HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/00/1990, 1 - DOWNTOWN PARKING FACILITIES O�fl��^iI�W�IIIIIIIIIIII=�Illlulll City o f San Luis oBispo MFe . DA�E: i490
IMINN COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT ITEM NUM26
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Prepared by: Candace Havens, Special Assistant to the CAO
SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Facilities
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Review information and by motion give
direction to staff regarding policy issues and work program
outlined in this report.
INTRODUCTION
During review of the Court Street project, Council members
expressed concern about increased parking demand resulting from
this and other nearby developments and asked staff to begin the
process of site selection for future parking. City staff has
reviewed options and summarized its findings to date for Council
review. Before staff proceeds further with site analysis, Council
direction is requested regarding several policy issues and the work
program outlined in this report.
BACKGROUND
In 1986, IBI Group Consultants produced a report for the City which
indicated a deficiency of 916 parking spaces in the. Central
Business District. IBI projected this number would grow to 1031
by 1995.
In the four years since completion of the study, both parking
supply and demand have increased. Parking supply was increased
with the completion of the Palm Street Parking Structure and will
increase further with the completion of the Marsh Street Structure
this year. Decreases in parking supply have resulted from the
elimination of some public parking spaces for other uses (such as
the lot eliminated with construction of the City-County Library and
spaces removed for loading zones and traffic flow improvements) .
In addition, private development has increased floor area without
providing the actual parking spaces because many have chosen to pay
in-lieu fees. Other major future developments will further
increase the deficiency when completed.
RECEIVED
F2 ,�990
7171YC
RK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
�����►�ull�llllllllll►►► i���lU city of sa: Luis oslspo -
Hftm COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
With the completion of the parking structure and anticipated future
projects, the net result of all these changes is an increase in the
parking deficiency by 334 spaces since 1977, bringing the total
deficiency to 724 spaces--approaching the estimated 1995 figure of
1031, projected by IBI. (Exhibit 1)
POLICY QUESTIONS
In order for staff to focus its future efforts regarding the
development of additional parking in the downtown, there are four
key questions posed by staff for Council consideration. These are:
1. As a "next step", should the City pursue the development of
one structure or two? Where should staff pursue site
selection first: nearest Court Street, the Nipomo/Higuera
Street area, or both at the same time (if two structures are
to be pursued) .
2. To what extent should the local business community contribute
financially to the construction of the next parking structure?
3. Should the City use eminent domain to acquire property for
parking purposes?
4. Should staff use the site selection criteria used in the IBI
analysis for current review purposes?
These questions are discussed in detail below:
1. Desired Emphasis: Where should staff pursue site selection
first: nearest Court Street, nearest the Nipomo/Higuera Street
area or both at the same time?
In preliminary review of sites for the City's next parking
structure(s) , staff updated the data regarding parking supply and
demand in San Luis Obispo. (Exhibit 2) These maps show the
parking supply and demand throughout the downtown on a block-by-
block basis. Based on preliminary figures, it is apparent that the
area of greatest deficiency within the next few years will be the
area surrounding the Court Street/French Pavilion area. (Exhibit
3)
Despite these figures, many local merchants expect that the next
structure will be located in the Nipomo/Higuera Street area as
indicated in the city's Parking Management Plan, adopted by the
City Council in October 1987. It states: "First consideration for
a third site will be given to properties in the Downtown Core
Expansion area south of Nipomo Street" . Since two parking
►�����i�Illll�lll��'�°°1111111 city of San ILI OBISpo
niis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
structures have been financed by the City to serve the northerly
end of town, merchants at the south end have expressed a desire to
have parking in this area next. With development of new facilities
in this area, such as the Little Theatre, there has been and will
continue to be a significant increase in demand for parking there.
In considering resolution of this issue, staff discussed the
following options:
1. Determine which structure should be built next based on
actual demand and construct it as funds are available.
2. Build two structures concurrently, thus addressing the
parking demand and public expectations for both areas. The
viability of this option relies largely on financing (see
below) .
3 . Purchase land in the Nipomo/Higuera Street area to utilize
for surface parking while a structure is built in the Court
Street vicinity. When funds are available and/or when parking
demand increases, build a structure on a Nipomo Street surface
lot.
4. Purchase land in the Court Street area to . utilize for
surface parking while a structure is built in the
Nipomo/Higuera Street area. When funds are available and/or
when parking demand increases, build a structure on a Court
Street vicinity surface lot.
5. Pursue studies and land acquisition at both areas, thus
giving a fallback if one of the sites later presents
unsurmountable problems.
Availability of funding may determine the option selected (see
Financing section below) .
staff Recommendation: Explore options to generate enough money to
purchase land in the Nipomo/Higuera Street area and in the Court
Street area and for immediate construction of a structure in the
Court Street area. utilize land near Nipomo Street for surface
parking until feasible to build a structure there.
Z. Financing: To what extent should the local business community
contribute financially to the construction of the next parking
structure(s)?
Up to this point, the parking program has been primarily supported
by the parking system users (customers and employees) and by
contributions from the City and County and not by contributions
I �' 3
���H�►�►ipulillllllll�p1"°�9��IU city Of Sard tins OBS SPO
=MOGA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
from property owners and merchants or tenants. Yet, due to
increasing costs and limits on public sector resources, private
active financial participation may be essential for constructing
new facilities.
Based on current information, a 300-space structure would cost
roughly $6 million, including site acquisition costs. If new bonds
are issued for such a structure, an annual debt service of $600,000
would be incurred.
Revenues to repay bonds could come from sources which the City has
relied upon in the past including in-lieu fees, meter revenues and
parking fines. Due to the extent of revenue needed, rates would
need to be substantially increased. Other sources could be added
such as an assessment district or a business license surcharge.
An additional $1.2 million (Exhibit 4) annually would be required
to address the current parking revenue shortfall of $378, 000, buy
land for two structures, and build one. An example of a financing
scheme to do this could include all of the following changes:
* Increase meter rates from 30 to 45 cents per hour,
* Increase parking fines from $5 to $10,
* Add a business tax surcharge of 100% in the BIA area,
* Create an assessment district which charges 25 cents per
month per square foot of building floor space.
Raising parking in-lieu fees for new development in the downtown
would also be another possibility.
It should be noted that there is a limit to how much rates can be
increased. Beyond a certain point, they will become a deterrent
to shoppers; if rates are unreasonable or unaffordable, some people
will not shop downtown or will park in unmetered spaces in
residential areas nearby, thus impacting those areas.
Productivity increases also can improve the revenue stream. For
example, with 30-minute and one-hour maximum time limits in the
downtown core in conjunction with more efficient monitoring of
abuses and issuing of tickets, revenues could be increased. This
would also have the benefit of improving turnover and discouraging
the many merchants and their employees from using the prime
curbside spaces. (Studies at the Georgia Institute of Technology
indicate that one-hour limits and less encourage turnover
significantly better than 1-1/2 and two-hour limits. )
Overall, staff believes that private sector funding is essential
to successful funding of future parking structures.
1- 41
���n����►ilullillllll� llplil city of San Lu.., OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Recommendation: Require private sector financing of future
structures. Direct staff to work with BIA Parking Committee,
Chamber Retail Committee and City Parking Management Committee to
develop specific proposal. Direct staff to include options for
Council review in financing plan for structures recommended and to
pursue parking space productivity increases immediately.
3. Eminent Domain: should the City use eminent domain to acquire
property for parking purposes?
In the past, most of the sites which have been considered for
parking were either already city-owned properties or were purchased
from willing sellers. Condemnation proceedings have never been
fully exercised for acquisition of land for parking. As downtown
land becomes more scarce, it may be necessary to use this option.
PROS: The use of eminent domain allows for greater
flexibility in the selection of sites for future parking.
Potential sites can be considered on the basis of their
ability to best address the long-term parking needs of the
community and to have an efficient layout. The IRS allows
owners of condemned land a longer period in which to reinvest
money paid and, for some, this is a worthwhile benefit.
Without the use of eminent domain, development of land for
parking will be subject to availability and choices may be
limited to lesser locations and to sub-optimum configurations.
CONS: For an unwilling seller, eminent domain is disruptive.
It can undermine positive relations between the City and the
public. It would be the City's responsibility to relocate
existing businesses from condemned property and the costs
could be considerable, depending on the nature of a given
business. Business relocations also can cause time delays.
Staff Recommendation: Avoid the use of eminent domain where
possible, but be prepared to use it if a superior site can only be
reasonably acquired through eminent domain.
4. Criteria for Site Evaluation: Should staff use the site
selection criteria used in the IBI analysis for current review
purposes?
When the IBI Study was. prepared, the firm used several criteria to
evaluate where structures would most appropriately be located
downtown. This allowed for a fairly objective analysis and useful
tool for distilling a great deal of information into a matrix
format. Staff could perform the same type of analysis on sites to
be considered and provide the Council with a list of sites and
their rankings.
���h�mu���110111�p►°1°�►���III MY Of sao i tuts OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
In the previous analysis, each site was given points based on the
extent to which the following were addressed:
Location: Evaluated how well sites met identified parking
needs.
Financial Feasibility: Estimated cost and revenues associated
with the alternative and the city's ability to fund.
Parking Efficiency: Measured the ability of a site to
accommodate parking and related uses, i.e. , the ease of
designing an efficient parking facility given the site size
and shape.
Physical Feasibility: Rated the ease/difficulty of
construction (i.e. , access, future expansion potential) .
User Visibility: Considered how easily the structure would
be seen by the primary users.
Pedestrian Access: Determined how easy it is for pedestrians
to use the facility.
Traffic Impact: Measured ease with which auto traffic enters
or leaves the facility and effects on general circulation.
Aesthetic Impact: Evaluated the alternative's effect on views
and aesthetic compatibility with downtown.
Ease of Implementation: Established how difficult it will be
to acquire the site.
Staff Recommendation: Confirm that the criteria used for
evaluation of previous parking structure sites are still
appropriate for current analysis and direct staff to evaluate the
sites listed on the attached "Index of Potential Parking Structure
Sites" along with any other sites Council wishes considered.
WORK PROGRAM (Exhibit 5)
once the analysis is complete, staff requests Council approval to
continue" with the work program outlined below:
1. Preliminary Site Selection. Staff will select the two or
three top-ranked sites in the geographical area identified
by Council. Sites will be scheduled for review by the City
staff, Planning Commission, City Parking Management Committee,
BIA and Chamber Committees.
�J
���n�►�NiIiII�IIIIII�hNu'q�UDI MY Of San tu,i OBISPO
1NMOG@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
2 . Final Selection. After preliminary discussions with
owners of the sites, and preparation of financing information
pertaining to the preferred sites, staff will return to
Council for final site selection. Then a consultant will be
hired to prepare schematic design plans and environmental
study.
3 . Development Review. After Council determination of the
best site(s) , the development review process will begin and
will include routing of plans to City departments and other
appropriate public agencies for comments, review of a use
permit and environmental determination by the Planning
Commission, and architectural review. The Council will be
presented with schematic plans prior to final approval by City
commissions.
4. Implementation. Once final approvals are granted,
construction drawings will be prepared. The Council will
approve working drawings and authorize bidding. Whether at
Nipomo Street/Higuera or Court Street vicinity, it is
estimated that construction of a new structure could be
completed by mid-1993 if the proposed work program is
initiated now and no unusual problems surface (see detailed
work program attached) .
Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to proceed with proposed
work program.
CONCURRENCES
These issues have been discussed and have the concurrence of the
Departments of Public Works, Community Development, City Attorney
and Administration.
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT 'FARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
If no action is taken, staff will lack direction it feels important
in providing the Council a meaningful analysis of the parking
options. This could delay the process of site selection and
obtaining additional downtown parking facilities.
���h�i�►Illull1111111�1iii��iulll��`I city of sa, Luis OBISPO
ARM98 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Review policy issues and work program and give direction to staff
on each of the questions posed in the text of the report. Staff
will proceed with site analysis and return to the Council for final
site selection after input is received from City staff, Planning
Commission, City Parking Management Committee, BIA and Chamber of
Commerce.
cc: Planning Commission
City Parking Management Committee
BIA
Chamber of Commerce
Attachments: Summary Report on Parking Deficiency
Maps showing Parking Supply and Demand
Map showing Existing Parking Space Deficiency
Summary of Current & Future Parking System Revenue
Preliminary Work Program
Winis11 trativOfficer
e n
Publ c orks DLJ*Mpctor
AM
Comm ity eve o nt Director
Finance Director
e/parking
EXHIB.' 1
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-ENGINEERING DIVISION
CITY ENGINEER-WAYNE PETERSON
Date February 6, 1990
To David F Romero, Public Works Dir tor-
From Wayne Peterson, City Engine
Subject. SUMMARY REPORT ON PARKING DEFICIENCY
The attached memorandum to you dated January 25th 1990
details the work I have done to study and evaluate the changing
demand for parking in the Central Business District of San Luis
Obispo.
. Parking 1977 1990
Supply: Metered on street 797 1024
Municipal off street 636 1016
Total Spaces 4255 5914
Demand: Commercial 3361 5323
Deficiency: 390*
Without Court St./French Pavilion 250*
-- With Court St./French Pavilion 724*
The deficiency without the impact- on parking resulting from
the Court St./French Pavilion projects is centered at the
intersection of Chorro and Higuera Streets just as it was in
1977. When parking generated by the Court Street and French
.Pavilion projects is added the center of deficiency moves a block
east to the intersection of Morro and Higuera Streets. The Court
House deficiency is changed from 170 in 1977 to 128 in 1990. The
reduction is a result of the Palm Street parking structure.
* While the overal balance of parking supply exceeds the
parking demand there is a parking deficiency. The deficiency is
a result of the supply not being convient to the demand and so
spread out that the vacant spaces are not easily found.
i
EXHIBIT 2-A CD
co
NN
7d3dc 34
� $
� o a
0
oOL -
i
a
0
a
h
0
a
w
I
o
ca
U
oo o
o
o a `,;
P4
� 9 p
A o a 0ov,
o =a m
U O.o z°s°. oq F1
14 cv 46 _
L_J l_J L.,.IBIT 2-B
De
07 X
D e
f
O
O
w
0
e
0
n
S
^O^
A
CQ o
}W 0 Q
4-4
i--I
0
0
e a
y(� e
�a8v hR
0
m
w� o
U °o
, I r
n _ •
•
{
•
•
�� I is �, , � •
Y_
ION I
I � Iii {. C•��" .
ppppp� "i ••_ . • •
960000E
•
EXI'7'BIT 4
-------------..-..
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
.--.---_..-.._.--..-.----...............................................----..-.
CURRENT NEW REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues $240,000
Service Charges
Parking Meter Revenues 640,000
Garage Operat.ing Revenues 147,000
Parking In-lieu Fees, 135,000
Parking Fines 125,000
Other Revenues 15,000
----------------
Total Revenues 1„302,000
Expenditures
Operations and Maintenance 701,900
Ongoing Capital Maintenance 50,000
Debi Service 928,100
----------------
Total Expenditures 1,680,000
----------------
Total Current New Revenue Requirements 378,000
FUTURE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Capital Costs
Two (2) Structures and-Land 12,000,000
Less Parking In-Lieu Fees From Major Projects (2,100,000)
Less Land Acquisition Costs Currently Funded (1,000,000)
Total Capital Cost Requirements 8,900,000
----------------
Net Operating Cost Requirements
Debt Service on Capital Costs.Above 890,000
New Garage Operating and Maintenance Costs 200,000
New Garage Operating Revenues (250,000)
----------------
Total Future Revenue Requirements 840,000
TOTAL CURRENT AND FUTURE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS $1,218,000
/-/3
�HIBIT 5—A
PRELIMINARY WORKPROGRAM - DOWNTOWN PARKING FACILITIES
Objective: Design and build additional downtown parking facilities by 1994.
(dates in parentheses are estimated completion dates).
1. Prepare Detailed Workprogram. (March 1990) Based on council direction, staff
will prepare a detailed workprogram to guide the development process, includingd
A. Design objectives, issues, opportunities
B. Itemize key tasks: planning, design, funding, property acquisition,
construction, operation.
C. Prepare workschedule and assign staff..
D. Planning Commission (PC)-and Council (CC) approval of workprogram.
2. Site Selection/Funding Strategy. (April 1990) Staff will select the two or
three top-ranked sites in the geographical area(s) identified by the Council.
Those sites will then be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission, City
Parking Management Committee, BIA and Chamer Committees.
A. Update IBI study of alternate sites: opportunities/constraints.
B. Preliminary evaluation of funding strategies.
C. Coordinate with downtown: groups and property owners.
D. Identify preferred site and funding strategy for PC and CC approval.
3. Preliminary Planning and Design. (July 1990) After the Council selects the
best site(s), staff will contract for design services, begin property acquisition,
and start the development review process.
A. Let contract for consultant design services.
B. Get property appraisal•and meet with interested property owners.
C. Begin property negotiations or condemnation proceedings.
D. Conduct General Plan consistency hearing and conclude property acquisition.
4. Development Review. (November 1990)
A. Schematic architectural plans submitted; route for staff comments/revisions.
B. Begin environmental review; route for staff comments/changes.
C. Preliminary Design review - ARC, PC, CHC, and BIA Beautification Committee.
5. Final City Approvals. (May 1991) Once plans have received preliminary comments
by community groups, city staff and advisory bodies, they would be scheduled for
Council review before final action by the advisory bodies.
A. Development approvals: environmental determination, Planning Commission
permit, Cultural Heritage Committee review, architectural review, and lot
combination.
6. Final Project Design and Building Plancheck. (June 1992)
7. Complete Construction and Opening. (December 1993)
Jh/7:parking '�
EXHIBIT 5—B
z PKNG. STRUCT.
C PALM_ � N0. I
o o
DANA ST. MEY
F.. o ST. MONTEREY � /5
H �
HIGUERA. c /3 0 I
Ll
/4
OIARSN T� SH �
rn
ST.
F r -+ F7 n No. 2 STRUCT.IF
it I N0. 2
1) First Bank Structure - Marsh To Higuera Between Osos & Morro
2) Palm / Nipomo Structure - Palm To Monterey Adjacent To Nipomo
3) Creamery Structure - Higuera St. Near Nipomo St.
4) Farmers Hardware Structure - Marsh To Higuera Near Nipomo St.
5) Wells Fargo Bank Structure - Marsh To Pacific Adjacent To Nipomo St.
�) Cuesta Title Structure - Marsh To Pacific Adjacent To Garden St.
/) Commerce Bank Structure - Marsh To Higuera Near Beach St.
8) Beauty College Structure - Broad& Marsh St.
9) Rexall Structure - Broad& Marsh St.
10) Post Office Structure - Morro & Marsh St. (2 Alt.)
11) Firestone Structure - Higuera & Osos St.
12)Arco Structure - Marsh & Osos St.'
13) Ski Shell Structure.- Monterey& Higuera Adjacent To Santa Rosa
14) Old French Hospital/B of A Structure - Higuera To Marsh East Of Santa Rosa
15) North Side Monterey St. Structure - Monterey& Santa Rosa St.
16) Copelands Structure - Palm & Morro St.
17) Engineering Structure - Morro & Palm St.
18) Mission Trailer Park - Higuera St.
® EXISTINGIM-STRUCTURE POTENTIAL
STRUCTURE
E07�, lity of
i SanS LWmlswffiuis OBispo ttxOF .
PARKING STRUCTURE SITES
ialm Street/Post Office Box 321,San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
CTAIIIINT N1558 /_/�