Latimer-Hayes Adobe adjacent to the site of the parking garage that will be discussed at your meeting on April 24. 1 attended the last meeting on this subject,but as I am employed, I cannot attend this one. I have read the report on the city web site, and have the following observations. These options are much improved over the earlier options, and I appreciate the increased sensitivity they show to the neighborhood, especially my home: The pedestrian circulation is also much improved. I am concerned about the space and buffer between my property and the structure on the three plans,but the plans on the web site.are tough to read in this detail. I assume that as this moves forward there will be time.for closer scruiiny of this space. The staff recommends option D3,but I would recommend option H3, as first suggested by Ken Scwhartz. Plans D3 and H2-are cheaper to build;but H3 contains more parking, is less intrusive on the site, and leaves more space for other uses. As this will be the last parking structure built for some time,the number of spaces created should be important. This is meant to last well into the future, and what is the long term value of efficient space use, and the space it will leave free for future uses? Open space for future city uses is very valuable. By filling much of the site with plan D3, and to a lesser extent H2, are you closing off options for a future city council? It seems to me that looking at this over the long term shows that option H3 is the best use for this last large piece of land the city owns in the downtown core. There is discussion in the report of the need for this structure at this time. The existence of this present parking lot does not seem to be common knowledge now. I have observed that during Farmer's Market(6-630PM)the lot is half empty, while cars circle downtown looking for parking. This is amazing to me, but convenient for others. I am not arguing against the construction of this structure at this time, but noting that it may take some advertisement to get people to use it at first. Maybe the novelty of a mechanical structure will help with thati Thanks, I�Crj IR CAO FIN Dim, RED FILE to ACAO Ja FIR= c_, ®ATTORNEY 4 PW DI-0 MEETING AGENDA 10 CLERK/01110 Pei ICF .,�� FA CEIVED DA y �/ a ITEM #SS D DEPT HEADS REc '. !F. �- — r "1 L I" R _ 0 2007 IiBl.CakL Ae 4 HR D I R co�•�4 CITY CLERK San Luis Obispo Chamber of Conir'�l°ercec`E 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 April 19, 2007 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, President/CEO Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Study Session, April 24. Review of Design Options for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, After looking over the design options for the proposed Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure, our Chamber encourages you to move forward with the process of building a structure at that site using Option D3, a self-park structure, as described in your staff report. We believe that a parking structure in that part of the downtown will serve the needs of developments slated to come online in the near future including the new Children's Museum and expanded Art Center along with other proposed uses. The merchants in that part of the downtown have been eager to see a parking structure built that would more adjacently serve the needs of their customers. As for construction costs, we are concerned about the amount of soft cost per net new space as noted in the staff report, page SS-8. Our members who are involved in engineering, architecture and construction question the amount of$8,700 soft cost per space as it appears to be exceedingly high. Therefore, we request more definition of the soft costs associated with the project. We agree with your staff that a mechanical structure should not be considered for this site due to the significant cost differential and lack of a proven track record when built by a municipality for public use. The costs to construct and operate a mechanical structure are prohibitive at this time and it seems to us to be fiscally unsound to move forward with either design option H2 or H3. A parking structure at this site is consistent with the city's Downtown Concept Plan and meets a Chamber goal of maintaining a proactive parking program that develops new parking facilities in the downtown area. As existing surface parking in the downtown area is put to better uses, it is efficient to replace it with consolidated parking structures. Sincerely, Jeff u mgham, ChairpersoZ f the Board email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com