HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 01 - Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
Meeting Date: 1/19/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure:
1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project;
and
2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained; and
3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations
for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply;
and
4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the
Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses
(including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more
effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and
5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of
Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and
return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final
negotiations of the MOA.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update of analysis that staff has conducted
concerning the demand for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Staff is seeking direction on
several aspects of this project prior to moving into the environmental review and final design
stage.
In addition, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding entering into formal discussions
with the SLO Little Theater for a long term lease and new Memorandum of Agreement for use of
remnant area of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure site.
1
Packet Pg. 8
DISCUSSION
Historical Summary of Structured Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo
The availability of parking and access in Downtown is critical to the economic and cultural
viability of the City of San Luis Obispo. Parking availability is critically important to the many
stakeholders and visitors that come to the area. As a result, it has long been a City focus to pace
production of our parking supply with existing and near term future demand. City parking
structure construction has shown a pattern whereby construction occurs in association with
existing and projected demand for parking. Historically, parking structures have a fairly long
time period between project start up (land acquisition, design and environmental) and completed
construction. The following summarizes when the City’s existing parking structures were
completed:
1. 842 Palm (also known as Palm 1) 1988
2. Marsh Street Garage 1990
3. Marsh Street Garage Expansion 2002
4. 919 Palm 2006
Consistent with the City’s historic approach to provide parking in the Downtown core, the City
Council discussed the need and timing for its next structure beginning with the 2003-05
Financial Plan. As part of the more recent 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council directed staff to
return with a review of the City’s structured parking needs.
The Potential Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
The City has been moving forward with the pre-development of a fourth parking structure at
Parking Lot 14 which is bounded by Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Street. Attachment E to this
report includes a summary of previous Council actions on the project and additional background
history. The project is referred to as the “Palm Nipomo” parking structure. Following the
economic downturn in 2007, this project was put on hold until the economy improved. Over the
past few years, the economy has improved immensely and is projected to continue to expand.
Several major projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace have broken ground after many
years of delay and will be generating new parking demand.
The Palm Nipomo project represents a significant investment in parking supply for the City. The
proposed project would include between 400 and 445 spaces at a construction cost estimate of
$23,600,000. The spaces represent a net “new” parking supply of 323 to 368 spaces. The ‘net’ is
a result of the displacement of 77 existing spaces at the lot at the location where the structure will
be built. A final parking space count will depend upon the final design and building height.
Previously approved funding commitments for the project include $1.65 million for project
design and environmental review.
The most recent Council action taken on the project was on January 3, 2012 when Council
authorized moving forward with its environmental review and proceeding with final stages of
1
Packet Pg. 9
design. At that time it was believed the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects would
occur the following year. As those projects were delayed, so too was beginning of the
environmental and final design for Palm Nipomo.
In 2014 the City completed an Organization Study of the Parking Services Division which was
conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). As part of that work the consultant
reviewed future parking supply/demand issues for the City to help determine potential operation
and fiscal issues. Walker conducted a very high level review of the parking demand for Palm
Nipomo. It was their determination that while the project could be built, occupancy of the project
might be low (less than 60%). Consequently, Walker noted the City should carefully evaluate the
timing, costs, project size, and alternatives to meeting parking demands prior to commencing
with the project. During hearings on the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, staff informed Council that
these issues would be explored in more depth and staff would return to Council for a direction on
the next steps for the project.
A related aspect of the project was that the Council had previously entered into an agreement
with the SLO Little Theater (SLOLT) and had set aside a portion of the project site for the
relocation of the Little Theatre on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street. That agreement is
no longer valid because performance deadlines have passed and the site area for the Little
Theater has changed at the Palm Nipomo location. Therefore if a new Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) is to be negotiated, staff needs to return to Council at a later date.
Additional Parking Demand Data
Walker Parking Consultants was hired to analyze parking demand and update its work from the
2014 Organizational study with greater accuracy for potential development that could use the
Palm Nipomo project. Beginning in summer 2015, staff, in coordination with Walker, conducted
parking occupancy counts of lots, streets, and the parking structures to determine capacity of the
existing parking inventory. The geographical study (see Attachment A) area is larger than that
analyzed in the Organization Assessment, covered more days (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday:
three times each day), longer duration during the day (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and included peak
factors such as a holiday weekend (Labor Day), dates when Cal Poly was in, and not in session,
and special events in Mission Plaza.
These counts were combined to get an average occupancy count by time of day for each
weekday observed. This information was then forwarded to the consultant for use in tabulating a
baseline for demand calculations for the project. As shown in the table below Walker found that
the normal peak occupancy time observed was Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 67% of
available public parking was utilized.
1
Packet Pg. 10
Thursday (Average) 12:00-2:00 p.m.
Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus
(+)/Deficit(1)
2582 parking Spaces 1,730 Vehicles 67% 645 spaces
This means that for most times studied, over one-third of the public parking supply was
available. We anticipate that this capacity can be used to absorb displaced parking associated
with the closures of Lots 2 (Garden St. Terraces), 3 & 11 (Chinatown) as they occur.
(Attachment B shows parking lot numbering and location of lots).
Peak times for special events (such as Farmer’s Market) were also recorded however these peak
times are not used for project “sizing” or design demand analysis since the result wou ld be we
over build infrastructure (at a tremendous additional cost) for most other times when more
normal demand occurs.
In preparing the projections for Palm Nipomo, Walker considered three factors:
1. The likelihood that Palm Nipomo, when considering its proximity to new
development, would attract parking demand from approved and anticipated
developments in the future;
2. The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand and future development;
3. The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the
parking structure and the closure of public lots.
1
Packet Pg. 11
1
Packet Pg. 12
Table 1 – Palm Nipomo Structure Demand Forecast (Walker, 2015)
These three factors were then used to screen forecast demand scenarios at the Palm Nipomo
location for the following three time frames:
1. Initial Phase: Displaced Vehicles due to relocation of existing demand for lot closures
(Primarily loss of Lot 2 as a result of Garden Street Terraces)
2. Phase 1 - consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term (3-5
years).
3. Phase 2 - consists of projected parking demand projections based upon assumptions
provided by the City for future developments (longer term build-out) and closure of
other public lots.
The consultant forecasted that existing and potential demand for the Phase 1 scenario would be
as high as 204 vehicles. This consists of 130 vehicles generated by new development and 74
generated by existing demand and displaced vehicles. This amount represents a need for less
than half the capacity of the proposed structure of 400-445 spaces. Of the 130 spaces forecast by
new development, two projects, Monterey Place (65 spaces required) and SLO Museum of Art
(39 spaces required), contribute 80%. These projects have discretionary approvals, but neither of
48 48 48
26 52
130
264397
241
81
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2
Demand for Palm-Nipomo by Phase
Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles
Projected Demand Vacant Spaces
them has yet to proceed to the construction phase and obtain building permits therefore they are a
minimum of three years out for completion and likely more.
Longer term, which accounts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the forecast shows the
demand increases to approximately 364 vehicles. Using the lower end objective of 400 parking
spaces for Palm Nipomo project, this results in an 87% occupancy factor for the project. This
forecast is significantly higher than the previous calculations shown in the 2014 Parking
Organizational Assessment which showed occupancy as low as 60%.
This indicates that long term, daily need for the structure in this area of the Downtown may
utilize much of the available capacity. However, the timing of private development will play an
important role in how soon that need occurs. Many of these projects will be far in the future and
it may be many years before they get underway. Some of these potential sites include
redevelopment of the Reis Mortuary location, closure and redevelopment of Lot 10, the SLO
Little Theater project and major remodel of the Creamery.
The primary conclusions of Walker assessment were as follows:
1. Palm-Nipomo’s planned capacity of 400-445 spaces would have more spaces than
necessary to accommodate projected demand of near term development (next 5 years).
2. Suggest caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance
and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on
development that has not yet been approved.
3. However, when that development occurs the structure represents an opportunity to
provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly (since it centralizes space
needs devoted to vehicles) and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that
each provide their own parking.
4. Due to the delay in demand for the structure, when it is built a combination of on-street
pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary to attract the parking demand
generated by longer term developments to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure.
5. If the City is willing to make a significant investment (or partner with developers) to
provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an
opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared public parking. However
it is critical to note that any exclusive private use of the parking structure will likely mean
that any financing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase
financing costs.
Stakeholder Input
In order to assist staff with the review of the Walker analysis, a group of stakeholders was
created to discuss issues of the project location, timing and design. The stakeholder group
consisted of representatives from the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, The Little
1
Packet Pg. 13
Theatre, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA), Copeland Properties. Two meetings
(September 22, and December 8, 2015) seeking their input to help the city identify relevant
issues/concerns regarding this project.
At the first meeting the group reviewed Walker study’ assumptions and provided feedback into
topics such as the phasing assumptions and projects that should be included in each group. They
also clarified timing of projects for the Little Theater and SLOMA. As a result of this feedback
additional data collection was completed. The theory is that it would be helpful to have diversity
in the days of the week and the time of year that the data was collected.
The second meeting reviewed the draft conclusions of the Walker report. The consensus of the
group was that the information going into the report was good and that the conclusions appeared
appropriate based upon that information. Overall, most expressed desire for the Palm Nipomo
project to move forward but recognized the project demand was not showing an immediate need
for the structure. The issue of emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking
dynamics were discussed with the suggestions that the City continue to consider these issues as
decisions are made on parking supply and programs. As a result, under any scenario city staff
will continually monitor and analyze any social trend that impacts parking supply, including
Autonomous Vehicles (aka “self-driving cars”) and implementation of City mode split objectives
and alternative transportation choices discussed in the General Plan.
Other Issues - Little Theatre MOA
At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council conceptually approved the relocation of
the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) to a portion of parking lot 14 at 630 Monterey
Street, located at the Palm Nipomo parking structure site. With direction from Council, the City
entered into an agreement with the SLOLT, which has since expired. The Little Theater
continues to be committed to relocating from its existing location (at the old Library site next to
City Hall) and has been in discussion with staff regarding develo pment of a new MOA.
Attachment D to this report is the June 6th, 2000 agenda report and MOA as approved by
Council.
Staff is seeking Council direction on whether or not to pursue a new MOA with the Little
Theater regarding a long term use of the remainder area of the properties and relocation from
their existing use at the City owned, old library site. Major elements of a potential new MOA
with SLOLT are:
1. Term of Lease
2. Annual Cost of Lease
3. Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre
4. City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan Amendment
5. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction and maintenance of front improvements
6. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction, operation and maintenance of the
Theater
7. Little Theatre’s responsibilities as it relates to a Fund raising plan and fundraising key
milestones
1
Packet Pg. 14
Figure 1– Conceptual Site Plan SLO Little Theater
If Council directs staff to move forward with formal negotiations with SLOLT staff will return to
Council with recommendations for consideration. Other than general direction whether to
proceed with negotiations, no specific Council direction is being requested at this time on the
seven items noted above.
Public-Private-Partnership (P3)
As part of prior project reviews the Council requested that the project include some area to
incorporate other uses besides SLOLT and the parking structure. Because the design of the
parking structure is fairly constrained in order to deliver the objective of a minimum of 400
spaces, the 2011 preferred site plan was only able to accomplish this via narrowing the street
section along Nipomo Street and incorporating a narrow building area between the structure and
the street.
1
Packet Pg. 15
Figure 2 – 2011 Preferred Site Plan
Attachment C shows the 2011 preferred design for Palm Nipomo as well as the conceptual
rendering of the SLO Little Theater location. The concept of this alternative was to provide a
small footprint that a third party could utilize as part of a private development project for office
space or other use. Incorporating these types of uses into the structure has historically added
significant costs to the project and so having the area “independent” of the structure is critical to
keeping project costs low. Additional area for potential private use could be created by
increasing the depth of this area. That will, however, come at a cost of reduced parking supply
and a less efficient structure.
There have been some recent discussions of whether exploring a larger public -private-
partnership (P3) for the project might yield a better financial scenario for the City and help offset
the parking structure construction costs and provide opportunities for housing that is a Major
City Goal.
The City has reached out to Kosmont Companies, a firm specializing in financial issues
associated with P3 projects, to do a review on this issue and determine if there is any significant
benefit to revising the project with a larger P3 component. While it is doubtful that a larger
footprint for private use would offset the parking space reduction and related design and
operational challenges, an additional review on this issue is prudent to make sure staff has not
overlooked any opportunities to maximize use of the property and/or whether there are any
opportunity to provide new housing. This study is underway and will be completed by February.
If substantial new information is discovered by this study staff will return to Council with that
information prior to issuance of the final RFP for environmental services.
1
Packet Pg. 16
Next Steps
Assuming no significant change by Council as part of this discussion item the next stage of the
project is issuing the RFP for final design and environment review. The following is a tentative
schedule of next steps and an estimate of work time to complete each task.
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
Task Work Time
1) Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services and project
design. Complete Kosmont study of P3 issues
5 months.
2) Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016
3) Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016
4) Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016
5) Complete work and present for Advisory body and Council
review
Fall 2016 – Summer
2017
It is intended that sufficient work be done on the project to coincide with developing the 2017-19
Financial Plan and that any major changes necessary to the project budget be included as part of
the FY 2017-18 Parking Fund review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2015-17 Financial Plan includes cost estimates for the project based upon delivery of a 400 -
445 space facility. The Financial Plan includes a construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 in
FY 2017-18 with $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund, and $17,600,000 in
proceeds from debt financing proceeds. Prior Financial Plan funding has been committed for
environmental review and final project design with a current unspent balance of approximately
$1,266,000.
Financing of the Project
In order to construct the project the City will need to use a mixture of available capital as well as
borrowing to cover the costs of construction. Final construction cost will be dependent upon
changes in design for the project including footprint modifications, mitigation measures
necessary for construction, final parking space yield and aesthetic design.
Since adoption of the Financial Plan staff has worked with the City’s financial consultant, Public
Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to review issues associated with the borrowing of debt for the
project. It appears that a General Fund Lease Revenue bond will be the most appropriate
borrowing method for the project. Attachment F includes a memorandum from PFM outlining
the significance of various debt strategies including General Fund Lease revenue bonds
compared to Parking Revenue bonds.
1
Packet Pg. 17
PFM provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a
lease revenue bond based upon a project borrowing cost of $17,600,000 and a 30-year term for
the bonds. PFM estimates annual costs at current rates would be approximately $1.3, an amount
lower than the $1.45 Million estimated in the FY 2015-17 FP. This amount could change if rates
increase prior to full financing of the debt so keeping the $1.45 Million estimate is prudent at this
time. With the General Fund being used as a pledge on the lease revenue bond, there would be
no annual debt service coverage covenant as there would with parking revenue bonds (debt
service coverage requires a minimum ratio of parking revenue to debt service payments – PFM
identifies that this could be as high as 2.0 times net revenue for the City if Parking Revenue
bonds are used).
Final decision on the financing plan (including but not limited to the use of General Fund assets
to secure the Parking Structure) does not have to be made now. However, if the Council has any
concerns regarding the concept of using General Funds Lease revenue bonds for the project it
would be helpful to have those expressed so additional research can be conducted and brought
back to the council at a future date.
Upcoming Mid-Year Fund Review
The Parking Fund continues to be healthy. Staff is completing Mid Year Budget discussion
scheduled for February including consideration of FY 2014-15 year end results. As part of that
item updates to the fund will be detailed.
On a positive note, delays in the closures of Lot 2, 3 and 11 along with deferral of the Palm
Nipomo project helped the fund end higher than anticipated with approximately $8,400,000 in
working capital at year end.
Payment of mitigation fees and parking in-lieu fees by the Garden Street and Chinatown Phase 2
projects will be received this fiscal year and those funds will assist in creating the working
capital needed to help fund the project.
On the downside, it was discovered that the mitigation fees associated with Phase I development
of the Chinatown project were double programmed in the budget for this fiscal year. These funds
were actually received as part of escrow closing in FY 2013-14. These funds were deposited in
the Parking Fund in that year.
While the amount is large ($972,000) the Parking Fund has significant year-end working capital
forecast for future years, even with the construction of the Palm Nipomo project. The full effect
of these adjustments will be shown in the Mid-Year update for Council review.
The Parking Fund appears capable of funding the project if terms of the debt financing stay
consistent with current estimates and the rate changes and other revenue enhancements that have
been used as background assumptions for the forecast are implemented when needed.
Finally, prior Council direction relative to adding Sunday parking fees and implementing
periodic overall parking rate increases were done in part assuming low initial parking utilization
1
Packet Pg. 18
in the Palm-Nipomo structure. Therefore, staff recommends the city continue those programs and
others previously identified to assure ongoing Parking Fund stability.
While doable, other revenue enhancement strategies such as charging for parking past 6 p.m. or
expanding residential districts around Downtown to drive demand into existing structures
continues to be controversial without full support of potentially effected stakeholders. These
options, as well as others can be brought forward if fund forecasts show that future revenues do
not cover the costs for Palm Nipomo or Parking fund needs.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 – Delay moving forward with the project. The Council could delay moving
forward with the next stage of project development if significant concerns associated with cost,
timing, financing or other issues of the project. Staff does not recommend this option since
moving forward with the environmental review and design at this time does not commit the City
to construct the project. Instead, additional information resulting from the next phase of project
development should assist the City in making future and final decisions regarding the project and
its timing and costs.
Alternative 2 - Revise the Palm Nipomo Project design. The Council can direct staff to revise
the project or add alternatives for consideration in the EIR for the project. This alternative is not
recommended since this site plan has previously authorized for further design by the City
Council.
Alternative 3 – Put the project on hold and pursue other parking and access strategies. The
Council can direct explore other ways of meeting the parking and access needs. This could
include limiting new parking supply to purchasing new property for surface only parking lots,
developing more aggressive pricing policies for employee parking and expanding transit
subsidies or looking at other structure locations. Similar to response to Alternative 1 above, staff
recommends moving forward with the environmental and design completion at this time even if
Council directs staff to pursue a major shift how to increase our parking supply. Final project
costs for Palm Nipomo and area impacts will only be know when the full environmental and
designs are known for the project. If the Council chooses to increase the emphasis on other
strategies, they can be pursued in a parallel path to Palm Nipomo development with a final
decision to construct the project by Council when the EIR is brought forward. It is likely that
some of these strategies may be identified as part of the EIR process to help mitigate the project.
Attachments:
a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015)
b - Downtown Parking Lot Map
c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design
d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00
e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary
f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15
1
Packet Pg. 19
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) is considering construction of a parking structure on the south
eastern corner of Nipomo Street and Palm Street (the “structure”). The multi-level 445-space planned
structure would replace the existing Parking Lot 14, which has an inventory of 77 parking spaces.
In December 2014, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) completed an organizational assessment
for the City’s Parking Services Division. The assessment, the focus of which was a staffing analysis for
Parking Services, included a preliminary projection of the demand for the parking spaces in the
proposed garage. In preparing the projections, Walker considered three factors:
The projected capture of parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in
the future; 1
The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand;
The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking
structure and the approved developments.
Based upon these three factors, in the 2014 Walker projected that on a typically busy weekday, the
Palm/Nipomo structure would have a surplus of 263± parking spaces, more than half the planned
supply of the parking structure.
Now, the City has engaged Walker to project the parking demand that might be generated in the
Palm/Nipomo structure based on a two-phase build out scenario. Phase I consists of approved
projects that will be built out in the near term. Phase II centers around potential parking demand
projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments. In formulating its
projections, Walker considered the same three factors that were used for the 2014 projections.
After presenting a summary of Walker’s findings and recommendations based upon the findings, this
memorandum discusses the assumptions and methodology used to project the parking demand of
the two-phase build out scenario.
1 For the 2014 study those developments were Monterey Place, San Luis Square, and Marsh Commons.
DATE: January 5, 2015
TO: Peggy Mandeville, Tim Bochum, Alex Fuchs
COMPANY: Parking Services, City of San Luis Obispo
ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE: San Luis Obispo, CA
CC:
HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No
FROM: Steffen Turoff, Derek Adams
PROJECT NAME: Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Demand Study
PROJECT NUMBER: 33-1871.00
SUBJECT: Projected Parking Demand for Palm/Nipomo Structure
606 South Olive Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Office: 213.488.4911
Fax: 213.488.4983
www.walkerparking.com
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR CURRENT ANALYSIS
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445-
space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and
occupancy of Phase I. Table 1, below, summarizes the Phase I demand projections.
Table 1: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase I
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects a demand
for 364± parking spaces for the design day peak. Assuming an effective supply of 0.92 (409 spaces for
a 445-space parking facility) we project a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out
and occupancy of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2, below, summarizes the demand and surplus
projections at the completion of Phase II .
Table 2: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase II
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
409 parking spaces 1
Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2
Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3
205 parking spaces
Notes:
Less (-)
Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply
Projected Surplus/Deficit
1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces
2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2.
3. Includes all approved developments under design day conditions.
409 parking spaces 1
Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2
Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3
Phase II Displaced Vehicles 26 vehicles 4
Phase II Projected Demand 134 vehicles 5
45 parking spaces
Notes:
Less (-)
Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply
3. Includes all approved developments.
4. Total includes 2015 observed demand for Lot 10.
5. Total reflects design day conditions with no special events.
Projected Surplus/Deficit
1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces
2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 3
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current
high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown. The structure
could accommodate the projected parking demand for some of the Phase I approved
development if parking policies necessary to encourage use of the structure are implemented and
enforced. Even then, the structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces would be significantly more
than necessary to accommodate the projected demand for those spaces.
The assumptions contained in the Phase II of development suggest significant development A)
occurring within a reasonable walking distance of the structure site and B) built with little or no
parking on site. This kind of development suggests a need for a significant supply of new parking
spaces to accommodate the parking demand Phase II would generate. However, we suggest that
caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating
expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet
been approved. Further, we note that a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking
permits may be necessary for a new parking structure to capture the parking demand generated by
the Phase II developments.
For the Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a shared
manner, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for
downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. In such a scenario, the
City would likely want to consider using its parking in lieu fee program to have developers of
proximate sites assist in the funding of the structure, although we point out that such funds tend to
flow slowly, often presenting a challenge for funding the parking structure. Nonetheless, given the
Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to invest or partner with developers to
provide funding, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using
shared, public parking.
ASSUMPTIONS
In developing the parking demand projections for the approved developments in Phase I and the
potential parking demand projections for Phase II, Walker Parking Consultants made the following
assumptions when analyzing the program and parking occupancy data provided by the City. The
assumptions reflect (i) Walker’s familiarity with the parking system in the Downtown area of San Luis
Obispo, and (ii) Walker’s familiarity with parking systems in similar downtowns in California. The
assumptions, some of which were developed for the 2014 study, reflect Walker’s understanding of
conversations with City staff. For the parking demand projections developed for this memorandum,
Walker assumed the following.
1. The parking demand projections are for a typically busy weekday afternoon without special
events.
2. The Phase I program data reflect information from development projects approved by the
City.
3. The Phase II program data reflect potential developments.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 4
a. These potential developments reflect provisional assumptions about how land uses
might function upon full build out and occupancy.
b. The parking demand ratios for the Phase II potential developments are not necessarily
suitable for projecting parking demand at present day conditions at existing land uses.
4. The interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs on Thursday
between 12 PM and 2 PM.
5. The 2015 parking occupancy data reflect the anticipated parking demand of existing land
uses in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo at the full build out and occupancy of both
phases of the design scenario.
6. In its analysis of the Phase I and Phase II program data, Walker assumed that the Shared
Parking Model developed for the 2014 study remained sufficiently calibrated for the parking
demand projections presented in this memorandum.
7. Vehicles displaced by the demolition and redevelopment of existing public off-street parking
facilities within approximately 800 feet of the Palm Nipomo garage may seek to park in the
garage upon its completion.
8. Projected parking surpluses for private developments will not be shared with private
developments that have projected parking deficits.
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The parking demand figures presented in this memorandum reflect a combination of two types of
projections. The parking demand for the two-phased development scenario were projected using
the Walker Parking Consultants/ULI Shared Parking Model. The parking demand for the rest of the
Downtown area of San Luis Obispo were projected using parking demand data collected by City
staff.
The parking demand data for the Downtown area were collected on nine days between August 19,
2015 and October 17, 2015. On each day, City staff performed occupancy counts every other hour
from 10 AM to 8 PM, inclusive. Table 3, below, lists the days on which occupancy counts were
performed. The timing of the occupancy counts were meant to capture the high demand for
parking that may be generated both in the late summer, the beginning of the Cal Poly semester, and
the overlap of the summer and school seasons.
Table 3: Parking Demand Data Collection Schedule
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
In performing the count of parked vehicles, City staff excluded the following categories of parking
spaces.
Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays
Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015
Sep 02, 2015 Sep 03, 2015 Sep 05, 2015
Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 5
o Handicapped Spaces
o Commercial Loading Zones
o Passenger Loading Zones
o Post Office meters
Similarly, City staff excluded the following categories of parking behavior.
o Multiple Vehicles Parked in One Space (e.g. 2 or More Motorcycles Parked in One
Space)
o Illegal Parking (e.g. Parking in Red Zone)
Given the City staff’s familiarity with its parking system, Walker assumed that the excluded categories
of parking spaces and parking behavior did not materially impact the parking demand collected by
the City.
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
In its analysis of the 2015 parking data provided by the City, Walker determined that for the purposes
of this study the interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs between
12 PM and 2 PM on Thursday afternoons. The designation of this time period as the interval of peak
demand on a typically busy day assumes that typical peak demand rather than weekly or less
frequent events such as a Farmer’s Market should not be a determining factor in determining the
inventory of the proposed parking structure.
To account for seasonal changes in the peak parking demand, Walker averaged the reported
demand for the three Thursday counts. Moreover, to assess the adequacy of the parking supply,
Walker used a blended effective supply factor of 0.92. An effective supply factor (ESF) is a projection
of a parking system’s operational effectiveness. An ESF accounts for those spaces that are
momentarily unavailable for use while cars circulate within a parking system. An ESF also accounts for
the number of spaces in a parking system that are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance, mis -
parked vehicles, and other factors. Finally the cushion of spaces identified by the effective supply
can be used to accommodate more vehicles during spikes in demand above and beyond the
design day peak demand.
Table 4, below, summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typically busy weekday for the
Downtown study area.
Table 4: Study Area Average Peak Parking Demand, Weekdays
Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
By way of comparison, in 2014, the study area analyzed consisted of a total of 2,041± on- and off-
street parking spaces. The effective supply of spaces was 1,867± spaces. The interval of peak
AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION SURPLUS (+)/DEFICIT (-)
Study Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 vehicles 67%645 parking spaces
12PM
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 6
demand was identified as occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on Saturday. During that interval,
1,289 vehicles were parked resulting in a utilization percentage of 63% and a surplus of 578 parking
spaces. For this year’s study, the area of study was expanded however the observed trend for peak
parking demand remained consistent.
The differences in inventory, effective supply, occupancy, and parking surplus are due to the City’s
designation of a study area for the 2015 fieldwork that was centered on the proposed Palm/Nipomo
Parking Structure site. While a full discussion and analysis of the differences between the data
collection area are beyond the scope of this memorandum, the slightly increased level of
occupancy (from 63% to 67%) is an indication that the 2015 data allow for a more conservative
projection of the impact of the two phases of development on the parking demand in the proposed
structure; demand for parking in the Downtown is assumed to be slightly higher for this analysis. The
2015 peak week day data allow for a more conservative than the 2014 data because the former
reflect a higher level of occupancy in areas that will likely generate parking demand in the planned
garage.
Based upon additional analysis of the parking demand and program data prov ided by the City,
Walker concluded that the two-phase development will likely displace vehicles that currently park in
Lots 2, 10, and 14 and that these displaced vehicles would likely be parked in the proposed garage.
Walker projects that the Phase I and Phase II developments will displace vehicles that currently park
in Lots 2, 10, and 14 as follows.
1. City staff, based on their knowledge of parking patterns Downtown, asked Walker to assume
that half of the parking demand in Lot 2 observed during the interval of peak demand would
also park in the Palm Nipomo garage. At the peak a total of 52 vehicles were observed
parked in Lot 2.
2. The construction of the parking structure requires the elimination of Lot 14 which would
displace spaces where 48 vehicles are parking.
3. The build out of the Phase II development will require the elimination of Lot 10, which will
displace 26 vehicles.
Table 5, below, summarizes by phase the projected vehicle displacement for Lots 2, 10, and 14. The
projected displacement is based upon data collected by City staff.
Table 5: Vehicle Displacement Projections by Phase
Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
Based on the on-street data collected, it is our assumption that motorists used to parking in Lot 10
and Lot 14 will seek to park in the proposed structure rather than on street or at another off-street
PHASE AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION VEHICLES DISPLACED*
Lot 2 59 parking spaces 54 parking spaces 52 vehicles 88%26 vehicles
Lot 14 77 parking spaces 71 parking spaces 48 vehicles 63%48 vehicles
Phase II Lot 10 27 parking spaces 25 parking spaces 26 vehicles 96%26 vehicles
* Values indicate number of vehicles that are assumed to park in the Palm/Nipomo structure.
Phase I
12PM
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 7
parking facility. We also assume that the City will actively engage in policies to encourage additional
parking demand generated in the area to utilize the new structure.
PHASE I AND PHASE II PROGRAM DATA
The City asked Walker to project the parking demand for a two-phase development scenario. Phase
I consists of seven (7) approved projects. The seven approved projects of Phase I fall into one of two
categories. The first category consists of four approved developments that are not projected to
generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. This category
includes:
The Garden Street Terraces,
Chinatown,
Pacific Courtyards, and
Discovery San Luis Obispo.
The second category is comprised of three approved developments that likely will generate a
significant level of parking demand in the garage. These three developments are:
Monterey Place,
the Creamery, and
the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA).
Table 6, below, provides a summary of the Phase I program data by land use.
Table 6: Summary of Phase I Program Data by Land Use
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
Phase II consists of five provisional development sites. These five sites are provisional in that they
reflect assumptions that are conceptual in regards to land uses and user groups. Because of the
Land Use Program Data
Retail (<400 ksf)66,318 s.f.
Family Active Entertainment 17,500 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 6,700 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food 7,500 s.f.
Museum 23,000 s.f.
Spa 5,000 s.f.
Hotel-Leisure 153 keys
Residential 72 total d.u.
1 bedroom†4 d.u.
2 bedroom†51 d.u.
>3 bedroom†17 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 22,080 s.f.
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 8
conceptual nature of these assumptions, the five land uses have parking generation ratios that do
not necessarily reflect contemporaneous conditions for similar land uses in the Downtown area.
Table 7, below, summarizes the Phase II program data by land use.
Table 7: Summary of Phase II Program Data by Land Use
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
To project the parking demand for both phases of the development scenario, Walker used the
Walker Parking Consultants/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM). Walker led the
research effort to update the most recent ULI Shared Parking Model. Walker’s internal SPM is based
on the ULI model but includes more detail, data points and specific land uses.
Furthermore, the Walker SPM allows for calibration based upon on observed conditions within a study
area and anticipated conditions within proposed developments. Based upon conversations with City
staff, Walker concluded that the base parking demand ratios used for the 2014 parking demand
projections should also be used for the projections presented in this memorandum.
Table 8, below, summarizes the ratios used in the Walker SPM for the parking demand projections for
the two-phase development scenario.
Land Use Program Data
Retail (<400 ksf)14,440 s.f.
Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 3,607 s.f.
Family Restaurant 3,607 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,607 s.f.
Performing Arts Theater 200 seats
Residential 82 total d.u.
1 bedroom†82 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 25,000 d.u.
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 9
Table 8: Ratios Used in Walker Shared Parking Model for San Luis Obispo, 2014 and 2015
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2014-2015.
It should be noted that the net new parking demand projection for the San Luis Obispo Museum of
Art (SLOMA) was reduced by 50%. This reduction represents the conclusion of Walker that SLOMA will
double the parking demand it currently generates, based on past and projected attendance data.
The reduction reflects the assumption that the current parking demand for SLOMA is assumed to be
accounted for in the 2015 occupancy demand data collected by the City. It should also be noted
that the demand ratio for SLOMA reflects a blended demand ratio that includes the planned office
space and other new land uses that will be available after the site has been redeveloped.
Table 9, on page 10, details the program data and parking demand projections for the four
developments in Phase I that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in
the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. The table reflects the City’s present understanding that the
Garden Street Terraces will address its projected parking deficit by having twenty six (26) vehicles
park in the Palm Nipomo garage.
Table 10, on page 11, details the program data and parking demand projections for the three
developments in Phase I that are anticipated to generate significant parking demand in t he
proposed Palm Nipomo structure. Table 11, on page 12, provides a detailed summary by land use of
the program data for Phase II.
Base Parking Demand Drive Non-Captive
Retail/Commercial Space 3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%90%
Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 70% - 80%100%
Restaurant 9 to 15.25 spaces per ksf GLA*60% - 70%76% - 88%
Employee 1.5 to 1.75 spaces per ksf GLA*70% - 80%100%
Family Active Entertainment 4.5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85%
Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100%
Speciality Grocery 4 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85%
Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100%
Spa 6.6 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%85%
Employee .4 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100%
Art Museum 5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%100%
Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75%100%
Peforming Arts Theater .3 spaces per seat 60% - 70%100%
Employee .07 spaces per seat 65% - 75%100%
Hotel 1 space per key 90%100%
Employee .18 space per key 65% - 75%100%
Office .3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70%100%
Employee 3 spaces per ksf GLA 70% - 80%100%
Residential First space per unit is reserved.
Studio 1 space per d.u.
1-bedroom 1.5 spaces per d.u.
2-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u.
3-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u.
Visitor .15 space per d.u.
* Values indicate ranges for three restaurant sub-categories: fine casual, family, and fast casual.
70%
(All units)
100%
(All units)
Ratios
Land use Shared Parking
Adjustments
Shared parking
adjustments
account for
fluctations in
parking demand
by land use type.
These fluctuaions
generally center
around hour of
day, day of week,
month, and
season.
These
adjustments are
performed by the
Walker Parking
Consultants
Shared Parking
Model.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 10
Table 9: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Unlikely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo
Structure
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
LAND USES Garden St. Terraces
1119 Garden St.Chinatown Pacific Courtyards
1321/1327 Osos St.
Discovery San Luis
Obispo
(DSLO)
Marsh & Chorro
Total
Retail (<400 ksf)15,542 s.f.43,750 s.f. s.f. s.f.59,292 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining s.f.3,000 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,000 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food s.f. s.f. s.f.7,500 s.f.7,500 s.f.
Family Active Entertainment s.f. s.f. s.f.17,500 s.f.17,500 s.f.
Spa 5,000 s.f.0 0 0 5,000 s.f.
Hotel-Leisure 64 keys 78 keys keys 0 142 keys
Residential Guest†8 d.u.32 d.u.9 d.u.0 49 d.u.
1 bedroom† d.u. d.u.1 d.u.0 1 d.u.
2 bedroom†8 d.u.17 d.u.6 d.u.0 31 d.u.
>3 bedroom† d.u.15 d.u.2 d.u.0 17 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f. s.f.8,050 s.f.0%0 0 0 0
Planned Parking Supply 41 spaces 53 spaces*34 spaces 0 128 spaces
Projected Parking Demand¥93 spaces 183 spaces 27 spaces 54 spaces 370 spaces
Projected Adequacy/Deficit -52 spaces -130 spaces 7 spaces‡-54 spaces -236 spaces
Projected Additional Palm/Napomo
Demand**26 vehicles vehicles vehicles vehicles 26 vehicles
Notes
‡ Surplus provided for reference only. The projected 236 space deficit excludes 7 space surplus.
* Indicates stacked parking spaces
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
^ Projected supply after loss of 15 parking spaces.
** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage
¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 11
Table 10: Phase I Program Data—Approved Developments Likely to Generate Significant Parking Demand in the Palm/Nipomo
Structure
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
LAND USES Monterey Place
667/679 Monterey St.
Creamery Additional/
Remodel SLOMA Total
Retail (<400 ksf)6,270 s.f.756 s.f. s.f.7,026 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 3,700 s.f. s.f. s.f.3,700 s.f.
Museum 0 0 23,000 s.f.23,000 s.f.
Hotel-Leisure 11 keys keys 0 11 keys
Residential Guest†23 d.u. d.u.0 23 d.u.
1 bedroom†3 d.u. d.u.0 3 d.u.
2 bedroom†20 d.u. d.u.0 20 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 14,030 s.f. s.f. s.f.14,030 s.f.0%0 0 0
Planned Parking Supply 29 spaces*0 spaces 0 spaces 29 spaces
Projected Parking Demand¥94 spaces 1 space 39 spaces§134 vehicles
Projected Adequacy/Deficit -65 spaces -1 space -39 spaces -105 spaces
Projected Additional Palm/Napomo
Demand**65 vehicles 1 vehicle 39 vehicles 105 vehicles
Notes
§ Total assumes that SLOMA parking demand will be approximately double the existing art gallery .
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.
* Indicates stacked parking spaces
** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 12
Table 11: Phase II Program Data Assumptions
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
PHASE II LAND USES Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Total
Retail (<400 ksf)8,500 s.f.1,440 s.f.4,500 s.f.14,440 s.f.
Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.6,500 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f.
Family Restaurant 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food 2,167 s.f.1,440 s.f.3,607 s.f.
Performing Arts Theater 200 seats 200 seats
Residential Guest†50 d.u.20 d.u.12 d.u.82 d.u.
1 bedroom†50 d.u.20 d.u.12 d.u.82 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 22,000 s.f.3,000 s.f.25,000 s.f.
Planned Parking Supply 50 spaces 16 spaces 12 spaces 21 spaces 99 spaces
Projected Parking Demand¥107 spaces 47 spaces 17 spaces 53 spaces 9 spaces 233 spaces
Projected Adequacy/Deficit -57 spaces -31 spaces -5 spaces -32 spaces -9 spaces -134 spaces
Projected Additional
Palm/Napomo Demand**57 vehicles 31 vehicles 5 vehicles 32 vehicles 9 vehicles 134 vehicles
Notes
† Dwelling Units (d.u.)
¥ Projections shown are for design day conditions --- a typically busy Thursday early afternoon.
** Demand for Palm/Nipomo Garage
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 13
Figure 1: Proposed Locations of Palm/Nipomo Structure and Phase I and Phase II Developments
Source: Image, Google Earth Professional, 2015; development locations, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015; graphics, Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 14
CONCLUSION
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a
445-space parking facility as currently envisioned, would have a parking space surplus of 205±
parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I , based on a projected demand
for 204± spaces and effective supply factor of 0.92.
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects that
a 445-space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build
out and occupancy of Phase II , based on a projected demand for 364± spaces (combined
phases I + 2) and effective supply factor of 0.92.
The Palm/Nipomo structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces is significantly more than
currently necessary to accommodate current parking demand. The likely demand for parking
generated by Phase I development represents less than half the planned supply of parking.
However for Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking
for future development, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environme ntally
friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own
parking. Given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to make a
significant investment(or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital
investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using
shared, public parking. However, if the projected Phase II development were not to occur as
envisioned, the usefulness of the structure could be limited.
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
M
a
p
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
20
1
1
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
1.c
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
20
1
1
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
1.c
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1.d
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
1
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure)
was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05
Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called 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 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).
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. 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 In the
report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical
and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and
mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting,
Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and
Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also
directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options:
1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land
area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving
some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing.
2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built.
3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street.
4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project.
5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground.
6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for
the roof of the structure.
7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line.
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 to proceed with self park site plan Option
D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the
roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of
1.e
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to
accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the
following additional components:
1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street.
2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic
Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street).
3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on
project plans.
4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design.
5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe
detached “Dwelling over Garage”).
6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and
note where exceptions are needed.
7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level,
off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site
dwellings.
8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site.
9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is
developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street.
10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons
for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going
underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass.
In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following
additional refinements to Self Park Option D3:
a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible.
b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access.
c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey.
To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and
topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and
determine building heights.
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.
1.e
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
April 24, 2007 City Council Direction
In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All
options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual
Physical Plan), maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed 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.
The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost
and operational cost.
Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features
Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3
Summary of Key Features Self park
structure with
portions of
upper levels
removed to
reduce
building height
impact.
Mechanical
structure with
portions of
upper levels
removed to
reduce building
height impact.
Mechanical
structure
oriented to
reduce building
height 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 4 ½ 5 ½ 6
Building Height (35 ft.) *
Height exception needed?
39 ft.
Yes
41 ft.
Yes
37 ft.
Yes
Building Setback**
Street yard (15 ft.)
Street yard exception needed?
Other yard (10 ft.)
Other yard exception needed?
8-10 ft.
Yes
10 ft.
No
0 ft.
Yes
10 ft.
No
0-10 ft.
Yes
25 ft.
No
Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565
Net New Spaces 366 412 486
Remaining Available Land Area for Future
Use by Others
11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f.
12,700 s.f.
19,800 s.f.
Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff
recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as
the preferred design.
Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving
room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the
structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is
provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to
Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey
Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped,
1.e
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
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 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.
Site Diagram for Option D3
The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers.
Monterey Street = 33 feet
Nipomo Street = 36 feet
Palm Street = 44 feet
Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet
March 17, 2009 City Council Direction
On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial
consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding
building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were:
1. Can we afford it?
2. And if we build it, will they come?
1.e
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee
provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration:
1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial
condition through fiscal year 2016-17.
2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.”
3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process.
4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the
General Plan.
5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces
combined with increases in parking 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.
December 1, 2009 City Council Direction
Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental
review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The consultant
team was hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary urban design plan developed that has
been well received by the community. The design assumes the removal of five City owned
residences; two of which are located within a historic district. Environmental studies undertaken
determined that removal of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the
Downtown Historic District and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed to allow for their removal.
January 3, 2012 City Council Direction
Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to
prepare a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the cultural resource issue as well as
potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic.
Due to staff resources and other City priorities, this work effort was delayed. As part of the 2015
annual Parking Fund review, Council directed staff to return with a study session to present an update
on the delivery of the project and bring forward financial issues.
This decision was made in the midst of the Great Recession and assumptions of background private
development that would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many
significant projects (Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions.
1.e
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
The uncertain timing of new development and potential for major revisions to their parking demand
led staff to conclude it would be prudent to defer work on the environmental impact report and the
final project design until the economy recovered. In essence, issues that need to be determined in the
structure’s final design (such as total number of spaces, height limitations and building footprint)
could be affected if major shifts occurred in parking demand due to revised private development
needs.
January 19, 2016 – Project Reboot City Council Direction
Staff is seeking additional council concurrence with project recommendations and moving forward
with design and the EIR. In addition, staff is seeking Council direction on negotiating a new MOA
with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties.
1.e
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
50 California Street
Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 982-5544
415 982-4513 fax
www.pfm.com
October 14, 2015
Memorandum
To: Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo
Jeff Brown, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc.
Re: Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations
Public Financial Management, Inc. (“PFM”) has prepared the following memorandum as a high-
level summary of some of the financing alternatives the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) may
want to consider in determining its approach to the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project.
Assuming the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage will be a public, City-owned parking structure, the City
has several options for financing the project. Two primary alternatives are lease revenue bonds and
parking revenue bonds.
As it has done in the past (e.g., Series 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds), the City could issue lease revenue
bonds to fund the project, using either the project itself or another existing City asset as the security
for the bonds.
Lease Revenue Bond Considerations:
The General Fund is pledged to repayment (though the City can budget the debt payments
from the Parking Fund, similar to what it has done with prior lease revenue bond issuances,
where debt service is allocated to other enterprise funds depending upon the projects
financed with the bond proceeds)
Lease revenue bonds carry a lower interest rate than parking revenue bonds
The City must have available of unencumbered asset(s) to pledge
If assets of sufficient value are not available, the City will need to use capitalized interest
during construction
Alternatively, the City could finance the Palm-Nipomo project using parking revenue bonds,
pledging the net revenues of the Parking Fund to repay the debt.
Parking Revenue Bond Considerations:
With a parking revenue bond, the obligation to repay is limited to the net revenues of the
parking system, so there is no General Fund exposure
1.f
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
P
a
l
m
-
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
F
M
M
e
m
o
1
0
-
1
4
-
1
5
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations
October 14, 2015
Page 2
Due to the limited pledge of revenue, this type of financing carries a higher borrowing cost
than lease revenue bonds
Parking revenue bonds are uncommon, perhaps due to associated risks and the resulting cost
of borrowing
Net revenues of the parking system (after O&M) will need to generate annual debt service
coverage of approximately 2.0x
The City will have to covenant to set parking rates at levels sufficient to meet this coverage
requirement
Unless existing system revenues are sufficient to pay debt service on the new garage (and
generate required coverage), the City will need to capitalize interest during the
construction/ramp up period
For comparison, we have provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of
construction for both a lease revenue bond and a parking revenue bond, based upon a project cost
of $17,600,000. Given that construction is not anticipated to begin until FY2017-18, we have
assumed some increase in municipal bond interest rates, which are currently near historic lows. For
both scenarios we have assumed that interest on the bonds during the construction period is
capitalized, that the bonds have a debt service reserve fund, and that the term of the bonds is 30
years. Annual debt service on a lease revenue bond issuance is estimated at approximately $1.3
million and with the General Fund pledge on a lease revenue bond, there is no annual debt service
coverage covenant. Annual debt service on a parking revenue bond is estimated at approximately
$1.7 million. To generate 2.0x debt service coverage, the parking system would need to generate
$3.4 million of net revenue in the Parking Fund.
For either of the two security structures discussed above, the City could also consider financing the
Palm-Nipomo parking structure through a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (the “I-Bank”), as it did in 2001 for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking
structure. The I-Bank may offer interest rates that are lower than the City could achieve though a
public offering of bonds. There is an application process for I-Bank financing that can be lengthy,
so this alternative should be explored well in advance of the funding need for the project.
Should the City elect to pursue a project at the Palm-Nipomo site that involves a partnership with a
private entity, plans for private use of a portion of the garage, or other modifications to the basic
concept of a City-owned facility available for use by the public, the financing options may change
and the costs differ from those described above.
1.f
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
P
a
l
m
-
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
F
M
M
e
m
o
1
0
-
1
4
-
1
5
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Parking Services
Palm Nipomo
Parking Structure
City Council
January 19, 2016
Tonight’s Discussions
2
Project Background – Summary of History
Update on Existing Conditions and Forecasts
Project Financial update
SLO Little Theater MOA Direction
Receive additional Council Direction on Project, if
any
Project History (Attachment E)
•Project has been around since FY 2003-05 FP when we
started acquiring property and designing potential project
•Last Major Council Date - January 2012
•Council receives additional information on environmental issues
•Consultants recommend Focus EIR
•Council approves draft RFP for environmental services & design
•Project put on hold due to uncertainty of development in
the Downtown
3
Project History (CAR - Attachment E)
•2014 - Parking services Organizational Study (Walker)
•June 2015 – Parking Fund Review
•Last Six months– Additional work, update to Walker study
4
Public Parking Locations
5
Palm Nipomo Structure
Project Site
Public Private partnership Issues
2011 Preferred Design
Palm
Nipomo
Site
Public
Use
(Little
Theater)
Architectural Rendering with SLOLT
Work Since June 2015
City - Update Existing Conditions and Development
Forecasts
Major effort in Occupancy data collection
Existing Conditions Summary
Walker Study Update & Conclusions
Reassessed Palm Nipomo Demand with new info
Stakeholder Group Formed
Reviewed staff work, suggested additional projects and analysis
Reviewed Walker and staff conclusions
9
Existing Downtown Public Parking Supply
10
12%
45%
44%
Parking
Lots
On-Street
Parking
Structure
Parking
Type of Parking No. of Spaces
On-Street Meters 1150
Off-Street Meters (8 lots) 305
Structures 1127
Total 2582
Note: does not include
closure of Lot 2
Average Wednesday Occupancy by Type
11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
On-Street Lots Structures
Peak Free Parking
Average Occupancy by Type Comparison
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
Wednesday
On-Street Lots Structures
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
Thursday
On-Street Lots Structures
AVERAGE
Wednesday
Conclusions of Occupancy Study
1.Peak Times for average weekdays – 12 to 2 PM
2.Thursdays – 12 to 2 PM highest average peak
3.During that peak – 67% Occupancy rate
4.1/3 of public parking available even during peak
Average Thursday 12 PM
Area Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus(+)/Deficit(-)
Study
Area 2,582 parking spaces 1,730 67% +852 parking spaces
Conclusions of Occupancy Study (con’t)
5.Parking Perceptions
a)Tough to find parking in streets (Super Core)
b)Parking is available but public may not know where
vacancy is
c)City can do better job in getting information out
Update to Walker Study
1.Used New Occupancy Data Collected by City
2.Enhanced new development forecast
3.Developed Two Demand Forecasts:
Current
Demand
Displaced due
to lot Closures
New Demand
Palm Nipomo
Demand from
Above
Displaced due
to lot
Closures
New Demand
(5+ years out)
Phase 1 (3-5 Years)
Phase 2 (5+ Years)
Palm Nipomo Proximity of Development
Consultants Conclusions
18
48 48 482652
130
264397
241
81
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2
Demand for Palm -Nipomo by Phase
Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles
Projected Demand Vacant Spaces
Long term
Demand 364
82% - 91%
(400 - 445 Spaces)
3- 5 years:
Demand: 204
46% - 51%
(400 - 445 Spaces)
Effects of Lot Closures
19
Staff conducted additional analysis to determine potential effect
of closures of Lot 2, 3 & 11 on general Supply
Current Demand
Displaced due to
lot Closures (into
existing structures)
Calculated revised
Occupancy
Peak time change – 67% Occupancy rate increases to 71%
Average Thursday 12 PM
Area Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus(+)/Deficit(-)
Study
Area 2,439 parking spaces 1,730 71% +709 parking spaces
•½ Lot 14
•½ Marsh Lot 2
•Palm 1
•919 Palm
Lot 3 & 11
Project Financials
20
1.The 2015-17 Financial Plan included cost estimates for the project
2.Construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 (FY 2017-18)
3.Of that: $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund
$17,600,000 in proceeds from debt financing
$1.4 M annually in debt payments estimated
4.Prior Project funding:
a. Balance of approximately $1,266,000 for environmental
review and final project design (No additional funding needed at
this time to move forward with
project)
Financing Update
21
1.Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) has provided additional
information on potential debt financing
2.Appears General Fund Lease revenue Bonds may be most
economical for the City
3.Requires GF to secure debt and pledge GF assets as security
4.Based up expected rates Borrowing is consistent with FP forecast –
estimated $1.3 M annual Payments
Mid-Year Review 2-20-2016
22
1.Will received update on Fund Status
2.Close out of FY 2014-15
3.Correct for over estimation of Parking In Lieu Fees for FY 2016
4.Recommendations for “Staying the Course”
SLO Little Theater (SLOLT)
SLOLT New MOA
Need Council Direction to formalize Discussion of
a new MOA:
Return at a later time with:
1.Terms of Lease
2.Annual Lease Cost
3.Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre
4.City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan
Amendment
5.SLOLT responsibilities for(?):
a.Construction of front improvements
b.Construction, operation and maintenance of the Theater
c.Developing a Fund raising plan and fundraising key milestones
24
Where to from Here
25
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
Task Work Time
1. Return as Part of Mid-Year with Update to Parking
Fund
2-20-2016
2. Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services
and project design. Complete Kosmont study of P3
issues
5 months.
3. Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016
4. Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016
5. Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016
6. Complete work and present for Advisory body and
Council review
Fall 2016 – Summer
2017
Staff recommendations
26
1.That the City (as previously directed by Council) move forward with environmental
review and final design for the project. (Funded)
2.Maintain the minimum 400 space design objective for the project.
3.Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations
for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply;
and
4.Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the
Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses
(including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more
effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and
5.Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of
Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and
return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final
negotiations of the MOA.
Staff recommendations
27
1.Move forward with EIR preparation and final design for the project.
(Funded)
2.Maintain the minimum 400 space design objective for the project.
3.Return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations
for improved parking information systems
4.Return with a plan to partnership with the Downtown Association,
Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses (including the
County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program
5.Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed
Memorandum of Agreement with SLO Little Theater
28
Questions
29
Parking Information Systems
Park Me App/Web
And…Lest we Forget
30
Credit Card in Structures
Structures Lots Closed
31
Public Private Partnership (P3)
32
Contract Kosmont to take a final look at potential P3 benefits (if
any)
Very Small
area
allocated
to potential
office
space
19’ at
best
Update of 2014 Analysis
33
Larger Study Area
More Days Surveyed (9 Days total)
Longer Duration (10 AM to 8 PM)
Different Types of Days (Wednesday, Thursday, & Saturday)
Summer (August)
Fall (September and October)
Holiday weekend (Labor Day Weekend)
Mission Plaza / Special Events
Data Collection Schedule
Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays
Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015
Sept 02, 2015 Sept 03, 2015 Sept 05, 2015
Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015
Consultants Conclusions
34
The structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown
using shared public parking
445 spaces would be significantly more than necessary to accommodate the
projected demand
Caution be exercised when contemplating development that has not yet been
approved
However, when that development occurs the structure represents an
opportunity to provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly
A combination of on-street pricing policies and parking permits may be
necessary to attract the parking demand generated by longer term
Parking Assessment Tools
Walker Study
Phase 1
Existing Demand
Lot 2 Closure – 1/2 assigned into Palm-Nipomo
1/2 assigned into Marsh Street Parking Structure
Projected Demand – (3-5 Years)
•Monterey Place, ½ GST, Creamery Remodel, and SLO Museum of Art
Development assumed to other structures:
Chinatown, Pacific Courtyard, ½ GST, SLO Discovery, Granada hotel
expansion, Slo Brew
Walker Study
Phase 2
Existing Demand
Lot 10 – Assigned into Palm-Nipomo
Projected Demand – (At least 5 years out)
Provisional developments assigned to Palm-Nipomo based on proximity to
proposed location
Development assumed to other structures:
Fremont Square, Libertine pub, CVS etc
Walker Parking/ULI Parking Model Ratios
38
Phase I – Approved Developments Generating
Demand for Palm/Nipomo
39
Phase I – Approved Developments NOT
Generating Demand for Palm/Nipomo
40
Phase II – Provisional Developments Generating
Demand for Palm-Nipomo
Locations of Approved Devlopments
43
Reassigned Lots 2, 3, & 11
Funding for Project
44
Palm Nipomo - Budget
Project Costs by Type Budgeted Allocation Remaining
Design Funded $ 1,350,000 $1,057,710
Environmental Review Funded $ 300,000 $208,400
Financial Plan FY 2015-17)
Construction 2017-18 $ 22,000,000 $22,000,000
Construction Mgmt. 2017-18 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000
Budget Amount $ 25,250,000 $ 25,250,000
Tonight’s Agenda
45
Work since last meeting
Review Occupancy data Information
Existing Conditions Summary
Walker Study Process
Walker Study Conclusions
Interim Issues with Lot Closures
Stakeholder comments and suggestions
Where to from here?
Council Discussions
46
Update on Additional Conditions and Forecasts
Review Occupancy data Information
Existing Conditions Summary
Walker Study Process & Conclusions
Interim Issues with Lot Closures
Recommendations & Receive Direction on Project,
if any
Debt Financing update
SLO Little Theater MOA Direction
Next Steps
Walker Study
Method for Assigning Lots and Developments
Existing Demand – Phase 1
Lot 2 – 1/2 assigned into Palm-Nipomo, 1/2 assigned into Marsh Street
Parking Structure
Projected Demand – Phase 1 (3-5 years out)
Development assigned based on proximity to existing and proposed
(Palm-Nipomo) parking structure: Monterey Place, Creamery Remodel,
and SLO Museum of Art
Development Assigned to other structures: Chinatown, Pacific Courtyard,
½ GST, SLO Discovery
Walker Study
Method for Assigning Lots and Developments
Existing Demand – Phase 2
Lot 10 – Assigned into Palm-Nipomo
Projected Demand – Phase 2 (At least 5 years out)
Provisional developments assigned to Palm-Nipomo based on proximity to
proposed location
Development assumed to other structures: Granada hotel, Slo Brew,
Fremont Square, Libertine pub, CVS etc
EIR Issues (Focused)
49
Cultural Resources
Traffic
Visual
Noise
Air Quality
Hydrology
Aesthetics
VMT/GHG
SLOLT Issues
50
Issue Prior Agreement New Agreement Council Direction
Needed
Term of Agreement 40 Years 50 Years Yes
Lease/rent costs $1.00/Year Same Yes
Fundraising Plan Within 5 months of MOA
Approval
Within 3 months of MOA Approval Yes
Fundraising Requirements 3 Years: 66% of funds required
3 Years: 60% of funds required
5 Years: 100%
Yes
Lease Area Approximately 15,100 Sq. Ft. Approximately 18,000 Sq. Ft. (includes
oak tree areas to be preserved)
Yes
Theater design Must be shown to be
compatible with the Palm
Nipomo Parking Structure
Same no
Construction of Frontage
Improvements
SLO Little Theater Same no
Environmental Review Not dependent upon Palm
Nipomo Project
Dependent upon Palm Nipomo Project
environmental
September 22, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting Input
Little Theatre plans to be fully funded by 2018/19
Demand for new Little Theatre anticipated to be ~300-400
Arts Center plans to be fully funded by 2108/19
Possible incentives for Parking in Palm-Nipomo:
Reduced rate for MCPHS students
Resident parking & resident guest parking in Palm/Nipomo or all structures
Addition of public restrooms into new structure
Maximize efficiency; build the structure bigger if it will meet demand.
If the structure is unable to meet a bottom line, find other revenue generators to offset the
costs
Potential redevelopment properties in the area which may impact parking:
Wells Fargo lot at Marsh & Broad- 665 Marsh St.
CVS site-717 Marsh St.
Villa automotive site
Libertine Pub
McCarthy’s mixed-use project
Fremont Square project
51
September 22, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting Input
Little Theatre plans to be fully funded by 2018/19
Demand for new Little Theatre anticipated to be ~300-400
Arts Center plans to be fully funded by 2108/19
Possible incentives for Parking in Palm-Nipomo:
Reduced rate for MCPHS students
Resident parking & resident guest parking in Palm/Nipomo or all structures
Addition of public restrooms into new structure
Maximize efficiency; build the structure bigger if it will meet demand.
If the structure is unable to meet a bottom line, find other revenue generators to offset the
costs
Potential redevelopment properties in the area which may impact parking:
Wells Fargo lot at Marsh & Broad- 665 Marsh St.
CVS site-717 Marsh St.
Villa automotive site
Libertine Pub
McCarthy’s mixed-use project
Fremont Square project
52
Other Recommendations
1.No build
2.Impacts on Existing Supply
3.Impacts due to construction of Phase I
4.P3 Aspects and Possibilities
53
PDR Strategies
Increase Downtown Access Pass
Residential Districts
Employer mandated/incentive programs
Bike Share Program
54
Pricing Strategies
Business Assessment District
Increase 10 hour permits from $40 to $50
Monthly parking at $30 a month
Hourly parking rate at .75 an hour
Max daily rate- $7.50
Offer 90 minutes free parking
Customers parking in the structure, can go to the market and
show their ticket to receive a coupon for a dollar off at the
market.
Employees who move from Palm 1, Palm 2 or March will
receive $45 a month savings by moving.
Overnight parking permit program
55
Walker Parking Consultants Survey Results
The Table below summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typical busy
weekday for the study area
56
Average Thursday 12 PM
Area Inventory Effective Supply Occupancy Utilization Surplus(+)/Deficit(-)
Study
Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 67% +645 parking spaces
Public Private partnership Issues
Very Small
area
allocated
to potential
office
space
2011 Preferred Design
19’ at
best
Next Steps
Work with the Little Theatre on development plans
Prepare for City Council
58
Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure
59
City
Council
Cost of
Structure
Stakeholder
/ Public
Input
Parking
Demand
Design &
EIR
Future
Development
2007 Preferred Site Plan D3
Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Tentative Schedule
61
Sept. 22
2015
Stakeholder Input
Meeting
Nov.
2015
Council Study
Session on
Palm/Nipomo
Parking Structure
Feb.
2016
Issue RFP(s) for
Environmental &
Design
Earliest
Construction Can
Begin
2017/18
Nipomo St. Elevation
Monterey St. Elevation
Thursday
August 20th, 2015
August 19th, 20th, and 22nd, 2015
71
Wed. Aug. 19 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
On-street 58% 71% 68% 52% 59% 55%
Lots 52% 77% 67% 56% 64% 47%
Structures 44% 59% 64% 53% 39% 25%
Thurs. Aug. 20 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
On-street 56% 69% 64% 60% 87% 74%
Lots 56% 78% 69% 71% 100% 68%
Structures 38% 59% 53% 51% 86% 54%
Sat. Aug. 22 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM
On-street 33% 47% 46% 44% 58% 60%
Lots 43% 70% 64% 62% 77% 54%
Structures 15% 36% 64% 54% 49% 35%
AVERAGE
Thursday