The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/03/2009, B3 - AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS jcouncit _2009 s%�, apenaa RepoRt N=b� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee, move forward with advance development of the Monterey Street parking structure (previously referred to as the Palm Nipomo parking structure) by taking the next steps of environmental review, completion of design, and preparation of plans and specifications. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking lot 14 which is located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey Streets. During the consideration of this project the Council has had concerns about whether the Parking Fund could afford this parking structure and whether it would be used at this location. At the 2008 Parking Fund Review, the Council approved the hiring of a consultant and the appointment of an Ad Hoc committee to address these concerns. Consequently, consultants were hired and committee members were appointed including Council Member Carter as the Council's representative. The consultants worked with staff on the financial analysis of the Parking Fund, methodologies on projecting revenues and expenses, parking supply and demand, pending development projects, and later with six detailed financial forecast scenarios presented to the Committee (Attachment 1). The Committee, the consultants, and staff met four times over four months to develop the findings and recommendations for this report. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee are: •the Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure; • the next structure should be renamed to the Monterey Street structure to better identify and market its location; • the Council should move forward with full design and EIR review; the structure is consistent with current City plans; • the structure will be needed at this location in the near future; and •there are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. C3 -1 i C council WaigD.• 3-3-2009 j ac En as izEpont TkmN CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee, move forward with advance development of the Monterey Street parking structure (previously referred to as the Palm Nipomo parking structure) by taking the next steps of environmental review, completion of design, and preparation of plans and specifications. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Since 2003, the City has been moving forward with the initial design of a fourth parking structure on Parking lot 14 which is located between Palm, Nipomo, and Monterey Streets. During the consideration of this project the Council has had concerns about whether the Parking Fund could afford this parking structure and whether it would be used at this location. At the 2008 Parking Fund Review, the Council approved the hiring of a consultant and the appointment of an Ad Hoc committee to address these concerns. Consequently, consultants were hired and committee members were appointed including Council Member Carter as the Council's representative. The consultants worked with staff on the financial analysis of the Parking Fund, methodologies on projecting revenues and expenses, parking supply and demand,pending development projects, and later with six detailed financial forecast scenarios presented to the Committee (Attachment 1). The Committee, the consultants, and staff met four times over four months to develop the findings and recommendations for this report. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee are: •the Parking Fund is in good financial condition to afford the parking structure; • the next structure should be renamed to the Monterey Street structure to better identify and market its location; • the Council should move forward with full design and EIR review; the structure is consistent with current City plans; •the structure will be needed at this location in the near future; and •there are strategies for the Council to consider for encouraging parking at this location. 4-53 -1 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The former Palm/Nipomo (Monterey Street) parking structure project was established by the Council as an `other" major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. A Capital Improvement Project (CEP) for the initial design ($1,350,000), environmental review ($300,000), and construction ($12,000,000) was approved the same year. The Council has reviewed conceptual structure designs, approved property acquisitions, and approved revenue increases at nine separate Council meetings to date. On April 24, 2007, the Council identified Design Option D3, a 445 space "self-park" parking structure design as the preferred site design over a mechanical or automated parking structure without any mixed use added as part of the structure. The self-parking design is how our current structures operate. Drivers park their vehicle and pay at the exit. (This report is provided in Attachment 2.) During the review of design options for the structure, two questions kept surfacing: 1. Can we afford it? 2. And if we build it, will they come? The affordability issue was partially addressed in 2006 when the Council accepted recommended revenue enhancements that were phased in over a couple of years. However, a concern remained that we were replacing "low cost—higher revenue producing" parking assets like metered spaces in lots and on streets with "higher cost-lower revenue producing" parking in the form of parking structures. Downtown projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will eliminate existing surface parking and at the same time increase parking demand. This led to additional legitimate concerns about whether we could afford the parking structure with the current revenues we have in place. The location of the structure was yet another issue. The City owns Parking Lot 14 at the comer of Palm and Nipomo streets as well as residential properties at 610 Monterey, 614 Monterey and 633 Palm. Together these properties provide an ideal location to build a parking structure, but would the public use it? The site is not in a highly developed area of the downtown and it was perceived by some as being too remote from the downtown core. The current parking lot at this location is not well utilized. So, other locations were considered (including Wells Fargo), but these locations proved to be unattainable. In short, the Palm-Nipomo site has the distinct advantage of being owned by the City and is therefore readily available. On the other hand, the Council and others have expressed concern about its location in supporting its use and cost for a parking structure. With these two issues in mind, on May 20, 2008 during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial consultant and put together an Ad Hoc Parking Review 63 -c;L- Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and-Recommendations Page 3 Committee (Committee) to answer these questions. The end result of this direction was to prepare a report for Council consideration that included: a. The financial analysis of the Parking Fund to verify its present fiscal condition and project its future conditions with and without the Palm-Nipomo parking structure. b. Options and strategies for: 1) correcting any identified imbalances under a "no added structure scenario," if any such imbalances are projected; 2)promoting use of a new parking structure at Palm-Nipomo (should one be built); and 3).generating sufficient revenues to meet projected construction and operating costs of a new structure at Palm-Nipomo. Committee and Consultants The six-member Committee consisted of: Councilmember Andrew Carter (Council appointee); Cydney Holcomb (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods); Mike Multari (Planning Commissioner); Pierre Rademaker (Chamber of Commerce Appointee); Susan Rains (Mass Transportation); and Tom Swem (Downtown Association Appointee). Fieldman Rolapp was hired as our primary consultant because of their past work with many City projects and familiarity with the City's financial operations. To handle parking demand analysis; Fieldman Rolapp hired Walker Parking Consultants. The consultants reviewed all financial documents and the methodologies of projecting revenues and expenses for the Parking Fund. They were instrumental in providing detailed analysis and projections for six different scenarios that used different base assumptions as the Committee requested. They also validated the majority of staff's prior assumptions and methods for projecting revenues and expenditures. Walker provided analysis based on our current and future parking supply when compared to our current and future parking demand. Walker was provided with information on current parking supply on streets, in parking lots and in structures. Staff provided occupancy counts for our streets, lots and structures as well. Staff then provided information on all pending projects in the downtown with information on the uses, how much public parking they will eliminate, and how much parking is privately supplied. Actual parking demand was calculated using the Urban Land Institutes calculations. The Committee and consultants were joined by staff members Jay Walter, Tim Bochum, Debbie Malicoat, Bill Statler, Madelyn Paasch, Jessica Rhoadarmer and Robert Horch providing information and analysis. Committee Meetings 1. Meeting One (11/6/08) — The first meeting covered basic introductions, background, fiscal policies, financial information, the structure site plan, and the scope of the project. Staff went over a proposed schedule of the meetings and dates and promised to email the group two financial scenarios of the Parking Fund before the next meeting: "Without Palm- Nipomo" and "With Palm Nipomo." These two scenarios were sent out the week before the next meeting after considerable work by the consultants. B 3 '3 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 4 2. Meeting Two (12/9/08)—The consultants and staff presented the two parking forecasts,base revenue and expenditure assumptions, with modest projected increases in parking demand. After much discussion, direction was given to staff to adjust three assumptions and add four more scenarios. Staff and the consultants agreed to make revisions and provide final information to Committee prior to next meeting. The six updated scenarios were emailed to the Committee just before the next meeting. 3. Meeting Three (1/9/09) — Staff and the consultants provided the adjustments that were requested concerning parking in-lieu revenues, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) expenses, and the cost of living (CPI) adjustments for operating expenses. Each of these line items were adjusted in all scenarios provided to the group. Six different financial forecasts were presented. Two forecast scenarios assumed no new parking structure, keeping things as "status quo." One scenario included the normal 1% parking demand increase and one forecast did not. The other four forecasts assumed the new parking structure being built with various additions and subtractions for demand increases from the Chinatown and the Garden Street Terraces (GST) projects, as these would have significant impacts on the Parking Fund. After much discussion, Committee members were satisfied with the financial and parking demand information provided by staff and the consultants. Some "carrot" and"stick" methods of ensuring the structure would be used were presented but the group did not think they needed to get into this much detail at this time because parking demand can change significantly by the time the structure is built. The Committee thought it was best to explore these when the new structure was closer to being built. The Committee requested a draft of this report for their review at the next meeting. 4. Meeting Four (2/12/09) — Staff presented the draft staff report with the group's recommendations for review and comment, which the Committee unanimously approved with modifications that are reflected in this report. 1 Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 5 Parking Scenarios with Different Assumptions The following is the summary of all of the six forecast scenarios. More detail is provided in Attachment 1. Summary of Scenario Forecasts Working Capital By 2016-17 ** Lowest Forecast Year Debt Working Revenues Scenario Amount* % Op Exp I Financing " Capital* Over Exp No .. Project 1. Status Quo Revenue $7.5 321% N/A $12.3 $733,600 2. No Demand Increase 7.4 317% N/A 10.4 321,600 With Palm-Nipomo Fir.Firoj Iect With GST and Chinatown $1.137% $1-0 0 $2.7 $634,300 4. With GST/Without Chinatown 2.0 70% 13.0 3.3 446,100 5. Without GST/With Chinatown 3,0 106% 10.0 4.7 630,500 6. Without GST or Chinatown 1.1 396/6 10.0 _ _.2.8 __. 624,300 " In millions ** First"stabilized"year for"With Palm-Nipomo"scenarios; working capital and revenues over expenses improve in all "With Palm-Nipomo"scenarios at end of forecast period (2019-20) In all scenarios, the Parking Fund is financially secure enough to afford the parking structure, its operation, and debt service. The fund is balanced without deficits and has at least $1.1 million dollars of working capital at the end of the year, which meets or exceeds the minimum working capital policy of 20% of operating expenditures. Committee Findings and Recommendations Due to the positive outcome of the financial analysis of this project by the consultants and staff, the Committee makes the following findings and recommendations to the Council. 1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial condition through fiscal year 2016-17. The consultants verified that in all six scenarios, the Parking Fund is healthy and can afford another parking structure. The Committee concluded and agreed with the consultant's analysis that we can afford it. This finding included two key assumptions in all of the scenarios except for the "Status Quo:" a. Downtown parking demand will increase by 1% annually, and b. Modest rate increases of 10% will occur every three years beginning in 2012713. 2. Rename the project "Monterey Parking Structure." The Committee concluded that the name of the structure plays an important part in visually situating this parking structure for the downtown parking users. Pedestrian access to the cultural uses on Monterey Street like the Children's Museum, the Art Museum, the Carnegie Library, and Mission Plaza is promoted. Monterey Street better orients the public with the downtown because it is considered part of the downtown and is closer in proximity than Palm and Nipomo Streets. 83 _ 5 i Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review C6mmittee.Findings and Recommendations Page 6 3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process. Due to the favorable forecast of the scenarios presented to the Committee, there is sufficient funding to move forward with the architectural design and environmental review process. The revenue enhancements approved by the Council in 2006 combined with retirement of the bonds for the original Palm and Marsh Street parking structures provide a sufficient basis for the affordability of the new structure. Working capital can be used to lower the amount financed with the bond issuance. This will lower on-going debt service payments in the future. Waiting to move forward is not recommended because of the number of development projects in process in the downtown. They will increase parking demand and eliminate parking on the street and in several City parking lots. Parking will be needed in the next 5- 10 years. Even if we begin the design and environmental review process now, it will be five to seven years before construction of a parking structure on this site is completed. Deferring this project beyond that is not recommended. 4. Tire Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the General Plan. The location of this structure is consistent with the City's Downtown Concept Plan and General Plan's Land Use Policy. These documents promote public parking on the perimeter of the downtown to reduce traffic and promote pedestrian access, This area of downtown is identified as the cultural center. Building a parking structure may increase cultural development and/or other commercial development in the area. Land Use Element policy 4.10 says: "There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The location of the parking structure is consistent with this policy as the Concept Plan placed the area for off-site parking just outside the edge of the core. 5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces combined with increases in parking demand. Although we have sufficient public parking today, by the time the structure is built we probably will not. There are 12 projects in various stages of development review in the downtown that will impact parking. Two of these projects, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, are substantial because they eliminate public parking and increase parking demand. The other ten projects propose to meet their parking requirements on site or pay parking in-lieu fees. Even without these projects the parking consultant conservatively projected added parking demand downtown to justify building this structure in the near future. Generally, parking structures are not filled to capacity when they first open. When new parking supply is added at a structure, parking habits adjust and over time more cars will park in a structure. The Committee concluded that the structure itself would stimulate growth in the area, creating more parking demand. Downtown developments will contribute to the demand and the two larger projects eliminate parking supply with the loss of City- owned parking lots. This combination justifies that the structure will be used at this location. 83 - � i Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and;Recommendations Page 7 There are a number of strategies for encouraging parking at this location once the structure is built . The Council can assess the best ones at that time. Staff provided several ideas that would encourage the public to use the Monterey Street structure using different "carrot" and "stick" approaches. The Committee believed that there would be enough eventual parking demand to justify the building of the structure by itself. They also recognized that the Council and staff had a good understanding on how to adjust rates during annual Parking Fund reviews to encourage more use if it is required when the structure opens. If not, this analysis should be done looking at the parking needs in the future, not now. This will allow staff to better analyze the changes in public parking after Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces are under construction or built. These concepts include: a. Modify all parking pricing strategies so the Monterey structure is the most affordable structure downtown. b. Offer more "free"time in the Monterey structure. c. Reduce or eliminate free parking time at the other three structures d. Offer a "low" flat rate at the Monterey structure and use progressive rates in the all other structures. e. Allow over-night and residential parking at the Monterey structure. f. Add parking meters on the 600 Block of Palm. g. Offer reserved parking at the Monterey structure. h. Only allow monthly passcards at the Monterey structure i. Add another meter rate zone with the highest amount in the central commercial core j; Use multi-space meters without attendants in the Monterey structure. Again the Committee does not recommend that the Council act on any of these at this time. They are simply "in the pantry"and available for future consideration if and when needed. On the other hand, many of these ideas are management strategies that are not tied to the Monterey Street parking structure. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider them during the annual Parking Fund reviews (or any other appropriate times) as ways of improving downtown parking management and/or adjusting revenues. Next Steps If the Council accepts the Committee's recommendations, the next steps are: 1. Prepare request for proposals (RFP) for architectural review plans, select consultant 5/09 2. Submit application for architectural and environmental review 2/10 3. Prepare RFP for environmental review, select consultant 5/10 4. Complete draft environmental document 1/11 5. Review by Cultural Heritage Committee 3/11 6. Review by Architectural Review Commission 8/11 7. Review by Planning Commission 1/12 8. Review by the Council, authorization to prepare plans and specifications 4/12 9. Complete plans and specifications 10/12 10. Bid Construction Project TBD by Council B3 - :7- Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 8 The above schedule does not reflect potential time increases to process appeals of certain milestones for the project (such as ARC or PC approvals) that may occur as part of the project development process. Even with the recommended action to move forward.with this project, it will be 2014 before this project goes out to bid; and likely 2016 before it is open for operations. CONCURRENCES All members of the Committee were in agreement with the findings and the recommendations. Staff agrees with the Committee's finds and recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the Committee's recommendations: funds have already been appropriated for the next steps of environmental review and design. However, the total cost of building the Monterey Street Parking Structure is estimated at $20 million. As reflected in the attached scenarios, the Parking Fund has the fiscal capacity to build and operate the Monterey Street Parking structure. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do nothing and accumulate funds. Downtown parking demand will continue to increase while our parking supply in parking lots and streets deceases due to redevelopment. It will take a minimum of 3 years to design the project and obtain approvals. This alternative is not recommended because this report shows there will be parking demand and funding to move forward someday with the Monterey Street parking structure. 2. Use the funding to promote "green" parking alternatives rather than accommodate more parking in structures and lots. The Parking Fund will continue to work to promote a combination of "green" parking alternatives by adding bicycle parking and funding alternative transportation programs. However, it is unrealistic to think.that we can eliminate parking cars at this time. Parking structures can be used to accommodate hybrids, electric vehicles, bicycles, shared car programs and other "green" concepts as they develop in the City. 3. Fund more transit services. The Parking Fund contributes revenue to the Gold Pass program and maintains bus parking on city streets and in the Railroad Square parking lot. The Parking Fund will continue to work in combination with local transit and assist in promoting and funding transit services. This will lessen parking demand but not enough to eliminate the need for another parking structure. 4. Add more parking on existing downtown streets. One idea coming from the Committee was maximizing parking on downtown streets with the use of angled parking on Higuera and Marsh. This would add more parking supply but it would increase traffic in the core and it is not consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Conceptual Plan. Both plans enhance pedestrian access in the core and place parking in the form of structures on the perimeter of the downtown. This alternative is not consistent with these plans. 83 - � Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Page 9 5. Purchase more parking lots. This would generate revenues, be less costly and would accommodate parking demand. However, like the alternative above, it is not consistent to approved City plans that promote higher density of uses in downtown. This may be a viable option for areas outside of the immediate downtown, because they can be used for future structure locations. ATTACHMENT 1. Scenarios 1-6 with assumptions 2. Council agenda report where the Council approved Palm=Nipomo concept plan and approved moving forward. T:\Ad Hoc Parking review Committee,2008-09\4th Mtg\CAR Ad Hoc Pkg V7.doc 83-9 N O W N O O K __- N O W m O N- n g O m m N O m N O n m a M M m Q n m N O M n m ^n N N m n W N Q M P M W P W N P M W n W m O r N N N H H H w N w C ^W W O m M O N m 0 m N M O m N m o m W f0 M W O W Q N m N P m Q m m N m M n m W o^O m 8 W Q O Q L N( n n m m n m m V n Q N N W m n P O m M N pp M m n WON N O N O 10 W N m m p N^t�)Q M m M W N M M MW 10 W m L+ !y r M m M Q r r n M n n^M m m N m m m O M M 10 m o P M W N N W Y t 0 N M Q O 0 N Q M N ^^ M N M P C N N H N N N N N V m{np m n W n O nm W �Op O^ m n N eO� N f0 W m_ 'l m P W pOj m Q O W M Nm m O N n N M Q m MO m N W N N m n OA; m m m�M M m Q N M_M P M m t'!W O O N W M n m N O E H w H w w w w w c n n O Q N m n u = m cim�n'XP W uMi m � mmn n m m E N O n P O M W W N M W O N N ^ M P M W !O N m O N m m ON O W m n 10 W m m a N ^^ M Q N Q O C w w tp w w Yw w w w y N t0 W W MOON W O m 0 � cm w m m 0 � 9' M P N W N m n n N w M r O W(p 'I N V Oo I'1 r (U M M o Y Q No Of Nm tp M W W N g m 1my n �} m Y d e N M N P M n No W (O N Ol O m W n Q N ^^ M Q N Q W O N R J CY M O O O W^O N m W W m m O^ N O m ee N moM Q .m m W m-^M M nO M N m P O N n W O' Q m N W aW O ' M n n N m (O +Y. Q , ^M N m m M m M N (p O m O n Q m 1�1 C l7 N m m W W W N m M C'! N n m N Q E m C N M N P M m M m W n m P m Cl m Q C 2 m w w w w w w w w c a Y D W n n n W m o p m o N o N o o o c c tD O O m m W W n N N W m^ O O 0' N W nW Cl M W N W O W O N n W W n m O'n m N P M M O pp Q 17 M Q N N t7 m m m N Q M N W m_ tl y Z .3 WN VV N N N H N H w Q O •• nn''amO�apOnW^ m � OOn pM O Wa O.m Z m m 10 M W_ W Q W mmmWW N'PW N 0 -mo n P Eg U O H ' W^ N Q N n ^M m N N'Q O N N O a a Q W N ^Q O r Z O w w H w w w w w o g E W M P M M O Q W O M W O O W m W n e O m LL C m M M Q m o o Q 0000 mO^OO^m N N m ^ ^pNn O N N N WO Z NMNPP O^m � ONW oMn MoP 8 N Q N P Q nON 12 H Y C ON ^^ N m n N ^Q N n O .O m O o a s H N N N M H H H N C C O._ CL O Z J mt5 a Yo- N-pWm p ^ WmN mo" O W S W d�j U Al c m o m o a�i n om 'f m o n N,n m o o N E - m O Q M O Q N W^m m M N P O W W W 0 N 9 m m y w^ w w w w w w w o V,Q .- C o'v 0<0 m d W 4 J O Y q O n Q m O N Q O W W W n N M O E m M y m N^m P N n Q N W O 'n N Q W O C M Q 0 M O m M N m^m m N M P W v O m q E N m N N M N ^M ^ n m A dN p� N^ w w H H H H N C C y M O pLL,� S O S S S O O O S S O O S O O O O O N m m m N m^P W m m^ ' W Q n P Y1 O m W W N K C 4 n n m m a�: �0 v r 1 NS r^� ri {pp o W a� 0 M o n M N m M n O O -.0 M tD O m C d N N Q N M fp n 6 W N^ N N N N H H w J O C;O o R- 0 , 0 C y O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O > C - n O O O O O O O O o OO O O O S pq O O O W g.O O d _ q It m Q Q O My M M m W Q m W N W W R W Qm 0 r0 J Ur N j� m W OO PPn ONN mm W �m W N W (O TLL m d�- M W mQ N m o m N W Q Q m m N m W C O a N N H N N ^^N w H w L ry Y 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o T y W m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d C d^ m m O N m O P n M P m W W m n M 0 0 00 n N W W O q m m N m W N n m M N m^ ^ N N o O Ih m G M y 9 C2= m W m m n 0 M O Q W N n m m C'1 M M W W Vow-, 00 N m mP N M^W N n W m m m 00 W M N -S o K m m 8 c E o ry b > m d tl m O OH O Z O d Y W O 6 N N C d {� C x.2 C O CC Z; O E N d y C W W= c ° ogcmN6O L) 0 - m a "ALL 919 L o E >c'2 m W $ �'y m o W c u a n n 'o'rno ; m d O d_ Y. W tl 9 C a. `t.• v m c 0=c d c m m Y c 'w H E H = H m W V V V m mm Ems y o$ W W We tl E F u J W,0 W mac m C m moi w ay� C- c c c a �=ii'o�'d_2 mva a a06 >cL $ yy;; m' `d tlm Y. ¢C`OOf y� r� I/D yW �-SLLO` 3U� rC d> c 'd O o f///(c/J, C W O C: 3 3 3 0 ---- O n p0f poi.V0f N I frp I N N N S m N W im�pp N N p"N m __ .7 Q 0 ' m 0 m W N W 0 W L H 00VNO G vm) W �NN 10p pm Nm m W ;;IN N N M m N m 0 m Q m W A f0 N m ON m Q m P O O r N C Q W m 0 0 m O m N 0 O N m O 0 m N m e m n W N N Ilf O N W n O1 VI g o o W m W O E N ON W O�-nN0 0 W t0 W Q m P m Mt O N m N Op m W A Q O A A P N N N 0 0 O r N N N m 1"1 r N m m m m Om W Iq A N 1Y0 a w �p �Mp pH 1Hp H N H H n W(m(pp N t0 m O 10 0 n W Q N O r N r W W W W P O O m Om�N00 Ne-pO �Ap ONNN b 'D m n N N N MAI 0 m a0 tp N N W O N M VAf C C Q W Q m m r O 0 Y m m 0 0 n m m �. ; 00;; �p O O b n n Ip N N 0 0 m R. ' P N 10 W 0_ m P O M O N O N O N O Om r N CI Uf jf N N N m m N m m m ON 0 m m O m w w w w w w H w F nm`uPi vmi umi A umiS 1 o`n "' rvan M - u` 4 0 3 M n N n m N.m m n m-- ' N O m W h Q O Q Q Z ON 0 N O W W20 0 0 W O N N m O m Nl L6 A 0 p m O 0 y m N A A O m N 0 E e N N N m f7 N N m 0 0 N W N P m O ry ri a ri v ai o a O fp N N N H H M H H C. 0 N N 0 W W m W ' m m Q N W 0_ O m C C Q O N A 14p O m N N O N N O 0 m 0 O m N 9 d r N N N m t7 m VOI NW m NmN Oi O O 40 N m P N Q 0 W V QO PWN0' OOr0 m 100 0 P (p o ad r W 0 N N N O 0 N r W 10 O r Iz W ^ m F e ' N 0 WN 0 V�-W m W ' m 0 0 n 0 N 4 O N 0 N p O Q 010 Ml' n m O m O N O 0 m a T m N N N m t7 m Q m m n m P m m N O WE C V Z H m Q N N W cl; Ol . C Y N 0 m 0 m N O m 0 O N m Q O N m Q M a d O -W W Vf W N O W N m W m m O O N m 0 Q ' N N 0.m Vol A ' m m n W W W W 0 N V L r. j pi N'D NW O m Q 0 O O-m A O G Q W �J CI 'r N 0 m W m m OI n N Q n m ' N (O C 9 !! j N N m N m m r Q m N P m N a C (nb q w N N H N H q 9 a 0 p r y 0 G o m m O m O m r pp 00 N O N O C Z ; m N m N m m p r ' m r m m m nN P 0 _d a a m n 1 NIm'I S O 0 O N m r M A Q N U O N N m N n O m n N N Q N m N E V C) N �� Q 'n N �P� O 'm 6 z O N N N q q w w q 4 N LL W N 0 m m m m O N m n m O O N N 0 0 O 0 LLZ m Wmm W 0ow b W 00m o o O o 0 . W Q N m O m m 0 m (Np m O m N W P N. y m N m N A n $P N 0 t'1 N A CN] p0 0 O Q n V = N O NN_m M N b O.m m Q NQS2 m m N Y • „ N m m N Q N r O N ptr Q 0 N m w w N q N N �Np Q O.Q O a Q m(O N m N O m p0 N O O N N 0 O r_ J W UD m CM CL 0 f0 O7A n 0 Op C N N N N r 0 A m m m fV m m O m 17 m C G F3 E 0 Q N O M N N-m N M N Q O m 0 M W g a A O N r m Q N -, 0 n OT N C O. N w N H w q N N L V a-LD N Zi m N O O m W o 0 o m o 0 o U a o v 7E = WOPr m oo�o o m m a¢o'� J - m 11; p m Za mm N-O� rN Ivy -Im < r m ^ f� Q A O m N Q N O n W r 0 0 c E m y a ?g m O m m N 0 0 N m Q 0 r O m yy O O m r m C,`e q N m N p C N l_0 C N 0 O O O O O O O O S O S o 0 00 0 0 o N 0a " W >♦(• 0 m N mmmmmm -Q W 0 m ' N Q n P N Om m N N O n N C p N W W m m.A mY Q n n M p n m O n m W W Q W m n N. S W W MOW , , N W N m O r m N m m n O 0 10 0 m m O 0a�. O O O O O O O O O Cd C_ > OC Qm OO NmNS S OOO 4 IgVi mgIQ _ m Wgp� d -q m m Np'Q m W Q N m N n ^ m O p J a 0 0 m N O O P P n O N N m W 0 W N 0 LL -_ O m W m Q N W N 0 N 0'Q Q m m N Z• an d Q N N P Q A 0 U E m 0 g a;-C RC1 O^�` t d S ry 000$0000000$ $ oo0 00 0 0 o a° a b O N m O Q N m Q m W W N N m MmO O O O O W > a 4 _ m p -NmNMm A m NAM 8000 NWWONm00 N O m0 W O m ym` wd r 0 y W J q w H w H w H q H q n N C O E N 00 $tE N G n 5 pt gW O1 Q c m W E z m m o u v W7 O m m N o a m N c 4 C N c u a d m m $C u m 'J O C C ' p O C.9 V 1 a Y d m m d m _ d iy O y W c O 6 W 'S m m W n a a o E d W 4cp� v > m'�c`iti' > m0 g. $mm m � m w qE Cd �WiRC f OQo� W-O WpJG C'O > o � WEZuto wn w w wo, dvcN � Em K~ ~ O v~ m W m UW UW c m d m E VINm o. 0 0mr�5i �''c ? 6 CL 0aO10 0 UO �J W O a 3: 3: 3: / 1 f 0 O 17 N m N� Q m n N S YI N i m l•') n O m NmmfmONm °imN PO t7o 1+01 bNm YO N m b Vl m O O CI t'+ T d ry w w w w w « w w 5 M - 00 L N m N m m m fl m ffp� m C N b S Q m p U m N m N fp{•'!n O m N P M N m C1 m m O N t7 O ry -- N - b l'1 �N r l•'J P O Q M p N pM w M N N w p m m NNP^o Y N m Q i mp N 10 N N li r mm N _m N1%N Wt Oar Nr m_N Nm N 0 N mt'1 N m O M P N m m M O N I N II M N m m P j N m m m M b M N m N m n b m N C O N N N N « w N w V rS-�tN'l NOr°mi m �m Nt7 .0 (pp M M NN O Q n .n N 17 P N m m m O m C Q» pp » » N m« « « « 3 Nm N N W OA n W O m Q N m M O b m tO I�N b m m Q N b n N g m N N N O N M p N tO A� M O n n @ m Cf 11! 1l1 P m P m m m M 0 M m N M b n N N m tp V N f0 Im 1f1 M Q O M O N N n O - O O C N Q m N m N N w w w w w w w w 17 m m O N P t0 0 m' N OM mmO N N Nn N Mn I-!OM mv A m - N o MNNnbb n O mm N P N O Om rM Nn_ p m ry Y b N N N O O m N U O. mr N N N w N N N w v e 3 (p 8 n N m N Om N O m m M n N O n M m M O 1. ' m N O Q . n N P n N N M n N m Q D M N 0 J 0)N O A�}N N b Y 0 (p p M O O O C� Pn mm� Mn Om N t7 Nn f ml b P N d Q C M N P P P M O M N N m Am N m (pp(pp N m O M N O m pO O O (yO S N m n b U 9 N Y N m N N N P P nOR ^ m N N O Z C N 3 N M A N(2 N N m w w « N « w w w m in n a nANm��0f0'1m� �pB O�My ' (IVI^J dm M N N b N b P m OI m N m A YI tp m {Ufr mfO0 NAN PO q m MVN -i 14i N CC yWq N 9 C N N N N N N N N q O C o N M P m Mep p Mp O M p O o pO p Op b p O 8 b N M N a d O WT m b Cl C]8 N N 10 O m QQ m 8 W � p m�N O Y b 0 0 mp m N N nm 1•'1 N n tN'1 N W m d N Y e3SN m CL O NCC M O P M m OPO n ^ N pO o N N N r o y � j a Otm b-m YM N m M m 0�n m O b N N Q O• p GN -n Nn M rvMb m b M mONOP�Yi n O N N Na M n N m N C 2 _ n' O P M O P N m mM N Q O m M N O d mO ry M P N -V' b N my m d C n _ 5 'v Q N N N M N' N N N C S G V Q W ? C C f y 00mot�0om�i an' '' 8000 p0 m o m < m aN a 7 c N M m N A N n N O N d O�`O 0 m O (p b Ol N m N r U W Q C aL mm MOmf'lN mem NN � bMmN Ob M jpm 2 � qC N C N m"� .�5 Omm $ y 00000 000 QQ mm Nm Q Nm.o O m aai -ei w m y e N nNyy n V I q a' $a Q A M 9 N P� m m A N 88 l✓! N T b LL q O M O^M N m M A O O b m M f0 O O L a o Nw w w w w » ty » O'$ c n 0^0(mp 0a 0po 0M 0M M Ip a m 110 '2 pp p ._ E0cc0NX �Va .o ft Wm mmOOPQ^ONNm f0 N �mN N Ot f0 M bd jN Cpd'O' 7 O M N m Q N b m m N Ci V:Q m m N m O,j �.N U so w w w w qw gg g N w w U S 7� $ NOS. ��ai0o, m .,g g $SS ffib'i g r m m fia �^ EB'N T QR - m m N m N N^b M N m R N b OO C n M O M a W O y:ty ry W Ln W N N N N N N M N » » n d O VM d dqqq - OTT ppOp32 ? a C Y C m O a m m $ E R c 0 F at Q y Q rOn a m.0 2 moo�mawm C E O 9 p p.L O r 8 A C m MN H m N o a o._v o b o W 2 .q e m mu u9 0 u cq na'm ZmEa 19 o o W d :, mn m - c Q a c c m % 9 c a 5 o n Fl O a .N 42 O S ap li m b W C O 6 W m qE C' 2-6 U c a W m o d m c m e L m m w v w m a v I E _2 60 w> j v m a A c a i E E �. n v t c m w a E a 4 . p m = U d W K Y V a w y E NC � d W S OS S- _ _ W wiz 3: gP-�v'� d $ 8• > E a -' 9 a` as o m '- m m o 'c > q c c n n a °.a.a a o 0 3 '� C7 E c Z Y-LL m i c 2'a q N d Y tai t qy u W W� c0SE crmca� a �''cm 3.� cE `m Y- � cmr 'J yl- mW U U Ua ?Yi3 n�oY m b•_ NN aw 22 mK W N O E O m m ma 20 e i 5t w 2 C @ � 60 "m o m o x x x : Q6a�U zii T a o` o o` Cp m r=LLS z W O Q n. K O 3 3 3 0 —R^;o§E!C � o 0 on nmrr�, nm mani$^ e'rvm n r o N rwm0^^..mm • M1P 0$ NmM ry t'1 n np N ^ m tV VfO N 11ap m W T leV 0 O j 00 W b 0 10 m M m N r-O N m M r 9 M^ry m m Q y O w w N w N N w w m w yoy$��Wp�mpM$$n V n � m POMry v $ E Q NN_MO^Mm� m P ON m fONn N m P E L m_W� 0 m Vl O m nol fpm ^m om MM O � W M O a� mmmfOM N^'_ N O n M^ 0 n m O q Li N 0 n M N m M P O N a p N H H y H H y C o a on vi v�'$u�mm mn rym a nnm m Q m MA NNpIt wn o^n�i la mo mMp ^ T W o 19i m m o a n NICO Vml$r N$N m n N f'1 N N.-W 0A Qb A O E IQ lQ O ry ^^ P ^ m M N b M M n G � Z w w w w w w w w ^c E 8P IQ�OM mN N^ m 7�ii Wpmm mN mn mmM mn Nm OI m'�1•] Q OI < q 5 bmPNM m N N PN^m P M (� E C N N N N y N w p m m O N m 0 S I n -' M M N-.M^m^ Ol 0 N M 0 0 r Np(0 A n O T A P o W W Mpp O W S m m N n N M O O Mf n W M m d y6 Ib') C M N N N p N N N 0 O M0 pb n�ppN MO OPm m'^0qM PmOm�m�Opf N • tMp ONOCom O$ m On O 00 W W W n N m !D0If O b 0 N n Y I m 3 b W D q P P P N P M -N^ m N Op ^^ P ^ N NH -H MM r N n O o � m n$rvcQ'$p fpOrn am s nm$m — In n n Q pM rr r�i r m m u v Q C Wnm 00fp MISS Nm N� N.O.nn M N Om1 N c O f= N P P N P M N O Q 7 ^ W T L . ^OQ PT Opn m'Q mO OP OPm Qm M m r OI LL m 0 a�``fid''P W m OO^N m 1 Q P P IF 0_ m r Y fG„i ai m ti �Oi P O.�M Z m ry O 0 P m P MN ' jO P Nl P N W N O P 10 N P M C W O � a W m m PWM OOm 0 N m N woom ^ M ' MW _ O0 0 m0 wm biI((N IDN ID m 0 Ory G D (' I. m p m o m m p O M O N N O ^M 0 n ^ m M O ' q Ip N f0 o P P 0 N O P N M M n P m 0 M m N� y� =i ^ M N!^P N n N^W N N P N N m m w y. _Q m O 4 N N ^P ^ m n• M TN O N N U O 0 Z ry m M P P�M�pp Mp AM Om m pM M m 3° 5 c p LLC ' n0 p�OSO�mOppl • MO NO p� �OOtnp Im•) 0 N C Cd G m p b^OOP 0 ^'m 0' tWO N N O N N r P 0 pm 0 j P M^P N m^m 0 P N P^ b' S m O Z E ry ^ CI O N ^Q 0 b O N S m a �+m n mNgagm m�i voin �gn to o m •rni o m$ u 6 D N S O O IR mS pr�O N P r r ' N p n M ^M O O <M O PN 0 N O m N t0 I•'1 N P O .O! d d E Ci m 6 n ^^ n v 14 ^a In m E E N c J 5 c g O T p w N N N N p N c C O q O N E ryo m Ino mW gig $ m $ T rn vEs m m m o n^T^'$�mn o e Z= 'm 4 m a O n P M W 0 m N r Q IY 2 Q WD ITQO mI09rvN 0�0 m N00N b O M pV < Sm a d O O W Np d $�sssss��s • sass s 8 A y M C no Mogn'rmiry^ �mn o S Mme n 3 0 oa y E ry a$ V O ^ IN P N ^M' m n n U y 1 A N N qp'o W.��n yR N y w N QS�w y N N N A C O a n c n gg s o S g gg It g8 8'i u'Y g. �+ m n c•c EIiT5 0 INd Ig a e �m$a�Pn$ ry b m mm 8i _m o d m �m m PN 00 N mQPm � N m U (fiN� > G� N Z• 0 D b ss�ssssss s s us s s s o "o 0 = m o N o P r M P_m m n o n ry m m n c y on° m `7 ml"dn$='wlViv`P°alQi.�m �mlry ui m "� m `.' Oo CN g _u N N o m PNM^TNA m m ^ T m m m M N D a, E A 0 p N M N U a W w N N N H N y H w H n v O >'2 rZ W y N 3 C n Hg o s-4' g'M4-5 ga m m wo 0 w m ^m a c uc = 7 O=m T m uV ^� ; it m N > E L 0 c N q C.y Mw c j y W o �o Uc' wo eN b2 c p 'u 'y Hw m a q W 'm Ev Ec m.S A= oU u 5 0 u m 0 a 5c a E 8V o w icm1pYi f.am1200 H mm9go" mrmu.LLo $"o 5Emm.E°S omm n 9n 9nc a$ MID O� 0Jbc' d O O 0 3 o Is eE 0Wg E "4ic c o �a? o �:cL ` aa O gol'X cc m O U Ecf 5LOz E e $. O ONO W.N-til\ N. NN S Np �Np N.m^ S S e N 0 M1 P m q AW 0 N O 10 10 0 W Q N t7 W M (M A M m N 0 O m 0 W N O 1 Pp . 00- Cy; W W t'1 0 n m N 0 O m N N m N �mp ON N pN pN N N N t L Rai 0 N N S 0 Ot -Q T 0 n M t o O OI pi Ol 'A m 0'O N N O N 0 p tG 0 N 0 O 0 0 0 0�p0 n W 0 W O W 170 O O 0 W O M 0'ID N OI ! Q W A Cf W m O N Cf O N 'V 0 M N 0 0 O O Q N H N N N N w N N A O n M 0 MOO W W M p m M W 0 N I O O N 0'Q OO�m N OWN,b S N W Q m M A C W m nm O m 0m A �O nn b0 m-N n man O N d n p Pi CN'1 m N N n N N 1"!m N N 1N N 6f A Ynf m N N P H H H N N N N M NU n m lyi n W 0 M 0 YI O N 'Q NM mN0' OP m 0 WM W Q os 0oO NQ m N W p 3 NN Mf U N m m 0 0 O m O C N N H N N N w H 3 NOV S N S S S W N N N N " Nog 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 O 0 m N WM•�O W W Q N N P 0 0 d O m m M m M1_W N M M1 W 00N 0 W 12 m N m 0 W O-n 0 N b O O 0 W W M 0 1 n m N N V Mto lu�,'Ary M M O W Nn O O O O p N N N N N N N N N Q • O M N d 0 O N O MW O O W N A O O n N 16 p N W n O O 0 W 0 W 0 0 ' O. 0^ O Mo S O ' O ' W m ry j) GW 0 P nm n P P P N O O O m O QI 9 O M A 16--0 0 O N Cl 17A P A 0.0 O O M O 0 � m P 0 W W M1 O0 n' P WN 0 0' N O M O O y N d M Q N W M O N 0 N O 0 S O m m O d a p N M r 0 N N_N O O W M LJ 1O�p1 mWW mO'P'y�..-N m1mp0 ' m m Ino N oM On N OWl 00 S Q o F Fyy O lV P f'f (D M O N 0 N IN Q N N N P 0 Q C _ m m Q N N N N N M N N i n U y N O pp W 0 O P M O 0 0 0 N m S O N O tp c lb O C 0 W W O.O P n A O 0 A N 0 p 0 0 m W W Z m ' 0 Q P 0 0 4 M O m moo o N 0 0 0 O n M A P cOT Y N W 0 n N d 0 W W W 0 N N w P n A W 0 C' W N Q M d N RN W P 0 n m w 3 � q p N N N N N H H N N u Cp Z L W n Q P mom M p 8 S 0 n 8 8 Q mN 0 H ' NW�SONS'O Qn ' W00n 00t0 n. O W Q W M s n m'W O� 20 N n M �M W W W n M O N m (7 ` m N M O'Q W MN. Q N n M M n M M S tme_ � O C N M Ili P N O N m 0 O N P N W N ry 0 VOr w w N w w N N N q p m O. g 8 8 S a j3 �mo$�ogmmoT ' RSw NWOm o m m 1 c9 0 LL O M O n N m W m r N n 0 NA N 0 M m � n N O N d O O d 0 N N m M N A' O y .h y Zc O N M N ry 0 0 d N Q O W d _ C N `` N 0 n N P M O m O E 'L L u U w Y U N N H N N N N N 1 L aa ppWW S 888 a ; w t N 0 N (O N O t'1 m ' 0 0 N M tN0 a `m p S y iEO QM OQ NIO 0�W ^ N� MNPO 0 t0'f W N O QLt 2 S N O O • r Q N Q 0 0 '� E Iq m 07 E ..m� O lyi�$m' o' g 8 g m S m e W 5 dw m •7 R C W pMp 0 W m n p N n�pr�y ' ' ' ' pN m t Op�O n m O N O 0.C� m J a 4m W N b.P N n Q 1"1 W O 0 n p Z L_ 9 y I`"'11 O m 111"""111 N W'-m W N m,Q O 0. O N; mN N ai N vi n ui @= a0•Pm z o a m • M N H N N N N N 0 E Y m y a 8888888$88 8 888 O m 0 0 N m�Om 0 m ' ' ' ' W yQy n Q O gWg m N C C_ w Z LL a p m < no n�'nldv� m�n o O �Nm n 3 0 o`�Q6dLOm U a O�o W a Ep m N w w N N w w w w �'Q p p y 00000000000 W ogg g g S � � $� 0 e n �0�agvoi, m�a uoi r iS u'S� W m n c c End . Q 00 tImmQ'N m00 N Wd'fW m N G � U' Im Usk .�W maoEo w N N N N w w w U c yyd `m E e Q g mia C'l 4210 N Wo 88$8888$$8 00 8888 po'_oo{ 8 8 8 m TLL awi$ $ m m o N m o a n M a m W ot m 1%an M a c c N�m�&n^d'a,Nim m m `8�m mm m api N �a cEa a$' N N ri Baa o rr e n 'oA g�$'wq N N N N N N N N N D,u q q TOO a c �: aUEgt w c m o ami w .m y7 `m `mm 4Wo mom Lpmp m 8 nU f'a mwE C m C m O Q O �a r N R gl d H 1• d m ye $ w o as w m c oL 4 w m nm CE -6 pA Ta3ad.g'j�Ca�LLp 0O cz m cEoU u ` 999_ E wIr. s caaoi ; c .9 PON oomWo r ONc'iyup;` aTR E a w m Z n ` y C Z m m e j m m m m m m F�'m C 6 L t�I C m m• U o N LL 6.r n O F_u.0 2 x O U O. 6 m a Y g <d O U LL /a 'J W rc2 ; ; O =-as- mo J' 1/ m m N N a a bQ o N N m m m Q O N.N mNC'1 ^' mAOb mN I7 m t7 H 'h t')WNm� ��N �n Clm b `�N' S O tV •� 01 d m m f0 N m N Q O m OI m O Q m LL O N r r Cf T N N N N N M N N N E � � o$oan mon mNm� a m o c 1$am m m e g L OIArDN m tC N y� O b Qi w O O O m b m 100 b N r ^O P m n N m n 1 1 R m P I O em' Q Q N N N N M N w w p _ e O M1.N r N l'I b N N O N n mm b Nf O n n b m Q S N n N Y N N (�f N m w n n p b L A O,�O� N N m 0 t'1 N m l'1 t7 Oi O_ m m Y Y1 N m IV N b N tQ n n U o N Np m n AT A o A n 0 0 Ip A ' n N N m tm0. O N. O N m n Om�1pO (p 1pp .Op1 m W m N'DPbtVn''ObN 1mNN PNmN m ^ m C O O mm �b O N 01 m N yy N OI m N m O m m P d m A b 0 N l N N r i me n N Ty T p�np m N A 0 b 1 O Q O n ty�l n m n D_J b fD O b N m N N N m m N O m N r O O N m = M N N N N N N w pp p p v mm y'O�mSN Oho r0NQ m 88 N W h N Q P n N m -1: IJJ 0�1 Np m tm0 n N fO O O!Q ^N N m 100 W V O b P N VN N r M1 ON O O W m � U a a mN p mm pN p N H N N QN 'H v f D S N O Q m S N 10 b 00 N Omi S ^ eJ m 4W Q M1 0 T m It m m N J W N ol O Nm Q N b O N01 t'1 m 17 L b b m ^b N OI b N A n m m N Q N O N m It N Q IQ: N m m d 4 Q 9 H H N N N N H N q n C U W 800 mm Om mQ 0000 m N 17 a e S1b Z W ^ 8 Q< O1 b h m N ' P P M1 O y S m N m O d N Ol m n N_ m m N O Nm N pi O N O+ O N 0 O W m O � W b Q N P N O N m N P 17 N O 10 Q y ` t H 3 H N M M N N w N N A y d 3 r v _ ` mAarm�Q$rmN �g o N $g� � m e LL c N A.��i.m m b m O 77�i (O m m m N N b 0 ' m 0 O N m OI b O O O W N r m m m A m N m 0 N O N O m 1w M1 m N O W N Ol N O P N N m O O N N N n N r m N m C y Z m ON Q^'QN m�0 O � NQN A m Q Oj,JO q Q 9 ry - N b N r Q m n N Lp N N V � w w yy w w w w w N m o = o �weg�$$am1T ' $ mo- Aman LL « p mNOSRb mmN mN NO m NAQ b pN� b N °4� m 0 N N N H 88 N H N N s V4 sN �. QO yNy N mpp P LL a 0. 0. � m NNN NN0 �A n m Om m O O .Nm N IL co S N NNf m Nm iN0 Q 0 H 11 Q N -V Fn EL 9 oz N N N N M w N N C C E 9 O y E Om0m ZMA COVE=r °r' eo egQQ 'm o °i e w EvN a 7 q m m m n N n b m ry a g 8 r m o ry o y Z O. d m O n 0 m O N f Q O m b N1 N w 0 m N m Q N A Q[7 C'f C m N N m m m N w m Q N 10 O 1") C U Q co Q j O N M N N n Y1 h d Q q N C v,3 mry = s ovA � a O O 12 O O e d y y"Lj sOsSss ess sss m e .�_ _ p m b m N(O Q m b P A a my m E c LL a $ q crime rir �gQ r ��N^yi m 10 r LL3 5$a C p n o n m N^ mC�wiin o "n10 N 10 O Q o pj a.y� S N -M p qFC � 9>8� w ZO& O Iq E ? i NOp:fnqN.Nm 16 0 m C ,O^N Cd VOO N m m Q N N m m P m Q'Q m 1cl!` m fO.9 ED Z 82. EO O . 8 p pp 88 pp 8 S 8 p d O q 2 N S S O S S O O O S S O 1 Om N t�l O O O O 1 N O N m O Q n N Q m yy� q mmn 0�t7 Q a m m m N A bm N m N N N b m N 8j yO C N y C 4 '00 01m OI N N y ppE Gam' 1" da N N N N N N N N N N W p d C S� W L t d ' O ax� g's$ E2a b N d d W O M m b 0 A 0 Z r§ y w y L q� �j Ole OL Oly NNOIW IyaNN do 04 0 may x H � S d e' WM 0 W c O 6 W m Ed u � c u t m d N C c x 'c c a ppp pq d o O N o = x E c qlY 0 g,m 5 l O o ;J.Y U W O C > U' t y.11 LL d d > w� mp^ � q aymmc m 3 � a mH c F 7 '"F dly U U U W q$o� I1 `o= � E d 5 J m'S N s N N.LL' d A O a p_ "J O d OI O m L d .G E C2W WOOO WdddZdrEd Cy� 6L m CO y ` ` N J O.O� >C•tC d Z K g R M yy 0 0 >9 p 1q f LL V Z O U O 5 O. O L O O O £ P✓\ ✓/ I Attachment 1-G Assumptions for Parking Fund six scenarios: 1. The Parking In-Lieu Revenues have been updated to reflect the assumption that, beginning in Fiscal Year 2009-10, three parking spaces are being paid for annually. The parking in-lieu fee is based on the Fiscal Year 2008-09 fee of$17,072 per space and is adjusted by CPI each year 2. The projected annual change in CPI for Parking In-Lieu Fees, Transportation Expenses, General Government Expenses, and Capital Improvement Plan Projects has been updated as discussed, i.e. in Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, it is assumed to be 6% and 5%, respectively. For Fiscal Years 2011-12 onward, a CPI increase of 4% per year is assumed, based on a 20-year historic CPI average of 3%plus an additional cushion of 1%. 3. The Capital Improvement Plan Projects tabs have been updated to include a base expense of at least $200,000 per year. These general updates apply to all six scenarios. Other specific updates have been made to the various scenarios. The following is a brief summary of the six scenarios and their specific updates, where applicable: 1. Without Palm-Nipomo Project: Status Quo Revenues 2. Without Palm-Nipomo Project: Status Quo Revenues, Without Yearly 1% Demand Increase a. The 1% demand increases, affecting various revenue streams, have been taken out. 3. With Palm-Nipomo Project (with Garden Street Terraces and with Chinatown Projects) a. Major impact on balance of working capital experienced in Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. With Palm-Nipomo and Garden Street Terraces Projects, Without Chinatown Project a. Lot 3 and I 1 revenues have been updated to reflect the"without Chinatown" scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 3 and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 3 and 11 in the absence of the Chinatown project. c. The $2.6 Million Parking In-Lieu Fee from the Chinatown project has been deleted. d. The 11% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. e. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown have been taken out of the New Developments tab. f. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. � I Attachment 1-G g. Major impact on balance of working capital starts in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and is especially prevalent in Fiscal Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. h. In order to maintain minimum working capital balance of 20% per year,the debt financing has been resized to assume that the cost for Palm-Nipomo is funded as follows: Fiscal Year 2014-15 includes $13,000,000 in net proceeds from the Palm-Nipomo Bond Issuance and $7,000,000 in working capital contribution. 5. With Palm-Nipomo and Chinatown Projects, Without Garden Street Terraces Project a. Lot 2 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lot 2. This is due to the continued existence of lot 2 in the absence of the Garden Street Terraces project. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $660,000 Parking In-Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with the Garden Street Terraces Project have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $7,600 and $3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted. h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. 6. With Palm-Nipomo Project, Without Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown Projects a. Lot 2, 3, and 11 revenues have been updated to reflect the without Chinatown and without Garden Street Terraces scenario. b. Garage revenue has been updated to reflect the loss of displacement from lots 2, 3, and 11. This is due to the continued existence of lots 2, 3, and I 1 in the absence of the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. c. The annual $2,000 Trash Lease decrease due to the closing of lot 2 has been deleted. The $105,000 annual payment by the Garden Street Terraces developer to the Parking Fund has been taken out (which is related to the $2.4 Million advance from Parking Fund Working Capital to the developer). d. The $2.6 Million Parking In-Lieu Fee from the Chinatown project has been deleted. The $660,000 Parking In-Lieu Fee from the Garden Street Terraces Project has been deleted. e. The I I% Fines and Forfeitures decrease due to the loss of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The 9% decrease and 5.81% increase in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue associated with the closing and partial reopening of Lot 2 have been taken out. Attachment 1-G f. The Transient and Monthly Added Demand Revenues associated with Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects have been taken out of the New Developments tab. g. The $13,200 Transportation Expense decrease from the closing of lots 3 and 11 has been deleted. The $7,600 and $3,900 Transportation Expense decreases from the closing of lot 2 have been deleted. h. The $2.4 Million advance made to the Garden Street Terraces project developer from Parking Fund Working Capital has been taken out. i. Major impact on working capital balance in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 X3-18' Attachment 2 council j acEnba P-EpoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 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. ATTACHM_:AT 9 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 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 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.refrnements 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. t33'ao ATTACHAm.'VT PalnrNipomo 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 entrancelexit 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. I" ATTAGHME.MT 2 . 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 comer 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 33 ��y AT TACNT 2 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 436 5'/2 6 Building Height(35 ft.) * 39 ft. 41 ft. 37 ft. Hei ht 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 0. 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 pan of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the pan of the lot covered by the building and dividing by two. The building height does not include the elevator tower(s) which can extend ten (10)feet above the maximum building height. In the Office zone, the maximum building height is 2S feet;3S 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'/2 levels and the smallest amount of remaining land area(approximately 11,400 s.f.)for a future use by others. 3 3 -a3 ATTACHNEUT Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 6 PAU 39 r 17, i'• . r irC+ , t u;sor ' � € NOW- 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 � 3 -Q ATTAMME T 2 Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 7 - I. ..,I _ .i liil'.l' ,it^, 1M�� !4ll•:f.. it '�r l 11111 � I 141 _.'JI 1111 L • ' II �, tllSll" T �.' Vwr 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. g 3 a 5� ATTAC",,xx� Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Page 8 lr • ..�.. •,i«f'u C' Iwi•ilr A RIN_ �A �,ii'�li;l"I h V' I y 1 ,• � III' � .., y . �r rLt41r I II r 11x1 N ow i - '�... :.. .a .. •�.I iii•II n l tl. w77 r l' II Iji. a :illx'•i 1u::,�., rl .r t•"i,rnr.Ir i 1 M1lr I:I. IT""" ..1nrmnlnnr•rr��ruYxrrrgnr�rri��rxM�Y++44Mr 1 TTTIMni. 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/In 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 $12,261,000 $26,5749000 $30,520,800 �3 �� ATTAP CMIAt: p 9 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. Securi $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 1 $520,000 1 $5861500 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 RoutineRreventative 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 spacetobuild 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-termprivate 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 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 Teamed 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: 13 3 -a A7 1.APRrfiiT as .3:...._.. 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 X33-�q Palm-Nlpomo Parking Structure Page 12 on the timing of the next steps. Other timing alternatives are included in the Alternatives section of this report. Task Date 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. 2/09 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 specifications. 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. 6112 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 3� - 30 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 Structuresw 8. Downton Association Comments PROVIDED TO COUNCIL: 11x17 copy of Site Plan Options D3,H2,and H3 AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL READING FILE: Previous Palm Nipomo staff reports T:TW CAWAR PALM_Nipomo v2.DOC ATTACHMRNTX A PROPERTY LOCATION/OWNERSHIP MAP j Properties currently owned by Clt] AM 4� �.o o O . $3-3�- fYxlrixt_� \1 Y VA Conceptual Uses: -.Cultural Facility ILI ' .. u�I .+ .;w_ v.c}� �s. lig ! '•,.+` ✓:«w EWEN R �j1 t e y � � n �y _ � LC5.7. ..e. ' aY .\'.• Si;�.'��.:rife �E[nt A -• s1 �QI �Y i 1��•�, i.— Gtr .,�■ . 'f"Ol`h 6-"'.. 1l . � .� I :+M'� �� t�� •�„7 6..11 � J 'f'< 1.{i+,tJ�, � ' � Y• 'iJ � n� i -'. t,�"y i .,Y�, 4�i�l1�` ; u �r ' v 3� � � `.� �E{ f NO +we •a.�� ..sr _ slr_-b '... ?tor J.�n sc � n1�nE� .t";J ...ltlll � :.: -� .a►.c+n f us w"va.i� .�s�.a��r�,a..'.;�T7�� .;��.'.��.. -�'.:�a.:.,....s.._:_� � ".1. C I ATTACHMENT.ffa � 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 predated Among some of the other more notable sloping Noor garages (ramp-access mechanical systems were the Park-6-Mat in 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 �3l3y ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Porking 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 computer-controlled machines to operate the Figure 1. 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 i" environment. These devices are much more reliable than the older mechanical tr (hydraulic) parking systems. It is also much easier to incorporate redundant components, backup power and backup computers resulting in a system that is virtually 99.9% 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 nonexistent. particularly scarce in major urban areas. A selfpark, ramp-access garage requires Patrons access the automated parking facility a minimum land area of approximately by driving into a compartment the size of a 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 i53 =3 ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Parking November 7,2006 Figure 2. Entry/Ex#Compartment of the system. This is the system used at the Hoboken, loll automated parking facility. Figure 3. Horizontal Shuttles Sensors measure the vehicle to determine that it is not oversized for the system, and that the vehicle has no protruding mirrors, rocks 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 Crone 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 . ; the pallet with the vehicle on top. The Sze, transport device then moves horizontally to a vertical lift where the car is 17 transferred onto the lift and moved vertically to the storage.level. Another . horizontal transport device then removes the pallet/vehicle from the lift and =N �•:: 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 retrieved and stored simultaneously, which speeds the storage/retrieval rate Page 3 of 9 83 -3 ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Parking November 7,.2006 this single transport device. It is generally suited for smaller capacity Figure 6. Vehicle Height Study systems (leu than 150 spaces), although a second crane could be provided for larger systems.. This system is used at the 100% Summit Grand Parc Condominiums in 90% Washington, D.C. Quad Graphics in M% Milwaukee, WI also has two, ten story 60% warehouses that use automated stacker sox cranes to move pallets of magazines that ,2 4ox are stored between printing and 30% shipping. 20% 10% o% Upon returning to the parking facility 49 54 60 66 72 7e 84 lobby, the patron presents their key card Wm or ticket at the parking activation station, pays a fee and the vehicle is Also, the design can include selected floors outomatically retrieved within approximately 1 to 2 minutes. at a higher clearance to accommodate SUVs, while the remaining floors are designed for the height of the majority of the Figure S. Vehicle Retrieval automobile population (see Figure 6). c 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 `sem. "'` ' four parking spaces in a.mechanical garage Automated parking facilities can in the some 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 same 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 transport devices and number of entry/exit to two levels at a typical floor-to-floor height of 10 feet in a ramp access compartments. A maximum retrieval time of 2 minutes is a standard in the industry. garage' Manufacturers must then provide enough lifts and transport devices to meet this standard. Poge 4 of 9 ..._...._.. --- ATTACHMENT�oL 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 dear 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/departures such 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 ore 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, M 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 29 vehicles per hour. Figure 7. Hoboken,NJ Parking Fadlity If more patrons arrive to retrieve their vehicles than there are transport devices di or sufficient exit compartments available, then the time to retrieve their vehicle will be longer. Delays of up to 10 minutes + P may occur. However, if the patron had to wait for an elevator, walk to their parked vehicle, and drive to the exit, the elapsed time would not be any different than the average retrieval time for an ` Page 5 of 9 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 7story 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 for a 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 amortized over a limited number of spaces. The construction cost of on above ground, standalone, open parking structure currently 2006 averages approximately 15 000 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 106k 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 t33-3� ATTACHMENT„Z:�r' 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, romp-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, standalone, 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 electricsystems besides romp-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. I 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 83 -� ATTACHMENT Dimensions of Parking November 7,2006 References: i 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 B30.13-1996, American Society of Mechanical Engineers 4. Automated Parking: Two-Year Report Card, by Gerhard Haag & Larry Byrnes, Robotic Parking (www.roboticpark i ng.com), published in PARKING Magazine, September 2004. 5. Double Your Capacity with Technology, by Rob Bailey, SpoceSaver 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 of, published by Springer Science+ Business Media (www.springer.com), New York, NY Pogo 8 of 9 33 -Lf ATTACHMENT,4�� City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday,July 5,200%7:00 p.m. Public Comments None. -end of public comments-- ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Ewer to approve the public art piece entitled Strong Play Ethic for the Damon-Garcla Sports Fields;motion carried 5:0. S. APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS To-THF-CITY'S ENTRY AREA NEAR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY.INCLUDING AUMM!"NT OF A SECTION OF THE 608 JONES CITY TO SEA BIKEWAY. Natural Resources Mansaer Havlik provided 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 southern 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 SettleMrown 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 IKE PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE. Public Works Director Wafter Introduced this item,following which Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville commenced the report She displayed an aerlai of the site,expialned that this project was established by Council as an objective in the 2003-05 Financial Pian, and reviewed refinements to the options that Council previously directed staff to pursue. Paridna Services Mansaer Horch and Deputy Director Public Works Bochum were present to answer questions. Sam Nunes.Chong Partnere Architecture,displayed proposed site plans and discussed their hey 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 eastem edge of the structure on Monterey Street Public Comments 3 3 -�f�- ATTACHMENT 02 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 PalaWipomo-Monterey site for a parking structure and discussed recommendations contained M his memo to Council(on file in the City Clark'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 Palm-Nipomo site. He suggested that,given the limited resources,sites such as the Wells Fargo property should be pursued. Gary Fowler,Sen 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 now structure. Dave Hanninos San Luis Obispo,concurred that this area Is currently underused for parking purposes. 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. i 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 Rademeker.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(i.e.,the Latimer adobe,pedestrian access to Monterey Street and Downtown} He supported an automated structure as wall as the acquisition of 614 Monterey Street He suggested that adjacent property owners should be contacted regarding their pians for future growth and development Deborah Cash.Downtown Association Administrator,explained whythe Association supports moving forward with this structure. She discussed the success of automated garages. She said that the:Parking Committee will most this week and will need to consider the proposal,following which additional feedback wfii be provided to Council Scott Greengn representing the owner of 614 Monterey Street,expressed concern regarding Mr.Schwartes recommendation to acquire the entire site. The family is willing to consider use of the back portion of the property. ATTACHMENT .L City Council Meeting i Page 7 Tuesday,July S,2006,7:00 p.m. —end of public comments— Council dlscusslon followed during which staff responded to Council's questions. Council Member Mulholland said the Welts Fargo site would be a better location,but supported pursuing the Palm•Nlpomo structure since It Is owned by the City. She also supported pursuing a mechanical structure. She said she thinks there creeds to be a pedestrian connection to Monterey Street,that she would like to we 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 wit 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, inethodologles,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 parGg structure at Palm-Nipomo;motion fallen 2:3(Brown/Ewan/Settle opposed). Moved by§qnkftlholland to direct staff to proceed with Pabn-Nipomo parking structure site plan design Options DS and HWM(the concept submitted by Ken Schwartz)with adjustments to the layout for Option H3;motion carried 4.1(Ewan opposed). Moved by Muihotlend/Ewan to consider designs that will allow the house at 614 Monterey Street to remalm 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 tssues/pedestrlan access • more community group responses In response to staff,Council confirmed that the oak tree is not a part of the design options; ills to remain. ACTION: 1.Directed staff to pursue site plan options 03 and H2/H3(a concept submitted by Ken Schwartz)for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure,with adjustments to the layout for H3;motion canted 4:1 (Ewan opposed). 2 Approved, _ --- -ATTACHMENTCity 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 23'"with Supervlsore Lenthall and Patterson and staff members of LAFCO,APCD,the County and SLOCOG on the program called"Community 2050,"the June 281"meeting of the Whale Rock Commission,the June 23rd meeting of the Nacimlento Project Commission,and the June . 3e 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. MMMUNICATIONS None. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mawr Romero acUoumed the meeting at 10:30 pm.to Tuesday,Jury 1%2005 at 4b0 p.m.In the Council Chamber,980 Palm Street,Sven Luis Obispo. Audrey H City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7/19/2005 i AT'T'ACHMENT � RECEIVED ., RED FILE MEETING AGMDA 'JUL Q 510051. DA7s ITEM#—P,(* MEMO SLO C!Ty COUNCIL July 3,2005 To: Mayor DaveRomero Councihnembers Paul Brown,John Ewan, Christinem= Allen Settle Copies: Ken Hampian, alter,Tim Bochum,Peggy Mandmville,Robert Horch From: Ken Soh Re: Proposed par g structure for Palm and Nipomo Streets Council 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 nwat appropdate site for the next parking structure and it should be constructed at the earliest time possible. Rg ionale:la)This site conforms to the criteria established in the "Downtown Plan"for locating parking structures on the Pak Nipomo,Marsh and Santa Rosa circrtmferential 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 Us unique identify 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 6A of the staff report and identified in schemes H-1 and H:2. Rationale:(a)the space saving aspects of mechanised 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 Cormcilmembers and sta ff to their visit to the NJ.meciumized 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/Nipoma✓Monterey quadrant is too important in the long-term commercial-cultural future of SLD 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 propertyl (37ris t' nt given the long-term potential of this entire quadrant COUNCIL CDD DIR j CAO FIN DIR I ACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY PW DIR CLERIQORl3 POLICE CHF DWS REC DIA j ✓� Uftl.riIr, ! C Ha nin ATTACHMENT,'a. Page 2 of 3 4. The size and parking capacity of the garage delineated in Scheme H-2 should be accepted,but ao the site development layoud I offer a modified design labs "H-3"that I believe is more appropriate to the site.(See page 3.) Pationak: (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)1 believe that the parking structure positioned in a traditional layout with sides parallel to Palm andNipomo Streets is insensitive to moredesirable 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 fat 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 S. 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 tease that site for CR uses once again to generate more retail floor area at the Mpomo end of downtown and to enhance subs;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 di(Scult fins ial times the City finds itself in,the garage roof top should not be pet to any use that requires General Fond 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. Rationdg.Once again, the defeat of the Dalidlo MarkaWace calls for Downtown Development/redevelopment to occur vigorously uttlizing 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 servicem 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 seem through the Mission Plaza Extended area(Monterey Street)which ATTACHMENT Page 3 of 3 could have directed them—especially those who were visitors to the city—to the Art Center,the 9lstorical Museum or to the Mission and Mission Plaza much less into the downtown commercial area itsdE 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: µ►stow ygW P/>t.AN V IL RAS 0 FnTt1?ff /�DDSTt 'L3i@BTpIR r Slams Cj4{L�¢g�.1'4 • ATTACHMENT ?LA o If w 8 $ & s eo N g LL y �nl� tll FF � m 6 W ♦ I •�� 3{I Z 5 4. nie P.U � b i j b tR d Jlm 1w1, 1 {■yai n4Q i , ]• �_�'(_ T ,q of i 3:y .• b Il - u i t t r. :. 'T i IS`'OWOdIN --TAY+ •� - � 2 �--+ y_'��_ � ' �3 -�9 ATTACHMENT, 8 o L a s e aU tl LCOI'/1I h 5 .t 6! �a i i r JAI IIN � I_ I A IRJ �:� £ �r•t'h L: ''� .F' r/ I� s J � M1 Y Y fY P O QQ LS ONOdIN - v. - • r f RIC ME •ter WV IM am fivi _ p ATTACHMENT Z],2 PALMINIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE 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 1 $30,000 Chinatown New York City Condominiums 67 $40,000 Pro osed Pro ect Bellevue,WA Condominiums 32 1 estimate WRNS Studio Studio LLP/Walker Parking Consultants April 4, 2007 • ATTACHMENT r,2 San Luis Obispo 24 March 2007 Downtown Association To: Robert Horch,Parking Services Director P.O:Box 1402 San Luis Obispo Fro orah 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 Directors, the Board voted unanimously to support the Downtown Association wwwdowntowns/o.com 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 83 -�3 Page I of 2 From: Cydney Holcomb[cholcomb@charter.net] Sent., Mon 3/2/2009 11:23 AM To: Settle,Allen; Carter,Andrew; Romero, Dave; Marx,]an; 'John Ashbaugh' Cc: Horch, Robert; Walter,Jay Subject: CC MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 2009, ITEM # B3 Attachments: 1`dED FILE — MEETING AGENDA DATE3 O ITDA # B3 SU53ECT: ADHOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 2009 /� ,D rnPY /11fNL ITEM # B3 2-COUNCIL CDD DIR E5�GA0eeillm6&� CrFIN DIR aABkeAwerrbry6,.21IRE CHIEF CrATTORNEY Z`0w DIR IT-CLERK/ORIG IrPOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS Q REC DIR Com' Pi 3 p'UTIL.DIR Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, IZHR DIR N&O r7ni65 ! CeuAGL tarry rK6a. GLE/C.�c It was my pleasure to serve as the RQN representative on the Adhoc Parking Fund Review Committee. Unfortunately, I will be unable to join the rest of the group when staff makes their presentation to you at the March 3, 2009 council meeting. I support the findings and recommendations and believe that you should move forward with, at least, the initial steps required to build the"Monterey Street" parking structure. I would also like to compliment both staff and the consultants for the excellent job they did preparing the material, explaining it, answering all the questions, and providing additional information as requested by the committee. They were also very efficient, thus we had one less meeting than was scheduled! RECEIVED Respectfully submitted, MAR 0 2 2009 SLO CITY CLERK Cydney Holcomb 3 March 2009 TO: MAYOR DAVE ROMERO AND CITY COUNCIL A;J& MEMBERS San Luis Obispo FROM: DOUG SHAW,PRESIDENT Downtown NATALIE TARTAGLIA, CHAIR, PARKING AND Association ,��/ACCESS COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT ELECT PO sox 1402 PREPARED BCP` - DEBORAH CASH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR San Luis Obispo California 93406 RE: AD HOC PARKING FUND REVIEW COMMITTEE Phone 805-541-0286 RECOMMENDATION Fax 805-781-2647 www.downtownslo.com The Downtown Association Executive Committee at its meeting today, March 3, 2009, reviewed the Recommendation from the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee and issues the following response and recommendation(to be forwarded to the Board of Directors at its March 10 meeting). Tom Swem, former chair of the parking and access committee and current member,participated on the review committee and has given regular reports to the p& a committee over the past months. The mission of the Parking and Access committee is to "ensure that all users of Downtown have parking and access opportunities." To that end, goals of the committee include, in part, Continue to examine long-term options for additional parking and access. Support Council actions toward accelerating Palm/Nipomo completion. The specific recommendations of the fund review committee are based on the demonstrated financial condition of the fund and urge the Council to move forward with the architectural design and EIR process of the "Monterey Parking Structure" (recommended name change from Palm/Nipomo structure). As well, the structure is in accordance with the Downtown Design Concept Plan, the General Plan and the Downtown Association Strategic Plan, Section 3.1 which states: Advocate for additional parking.Downtown including construction of the Palm/Nipomo parking structure in the Arts District area(as a means of maintaining retail health). Moreover, axecommendation from the Downtown Association Board of Directors to Council for the City Council's Two Year Work Plan and budget,the category of Parking requested that the Council ISP 4tz I [?-COUNCIL a CDD DIR E<e*90 1 /NG2 E _FIN DIR 9CA0M3r`e-'ry N4eZ FIRE CHIEF CEf'ATTORNEY Ef PW DIR MEE l iNNG AGE,,`DA O-CLERK/ORI© 21-POLICE CHF '.9 ;` �3 11 DEPT HEADS E'REC DIR B � PATE L�P._(�------ E-UTIL D!R HR DIR i NL�ty rlh?ES — �Cc�rvc�G-� L ' "Move forward immediately with Palm Nipomo Parking Garage" and provided the following rationale: The West End quadrant of Downtown is growing. With the reopening of the Children's Museum, the anticipated renovation of the SLO Art Center, the rejuvenation of the Creamery as well as three major development projects planned for the corner of Marsh and Nipomo streets, the parking needs of this area will be evident soon than estimated. This area is optimum because the City already owns the property, strides have been made in the planning and designing of the structure and funding is available to move forward. This project-should be moved forward now to avoid the parking shortfall debacle faced prior to the Marsh Street structure expansion and completion of 919 Palm. Therefore, the Executive Committee recommends to the Board of Directors to support the recommendation of the ad hoc parking fund committee and: Move forward with advance development of the project by taking the next steps of an EM Design and preparation of plans and specifications. The Executive Committee members are confident that the Board will approve this recommendation and submits this memo in anticipation of that approval. Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity .From: Brett Cross[brettcross@hotmall.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 2:42 PM To: Council, SloCity; Horch, Robert; Cydney Holcomb; Sandra Cc: Subject: Item B-3 Monterey St. Parking Structure Attachments: Dear Mayor and Council Members: First, I would like to thank the Council and Parking Services for including a representative of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods on the Ad Hoc Parking Fund Review Committee. I'm certain you have received Cydney Holcomb's email regarding the outcome and recommendations of the committee regarding the Monterey St. Parking Structure. However, I would like to clarify that RQN's Board of Directors does not take a position on whether the Monterey St. parking structure is the preferred location of a new structure. RQN's Board did discuss the anticipated revenue streams and parking demand at this location, however it was not the scope or the task of the Committee members to decide a preferred location of any new structure. The primary question was whether given the assumptions brought forward would the parking fund be able to financially accommodate a parking structure in this location. Sincerely, Brett Cross RQN Chairman FJ,-D FILE [,%CUNCIL •,,� G'CDD DIR — MEET IPTG AGETII 1JA C: Fe-r CvM1W2 2-FIN DIR DATE I T EI i " B3 p a�fl4a-"ACRZ-NRE CHIEF PrATTCANEY Z-PW DIR CLERK/ORIG C�pbLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS SEC DIR P12ea • 1!�'UTIL DIR 7121Btt C�7y�2 CC.�i2c� hnps://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Item%20B-3%2OMonterey%20St.%2.. 3/3/2009