Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1997, - DOWNTOWN ACCESS AND PARKING STUDY - PROGRESS REPORT #2 CONT I \ + 4 \ \ 1 5: I 11P a r" .r \ ,ctrl kn + 4 . a a,F\�tt N�4'SV�\•y�.�*y�`'S.\ r \ Z,Y ,w�\\�l,}s '\$F'1� \:w�,;'?.�akaiY `\ +' ..\`\\r glH,nev!. \1ym +.k•Ca',h`„'^,`, `a1` y\e `1\\aK•�\\\\`\\\\,n\\`�C,\\�\ \, \Cc, + }, .a�e�tf�tMFY' tr< P`! i r'r 1 r rr1 �V\\��U\ \1. �NNUq\\\\\\.\�` e1\\\\a�\\\ .�\\\\\S`\`+\\1`k,; \ �y 1 n k^g4f wt N r r \ y 4:S4r \` 1 1 r� ^ 4.`f �+ \ � Ar,\• Y J t f ! y 4 + ft Y 4a.• t y t_Meyer,Mohaddes,4ssoc�afes,/nc° V: ' - ' ,�=� TraClc EnpineannB `s �4T'rtsPortatlon Plannlnp �t to '"'V.,". 7 F + n arsoctatzon xnth' Sq r ,�' f�pi Y Y �•(i.V .Yl AI IF(r, YE a 4:: Transs.portationn�'ManagementrServices NuStats international I Jerne 181997 r ` nI a r I lo Y � � i��• I , i Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Report . 1 Initial Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' Future Access and Parking Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Applicable City Policies and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Potential TDM Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Identifying Potential Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l Candidate TDM Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' Identifying Preferred TDM Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TDM costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' 3. Potential Parking Management and Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Adequacy of Existing Downtown Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 future Access and Parking Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ' Parking Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Parking Expansion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Funding of Parking Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4. Alternatives and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 I Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 IList of Tables Table 1: Description of Access and Parking Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I Table 2 TDM Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 3 Summary of Candidate TDM Measure Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 4 TDM Measures Grouped by Total Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . ..18 . ' Table 5 Summary of Effectiveness of TDM Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 6 Costs of TDM Measures Under Alternative Access Policies and Growth Scenarios . . 20 Table 7 Estimated Theoretical Parking Supply Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ' Table 8 Estimates of Future Access and Parking Demand within the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 9 Summary of Additional Parking Spaces Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 10 Estimated Costs of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 I Meyer,Moltaddes Associates, Inc. Junc 20, 1997 I I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 IList of Figures ' Figure Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 City Owned Parcels in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 3 Effective Service Areas of Existing and potential Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 4 Area Recommended for Future Parking Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 IAppendix I Appendix A: Supplemental Surveys Neighborhood Survey Follow-up Telephone Survey I Thursday Night Neighborhood Impact Survey Appendix B: Candidate TDM Measures Appendix C: TDM Relationships and Combined Effect ' Appendix D: Summary of Responses to Steering Committee Comments I I I I I I lzq�j 6-064Vrlslo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 I ; I ' Executive Summary ' This second Progress Report for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Access&Parking recommends that the City pursue an aggressive strategy to make additional parking available in the downtown area. This strategy should combine both parking expansion and transportation demand management(TDM) components to create up to 2,300 spaces to accommodate future(long term)growth in parking demand. Parking Management strategies should be used to make better use of existing spaces and to relieve existing and future overflow parking in neighborhoods adjacent to the Study Area. ' Key Findings ' It will not be possible to fully meet future parking demand and reduce impacts to residential areas adjacent to the Study Area without a significant expansion in available funding; ► Use of parking revenues to support TDM activities will directly reduce the number of spaces that can be created in the downtown with existing funding. Conversely, failure to use some parking revenues for TDM will prevent the implementation and maintenance of effective strategies to reduce parking demand in downtown San Luis Obispo. Producing downtown spaces through reduction in parking demand(TDM) introduces uncertainty ' regarding the number of new long term parking spaces that should be constructed; ► The effectiveness of TDM measures must be measured and reevaluated periodically; ► If successful,TDM measures will produce more available parking spaces, per capital dollar ' spent,than construction of new spaces; If TDM is pursued as part of the plan, its potential impact should be maximized. This reflects' the large number of parking spaces needed under each future growth scenario and the relatively ' small difference in costs between the maximum and less aggressive TDM action packages; ► The creation of both new spaces and spaces made available through TDM requires considerable lead time. TDM measures can take years to show benefits. The planning, environmental and ' construction of new parking structures also requires years to complete. ► Given probable funding constraints, each expenditure will either delay or preclude other possible property acquisition or construction projects. ' If advantage is not taken of opportunities to purchase property for future parking expansion, the land may become unavailable. Conversely, money spent on property acquisition delays the City's ability to build new parking structures on land already owned by the City. ' It is estimated that an aggressive TDM program will cost between $150 and $400 per space to initiate. In comparison,construction of new parking spaces requires about$16,000 per space in initial capital expenditures. In other words,a new parking space costs over 10 times more to construct than one created by reducing parking demand. ► Annual operating costs for an aggressive TDM Program will range from $500 (if growth in parking demand is high)to $1,200 per space in annual operating costs(if the growth in downtown parking demand is low). Spaces in new parking structures will create an annual ' operating deficit of$580 per space. In other words,the annual costs of newly constructed parking spaces will be similar to those for an aggressive TDM program if the growth in ' lapy9ti-OW\p,2.alo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 t I iDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#? ' downtown parking demand is high. However, if the growth in downtown parking demand is slow, on-going operation of TDM programs may be twice as expensive as operating costs for spaces in new parking structures. Recommended Parking Plan ' The recommended Downtown Access& Parking Plan includes three elements: transportation(and parking) demand management(TDM), parking management strategies and construction of new parking ' structures. The TDM component will increase the number of spaces available by reducing parking demand. The parking management strategies are designed to make better use of available spaces by relocating long term parkers from existing and future parking structures to on-street spaces that are ' currently underutilized. New parking structures are recommended in the Plan to increase the total number of available parking spaces in Downtown San Luis Obispo.. ' TDM Component TDM was found to be a very cost effective way to meet a portion of the future parking needs in downtown San Luis Obispo. However, this approach includes an element of risk since it relies on ' changes in personal travel behavior to reduce the demand for parking. The recommended package of TDM measures are: ' W Provide and actively market preferentially located parking for car/vanpools in public parking facilities ► Reduce and market actively parking charges based on vehicle occupancy in public parking facilities Increase parking rates for long-term parkers in public parking facilities' Restructure parking rates in underutilized parking by time of day in public parking t"''1Oes ► Designate passenger pick-up/discharge areas ' 0 Expand bike lanes 01 Lower vanpool fares ' Modify Land Use Code to Allow Telecommuting Modify Land Use Code to Require TDM Improvements at New Developments ► Increase Telecommuting Among City and County Workers in Downtown ' 0 Increase Compressed Work Week Schedules Among City and County Workers in Downtown Parking Management Actions Parking spaces near the retail core can be made available for short term parkers(visitors and shoppers) through parking management strategies that encourage employees to park in less desirable spaces. 1 Also a recommended parking management action ,�;9aos+pc.,ia Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 11 i Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Parking management strategies can also encourage use of parking spaces in areas currently underutilized. The management of parking generally includes pricing,establishing time limits and providing preferential parking for shoppers. The following parking management actions should be incorporated within the recommended Downtown Access and Parking Plan: ' PMAction 1: Reduce free parking from 90 minutes to 60 minutes' PMAction 2: Eliminate the maximum daily charge' PMAction 3: Increase the number of 10 hour meters in the periphery of the Study Area'- PMAction rea=PMAction 4: Reduce the number offree parkingposses issued' PMAction 5: Consider a Residential Parking Management Plan in the neighborhoods impacted by downtown employee parking PMAction 6: Provide preferential parking location and pricing for carpools and vanpools' ' Parking Expansion Component ' The construction of new parking structures should be phased to meet the growth in downtown parking demand. The individual phases of the Plan should be initiated based on the periodic review of key indicators of downtown access and parking demand. At completion,the plan includes the following ' elements: P. Construct the Marsh Street Expansion ' Construct a new parking structure that will serve the no quadrant of the Study Area. This could include a joint project on land owned by the County or construction on the Union Bank site. ' Construct Palm II ► Construct a new structure in the western portion of the Study Area. ,To the extent possible, this structure should be located between Marsh and Higuera Streets. ' ► Idents other sites for potential future parking expansion The recommended Downtown Access&Parking Plan departs from the existing City intent to purchase ' the Wells Fargo lot in the early phases of implementation of the Plan. It is recommended that this purchase be delayed until downtown intensification in the southwest quadrant of the Study Area becomes imminent or until it has been clearly established that alternative sites in the western portion of the Study ' Area between Marsh and Higuera Streets are not feasible. The recommended Plan will require an initial investment of approximately$8.8 million'. Meeting long ' term parking needs in the downtown will require an investment of over$24 million' if high growth in parking demand is experienced in downtown San Luis Obispo. ' 2 Consistent with recommended TDM measures 3 In 1997 dollars ,p 96A6i on slo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lune 20,1997 111 I ! Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Financing Options ' The construction of parking structures in San Luis Obispo is reliant upon meter and surface lot revenues. It is these revenues that permits the City to bond for construction of new structures. The meter revenues also partially subsidize the bond servicing costs. Periodic meter rate increases(e.g. every 5 years)would ' fund a parking construction program. However, it is estimated that this funding source could fund only about 250 new spaces every five years. Under the high growth rate scenario, this rate of new parking space construction will not be adequate to keep pace with anticipated demand. ' New parking revenues generated by the proposed parking management actions should be used for TDM and parking expansion programs. The existing parking revenue stream should be reserved exclusively ' for parking expansion.The existing parking revenue stream will be sufficient to provide only about 750 new spaces by 2010. Joint City/County and public/private funding of new parking structures is essential to expand parking beyond this level. ' Funding does not currently exist for the implementation and maintenance of the recommended TDM measures. Grants and direct user fees may be available to initiate some programs but will not be sufficient to maintain an aggressive TDM program. Therefore, new or enhanced parking revenue ' sources should be developed to provide the necessary TDM funding. Revenues created by the implementation of the following parking management strategies should be considered for potential TDM and parking expansion funding. ! Limit free parking in all structures to 60 minutes for short term parkers and provide no free parking for long term parkers (PM Actions 1 and 2 above); ' Increase the in lieu parking fees from $4,000 to at least$10,000 which is closer to the actual cost of providing parking($16,000 per space); ► Implement an assessment district or other funding mechanism to permit downtown property ' owners to share the costs of expanding the parking supply; ► Investigate public/private partnerships to share the cost of providing parking while using ground floor space to intensify downtown retail activity. ' Pursue grant funds to initiate TDM programs Land Use Actions ' To be successful,the recommended Plan, must be supported by land use policies that restrict the amount and type of commercial(and particularly retail)development outside of downtown San Luis Obispo.. By ' implementing the recommended Plan, the City will be committing to a significant investment in downtown infrastructure. This investment should not be diluted by allowing major retail development in the outlying areas of the City. Similarly, since some increases in the cost of parking in the downtown ' will be required over time,creating outlying commercial development with ample free parking could undermine the intent of the Downtown Access&Parking Plan. 1,oy9&-"4af2,1, Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 iv I 1. Introduction The City of San Luis Obispo, through adopted City policies, is committed to providing safe and ' convenient access to its downtown retail core. Access to downtown includes access to convenient parking. The convenience of parking can be defined in terms of availability,proximity to ones destination and cost.- The City policies recognize that it may not be possible to meet downtown access I and parking needs without substantial changes in travel behavior. The necessary changes in travel behavior include reduced reliance on the single occupant vehicle as the primary means of access. ' The Downtown Access& Parking Study was initiated to develop a Plan to meet long term downtown •. access and parking needs in San Luis Obispo. Increasing the number of available spaces through construction of new parking structures,reduction in the parking demand to free up spaces already ' available and parking management strategies to better utilize existing spaces are each considered as potential components within the recommended Downtown Access and Parking Plan. ' Purpose of this Report This is the second and final Progress Report for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Access& Parking ' Study. Progress Report#1 was published in February 1997. Progress Report#1 summarized existing conditions in the Study Area(Figure 1). This included existing parking utilization and duration surveys; an inventory of transit and alternative transportation services and programs; and the results of a ' pedestrian intercept survey conducted within the Study Area. Supplemental surveys conducted since Progress Report#I are provided in Appendix A. ' Progress Report#2 uses the data described in Progress Report#1 and initial policy directions established by an ad hoc group of downtown business people, Business Improvement Association(BIA) staff and alternative transportation advocates,to formulate alternative strategies for meeting parking needs within the Study Area. These alternative strategies and recommendations will be reviewed by the City Council ' at a public meeting. The Council will be asked to select a preferred strategy-which will then be used to establish the basic direction and content of the Downtown Access and Parking Plan. The Plan will be prepared, copies will be made available to the public, it will be reviewed at a public hearing with the ' public invited to participate, and the Council will consider adoption of the Plan. The City may wish to consider adoption of the Downtown Access and Parking Plan as part of a revised Parking Management Plan. IInitial Policy Directions ' The initial list of policy directions to be considered in the Downtown Access and Parking Study was developed by City staff and the ad hoc committee prior to the start of the Downtown Access & Parking Study. They are outlined in the consultant scope of work as follows: I 1,,,;%-0M%o,;.310 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 I I I , i J rl cc m 0:O L N ~ j OLL Q a rf zco N yLu O mJCCO ' Q I Q Q O N Cc LZI a I CL Z Cc LL onzco mOLL SANT ROSA I N LUtL O W CO In N I Y �o�z OC3 W t0 Q N F I r r aZLL H I Q m OUWG LU Ix w wI LL I z C7 I U O = I a ' I I OSOS ST. ' I co QqT o I N I MORRO ST. I I Q N Ol I r CC,,,, n Q ' I I I I - - -I CST_ _ _ _ _ _ _ " m I N Q I I I GARDEN ST I N N t9 Q N.BROAD ST. c N m w BROAD ST. I � H I a w I Vyi o 0 a Z I I Q Q ' NIPOMO ST 'C z C coI N FF cn Q mLo 2 U � m � I a � o I O a BEACH ST. F I i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Maintain Status Quo ► Expansion of parking supply and alternative transportation using only existing funding sources (Funding Constrained Policy Direction); ' Maximize Transportation Demand Management(TDM) ► Expansion of parking supply within BIA ► Partial implementation of Downtown Concept Plan The alternative directions outlined in the scope of work tend to provide mutually exclusive choices. For example, selection of a policy to expand the supply of downtown parking to fully satisfy expected ' demand implies that no significant change in mode choice will be pursued. It is possible that the analysis of the alternative directions listed above will help identify a potentially advantageous combination of parking supply expansion and TDM measures. Therefore,a policy direction that includes both types of Iactions is included in the analysis. The purpose of Table l is to further outline what is implied within each access and parking policy ' direction and to define the TDM and parking supply components assumed within each policy direction. Future Access and Parking Scenarios ' Preliminary estimates of downtown access and parking demand were presented in Progress Report 1, Section 6. The preliminary estimates have been refined and are used to evaluate the adequacy of the I access and parking alternatives presented later in this Progress Report. The estimates of parking demand have been refined to reflect three access and parking demand scenarios: low growth,moderate growth and high growth. ' A no-growth alternative is not included since it is unrealistic and provides very limited information for consideration by the City Council. If no growth occurs and existing parking demands are being met, then ' no further action would be required. However, a lack of growth would likely indicate a significant change in downtown San Luis Obispo. Since the population and economy in the County is expected to continue to grow over the next 5 to 10 years,stable conditions in downtown San Luis Obispo could be interpreted as a decline in its role within the regional economy and could signal a decline in its vitality. A ' rate of growth in downtown access and parking demand that lags noticeably behind population growth in the County would be cause for concern within downtown business community. ' Existing Parking Supply and Demand Throughout much of a typical weekday, about 2,700 downtown parking spaces out of a total of 3,720 ' existing spaces in the Study Area are used- a 70 percent utilization rate.. This demand is not uniform throughout the Study Area. Rather, it is concentrated around the retail core area that includes the Downtown Center. Of the 2,700 spaces used, employees occupy about 1,000 (37%)and the remaining ' Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. lspyjg"61kprl.slo IJune 20, 1997 I i 1 O U ' .y CS O C w 'C O c d e c N o ECa co co 00 0 N C E cc 03 on G �y p 'C N �•+ C E d tC c Ntw �� U Y o ° ' E a a o � � 10 c � v � tw o f ° b E a3i ., N .. o 3 lC7 � 'V Gn 'N n ° :: C n A ° nca • M.? N N E N •�. u to U 00-Q x V.. V '�+ N ld O .0 N �'•� " � C 'L W C v N O a� N c 'x ca 'G "' E "' •N "' O y 7 7 O •oo O 0) n• v = x 0 t,�. .E W .0 � O ~ '= ` O O y N R :: U .0 6x) 0 a> cn > a o 3 w N m � 2 ca 00 ° E 0o O E c p e as o = v 00 (L) •:. a N v e m m o fl = 'N E u a .� a U E ° �o to A z ' O ca U m •= o ' v � x e o � � .a � o c E •° •v CA - od Lv yam EEoo`ogE mac+ ° to d° v ° a� a C O L t C C O d C. to C i N O C y CQ C o x.E ° 'E z F axi Q 3 W U w E 1 N a� u u •a C � u = c e In 1 1 •� � C c ° c > E E a`h°i m s d ° a cc C •V b eE 'U _ y •U a G ° N •� L,,, CL 'O U a� 7 a> N N V A C U A 0 7 •� •x C C ..+ O N CC F ° ° - OO O E N 00 a= " O N N v N C cC Ln E ' U 0 0 C. ¢ N a F • n a a V ° zz m , rh O C C O v1 o � 'N 3 v 'N • s � eCodC a a Q e a 0 0 a E o ?,p _ o 3 lC y N a F. 'N c e 'Er �Q :3 o ns ° O W C> 'O 0 O Y a � A od rA to CA ° nomrca 0 o t a ' e U o o M . c U O Cd ° C a Eo e m �E = N O Faxi o � 3 v a. 300•v �o � a C ' ca N e o. c ° a u u C.) Q C ' A U c A E a co o U 1 I IDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 42 ' 1,700(63%)are used by shoppers and other visitors to the downtown. Downtown employees park an additional 500 to 700 vehicles outside of the Study Area. IFuture Scenarios to be Considered Future access and parking demand in downtown San Luis Obispo will be determined by a combination of ' factors. These will include the condition of the regional economy,changes in demographics,the amount and location of intensification of downtown uses, and the ability to meet downtown parking and access needs. Accurately predicting these factors and the resulting parking and access demand is complex and ' can be highly speculative. With a combination of constrained access and parking availability,weak economic conditions and retail competition outside the downtown area, it is conceivable that demand for downtown access and parking could decline. In contrast, an adequate supply of parking,effective access ' and strong economic conditions could produce a substantial increase in retail activity in the downtown area and a corresponding increase in demand for access to the area. ' As has been demonstrated with the success of the Downtown Center, growth in downtown access and parking demand can be generated without a substantial increase in retail square footage. Therefore, it is not sufficient to look at existing under-developed sites to determine where future intensification is likely ' within the downtown or how development of currently vacant land will impact access and parking demand. Potential intensification of uses within existing building square footages must also be considered. ' Given the degree of uncertainty inherent in predicting future access and parking demand in the downtown area,this Downtown Access and Parking Study considers a range of potential future conditions. The final recommendations will include a plan for monitoring specific,quantifiable ' indicators so that future changes in demand can be recognized and appropriate access and parking strategies can be implemented. ' Development and Commercial Intensities Recent historical sales tax and parking revenue data obtained from the City indicate strong growth in the Study Area over the last five years. Both indicators suggest an unadjusted annual growth rate of as much as 5 percent. The City's Circulation Element assumes an overall 42 percent growth in travel within San Luis Obispo between 1990 and 2020. This would imply a 1.4 percent annual increase in travel. ' A recent economic forecast for San Luis Obispo County,prepared by the University of California at Santa Barbara, predicted total employment would grow by 1.3 percent in 1997, increasing each year to a ' 1.8 percent growth in the Year 2000. However, retail employment in the County is expected to grow by. between 2.7 and 3.1 percent per year over the same period. Similarly,retail sales are expected to grow by between 3.5 and 4.4 percent per year between 1997 and the Year 2000 (in constant dollars). (The ' forecasts did not provide specific data for the City of San Luis Obispo or the Study Area). ' Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 1apy96-06 XW2.sb L ' June 20,1997 V I Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 I The range of change in the intensity of downtown commercial activity will be defined as indicated below. The alternatives will be evaluated within these intensity scenarios: ' Scenario 1: Low Growth Scenario. What strategies are recommended if downtown activity grows at a relatively slow rate(I percent per year)over the next 10 to 15 years? Scenario 1 will give an indication of what actions are appropriate today and those actions that should be pursued in the near term. Growth in downtown San Luis Obispo should exceed the Scenario 1 forecasts barring a significant economic downturn or constraints infrastructure limits(e.g. water supply, sewer capacity). Scenario 1 reflects slightly lower growth forecasts than those used in developing the City's Circulation Element. ' Scenario 2: Moderate Growth Scenario. What access and parking strategies are recommended if growth in downtown activity(e.g. retail sales)averages 2.5 percent per year over the next 10 to 15 years while ' employment grows at 1.5 percent per year? Scenario 2 provides what is probably the most likely forecast of future conditions in downtown San Luis Obispo. It reflects a limited pattern of growth consistent with expected economic, infrastructure or demographic conditions that will moderate the rate of growth within the Study Area. It is consistent with the recent economic forecasts(using total ' employment and total sales as primary indicators)but implies a slightly higher rate of growth than predicted in the forecasts used in support of the City's Circulation Element. This scenario would increase demand for long term (employee)parking faster than for short-term(customer)parking. ' Scenario 3: High Growth Scenario. What access and parking strategies are recommended if growth in retail sales averages five percent per year over the next 10 to 15 years and downtown employment grows ' by 2.5 percent per year? Scenario 3 represents a continuation of historical growth achieved over the last five years(as indicated by the sales tax and parking revenue data). If the downtown area grows at rates consistent with other areas of the County,actual growth in parking demand in downtown San Luis ' Obispo will not reach the levels predicted in Scenario 3 within the next 15 years. As discussed above,forecasting of future downtown access and parking demand is complex since growth I will not occur in a uniform and necessarily predictable way. The three scenarios selected"bracket"the probable levels of growth. It is assumed that growth in the downtown short term parking demand will parallel the rate of growth for retail sales. Long term employee parking is assumed to grow at a rate ' parallel to downtown employment growth. Type of Intensification ' The type of development or commercial intensification will make a substantial difference in the access and parking strategy recommendations. For example retail growth will have much different parking ' demand characteristics than would growth dominated by restaurants or entertainment uses. Office employment growth would place different demands on the downtown parking supply than retail or other commercial uses. Similarly,the mix of employee versus visitor growth will also affect the parking strategy recommendations. I1■v%i96-064Vr2+10Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 20, 1997 7 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 ' The quantity of new parking recommended in this Progress Report for construction in the downtown assumes that future development and intensification of uses in the Study Area will reflect the current mix of uses in the downtown area. However, the potential impacts of changes in mix are considered and are ' discussed in Sections 3 of this Progress Report. Location ' The Study Area portion of downtown San Luis Obispo was divided into four quadrants as shown in Figure 1. Under each access and parking intensity scenario,the question has been asked: "what if the ' focus of the growth is within the northwest, northeast,southeast or southwest quadrant of downtown?" While the alternative transportation strategies can remain virtually unchanged under each of these locational scenarios, substantial differences in strategies to increase parking supply would result ' depending on the quadrant within which the downtown intensification occurs. The effects of concentrating growth in different quadrants of the downtown were considered in developing the recommendations contained in Section 4 of this report. Locating future structures near the internal ' quadrant boundaries provides better coverage of potential growth than would structures located in "outside corners"of the study area since structures near internal quadrant boundaries can better serve intensification in multiple quadrants. For example, locating a structure between Marsh and Higuera in ' the western portion of the study area would be more effective than a structure on the Wells Fargo site. Similarly, a structure between Palm and Monterey along Morro(Palm II) would be superior to a structure over the existing lot at Palm and Nipomo. ' Employees,visitors and shoppers in the downtown area want to park as close to their destination as possible. The Intercept Survey revealed that 44 percent of all those who parked downtown based their ' decision as to where to park on proximity to their destination and 26 percent based on availability. Therefore,one could expect that as many as 70 percent of downtown parkers would select their parking location based on proximity to their destination, if parking was available throughout the downtown. The ' Intercept Survey also indicted that few respondents would be willing to walk more than six blocks to their destination. Ideally,new parking in level portions of the downtown should be located within about four blocks of ' major downtown activity centers. Topography can impact the effective service areas of parking structures. For example,the Palm Street garage provides only limited parking for shoppers destined for the Marsh/Higuera retail core. The potential of carrying packages uphill to reach their parked car can ' discourage some visitors to the downtown. Therefore,the location of future activity centers and areas of intensification within the downtown, area along with the topography of the area,will have a profound impact on where parking will be needed. ' The City can influence where intensification will occur in the downtown through zoning or other land use controls. However,property ownership, market conditions and other influences outside the City's ' control may produce differing patterns of intensification. Parking supply alternatives must,therefore, be flexible enough to respond to intensification in different parts of the downtown area. I tapy%-0W�pRsW g Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. ' June 20,1997 ' Downtown Access&Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Clearly, concentration of development near the Downtown Center where parking is already scarce will create a far different magnitude of parking and access needs or level of urgency for action than would future development near the periphery of the Study Area where parking utilization is lower and the ' existing parking supply could accommodate some of the future growth. Strategies that emphasize trip reduction as a means of reducing both existing and future parking demand ' will have far more impact in areas of higher employment densities(e.g. on parking serving the government center). This may,or may not, coincide with the area of retail intensification. ' Applicable City Policies Access and parking policies of the City are defined in the Circulation Element(November 1994)and the ' Parking Management Plan(December 1995). Should all or part of the Downtown Access& Parking Plan be adopted by the City Council,then one of the following actions would be required: ' 1. The Downtown Access and Parking Plan could be incorporated into a revised Parking Management Plan,or ' 2. The Plan could be adopted separately along with appropriate revisions to the existing Circulation Element and Parking Management Plan ' Of particular interest to this Downtown Access& Parking Study is the Trip Reduction chapter of the Circulation Element and the Parking Management section of the Other Transportation Programs chapter. This study is being prepared to comply with Parking Management Program 12.7 in the ' Circulation Element which states that "Additional parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study(that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completed and its results are considered." ' The Circulation Element emphasizes the use of transit and alternative modes as a means with which to meet access needs throughout the City. A substantial portion of the Circulation Element sets goals, ' strategies and objectives for reducing the use of the single occupant automobile through increased use of transit and alternative modes of travel. The Circulation Element provides Modal Split Objectives that acknowledge a substantial increase in travel within the City(42 percent between 1990 and 2020). In ' comparison,the number of trips made by single occupant automobile would only increase by approximately 23 percent. The Circulation Element states the City's goal to increase transit usage by over 100 percent,bicycles by 136 percent and a 94 percent increase in walking,carpools and other ' alternative modes of travel during the same 30 year time frame.[ The Parking Management Plan is supportive of the Circulation Element. Its narrow focus on vehicle parking allows more detailed policies and more geographic specificity. If the City elects to incorporate ' the Downtown Access and Parking Plan as part of a revised Parking Management, it may be necessary to ' I City of San Luis Obispo,Circulation Element,Adopted November 29,1994,Figure#I,pg. 10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 1ap\j96-064%pr2.a10 9 ' June 20, 1997 7 IDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' revisit the following policies and actions: Policy 1.3: Curb parking spaces are intended for short term parking. People parking for longer periods ' should use monthly permit lots, long term meter spaces and parking structures. This policy, in combination with Policy 1.8 which discourages use of the Marsh Street structure by long term parkers, recommends the Palm Street structure as a primary location for long term(employee) parking. This ' policy does not define whether future structures should be located to be convenient for employees and other long term parkers. The City may wish to clarify this policy as it relates to the location and use of future parking structures depending upon the alternative Downtown Access& Parking Plan selected. ' The existing policy is appropriate for the Palm Street structure, given its proximity to the government center area, its use by jurors and its proximity to the retail core that makes it appropriate for use by retail employees,but may not be close enough to meet the needs of shoppers for short term parking. Long ' term employee parking in other structures added within the Study Area may be inappropriate, however. Policy 2.6: The City should discourage long term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core ' [BIA area]by expanding areas with two hour limits, monitoring use of 30-minute curb spaces, considering increased fines for overtime violations and considering resident parking districts in areas adjoining the commercial core and office districts. The parking utilization survey conducted as part of ' this study indicates some under-utilization of two hour parking in the periphery of the Study Area. In contrast,the existing 10-hour meter permit program has become very popular with 185 permits sold. This represents over 60 percent of the 305 available 10 hour spaces in the Study Area. As part of the ' selected Downtown Access & Parking Plan,the City may elect to convert some 2-hour spaces to 10-hour spaces to provide employee parking where short term parking is not sufficiently utilized. Policy 4.1: Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and ' patrons ofgovernment and private offices. The commercial core is defined as the BIA area in the Parking Management Plan. The Plan also supports the Downtown Concept Plan which included providing parking structures in the periphery of the BIA area. The City may elect to be more specific in ' defining the desired location of parking structures. For example,compliance with Circulation Element Goal 5 (to make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians)might suggest a "retail core" within the BIA area where it is desirable to reduce automobile travel to help create a pedestrian ' friendly environment. Placement of parking structures in this retail core would be inconsistent with this concept since the added parking supply would attract more automobiles. Similarly,the City may elect to differentiate between downtown visitors(shoppers or tourists)and downtown employees. Clearly,the ' intent of the Downtown Access& Parking Plan will be to provide convenient parking for visitors near the most intensive downtown commercial and cultural activities. It becomes much less certain whether employee parking must be as convenient. 1' ' Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. lap\j9ti-ObApr2 flo 10 ' June 20, 1997 1 . , i 2. Potential Transit & TDM Actions ISan Luis Obispo may elect to construct sufficient new parking to meet future demand. Alternatively I parking spaces can be made available to downtown shoppers and visitors by reducing long term (employee) parking demand through the implementation of selected TDM measures. This section of the report describes the TDM measures recommended to the Steering Committee for consideration in the ' Downtown Access and Parking Plan and evaluation of packages of TDM measures reflecting the initial policy directions described in Section 1. ' The goal of TDM measures in the Downtown Access and Parking Plan is to ensure that downtown is easily accessible via carpooling,vanpooling, transit, bicycling and walking in order to lessen demand for parking among travelers, such as employees,that may find alternative means of travel practical and I attractive. TDM efforts considered for the Downtown Access and Parking Plan recognize that the economic well being and the vitality of downtown depends upon the ability to retain and increase the interest of those that use downtown,as well as attract new travelers. IIdentifying Appropriate TDM Measures I Downtown San Luis Obispo is blessed with a wealth of facilities,transportation services, and policies that make the use of carpooling,vanpooling,transit,bicycling and walking practical alternatives to driving and parking,particularly for commuters. The measures recommended for consideration build on ' existing TDM services and facilities and assume existing travel characteristics as described in the First Progress Report. ' A series of TDM measures recommended to the Steering Committee were developed on the basis of the travel behavior and attitudes toward transportation alternatives of persons using downtown (as drawn from the November 1996 Intercept, 1997 Residential,and 1997 Follow-Up surveys),the availability and I use of TDM services and facilities, and an ability to evaluate the effectiveness of a measure in providing access to downtown. Most of the TDM measures are directed at reducing peak period,home-to-work trips made in motor vehicles, however a few of the actions(e.g.,adding bicycle lanes)would make it I possible for other travelers to change their means, frequency,and/or time of travel to lessen parking demand. Descriptions of the `candidate' TDM measures are presented in Appendix B. I The first step in assessing the appropriateness of TDM actions was to assess their individual contribution to providing access to downtown. The candidate TDM measures were evaluated in terms of several factors or criteria, provided in Table 2. I Estimates of effectiveness for individual candidate TDM measures were developed by applying trip reduction factors experienced in other communities(as described in technical reference manuals or other documentation)to the existing characteristics of downtown's travel markets(i.e., employees, visitors, I and/or residents) including their travel behavior(i.e.,number of average daily vehicle trips) and attitudes toward changes in travel behavior(as expressed in the surveys referenced above). IMeyer,Mohaddes Associates; Inc. Inpv96-064%pr_.slo 7 IJune 20, 1997 1 I I IDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 I Table 2 TDM Evaluation Criteria Measurement Criteria I 1. Effectiveness Parking spaces made available 2. Cost effectiveness Cost per parking spaces created 3. Risk Concern for achieving trip reduction ' 4. Start-up and operating costs $ 5.Time to implement and reduce trips #of months 6. Acceptability: community, business Perception of problems/receptivity I ' Candidate TDM Measures The following measures are proposed for consideration in the Downtown Access&Parking Study. They ' are described in more detail in Appendix B. Parking Management ' 1. Set aside and market preferentially located parkingfor authorized car/vanpools in public parking facilities: Public parking facilities would provide preferentially located parking for carpools and ' vanpools for all employees working in downtown in a manner similar to that afforded to employees working for the City of San Luis Obispo. Employees would be required to register their carpooUvanpool vehicles with the Program Manager. This measure is distinguished from the City's existing preferential ' parking set aside at the Palm St. garage by an active marketing program focused on private sector employees. 2. Reduce monthly parking charges based on vehicle occupancy: Monthly parking charges in public I parking facilities would be levied based on the occupancy of vehicles using public parking facilities. Vehicles with three or more occupants would not pay a fee,while vehicles with two occupants would pay half of the monthly fee. ' 3. Increase parking rates for long-term parkers: Increase fees for vehicles parking 3 or more hours in public parking facilities. ' 4. Lower parking rates in underutilized parking facilities by time of day: Fees for parking in public parking facilities that are not utilized fully would be reduced. ' Traveler Information I 5. Enhance local "web"pages to allow residents to shop or conduct business with public agencies: San Luis Obispo Rideshare's Internet Home Page would be enhanced to allow merchants to advertise products and services, communicate with customers, and conduct transactions. IMeyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Iepy9606J\pr2slo 1 ' June 20, 1997 I i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' 6. Communicate actively with residents regarding choices on means of travel to downtown: This activity would consist of continuous, high visibility marketing among employees, residents, and businesses including publicity, promotions,advertising, and sales activities. IFacilities/PhysicalImprovements 7. Designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout downtown: Areas on, or adjacent to streets (e.g., surface parking lots, alleys)would be designated as zones in which carpools/vanpools could pick up and discharge riders. This measure will require an increase in the marketing of commute Ialternatives. 8. Install and maintain interactive transportation information displays at walk-up locations: This ' measure would provide information on traveling to and around downtown, location of businesses and governmental services, and other information on a real-time basis accessed at a walk-up display. ' 9. Expand bike lanes: Downtown has many bicycle facilities,however there are only two streets with bicycle lanes. Many respondents to the Intercept and 1997 Residential surveys cited the addition of bicycle lanes as being a significant factor in getting them to not drive downtown. Transportation Services I 10. Enhance existing shuttle services: Expanded shuttle services to downtown would serve employees living within the City limits and not served well by existing transit. This service would be similar to the `Hop' service being launched by Ride On TMA. Marketing of ridesharing and transit would need to be ' increased as part of this measure. Non-Parking Financial Measures I11. Provide downtown employees with annual transportation pass: Employers would purchase annual transportation passes for employees working in downtown that provide access to all forms of ridesharing, ' transit services, bicycle lockers, and reduced car/vanpool parking rates. Funds generated from the purchase of passes would be used to expand transit services,provide ridematching services annually, offer demand-responsive midday transportation,bicycle storage facilities and guaranteed rides home. I Marketing of ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure. Revenue to support providing the transportation pass(many of which are included in the list of TDM measures)would come from user fees, individual employers, and/or the downtown parking fund. ' 12. Lower vanpool fares: Fares charged for riding in vanpools would be reduced in order to stimulate ridership among employees traveling longer distances(i.e., greater than 15 miles)to work in downtown ' 13. Provide employees with financial incentives for using alternative transportation: Employees not parking would register to receive monthly financial incentives in cash or merchandise. Marketing of I ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 1.pN 96_oa+b,x..io IJune 20, 1997 13 I i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 ILand Use Policies I 14. Enhance local codes to permit working at home: City and County land use codes would be reviewed and changes would be identified that could encourage or facilitate working at home. ' 15. Adopt TDMfacilities requirements for new development: The City's land use/zoning code would be amended to require new developments within the Study Area to include TDM facilities including preferential parking for car/vanpools, changing facilities, information displays,pickup/drop-off zones, I and bus stop improvements.Property owners would be required to have tenants offer annual ridematching services to employees. ' Other 16. Adopt telecommuting(from home and/or at facilities outside of downtown) as a regular practice ' among City and County employees: Employers would be encouraged and assisted in adopting telecommuting. As part of this effort, City and County departments would be assigned a goal for having employees telecommuting as part of a demonstration project. Individual offices would develop a ' telecommuting goal based on their functions. Administrative policies and practices would be amended to facilitate telecommuting. Training sessions and coaching of management and employees would be provided. I17. Adopt Compressed Work Weeks for City and County employees: Employers would be encouraged and assisted in adopting compressed work weeks. County offices would have at least 50% of employees working 9/80 schedules(i.e.,9 days over two weeks). City offices would adopt 4/10(i.e., 4 days per week, 10 hours per day) for at least 50%of their downtown permanent work force since many employees currently work 9/80 schedules. ITable 3 identifies the number of parking spaces each measure is estimated to make available.It is not appropriate to develop an estimate of the cumulative effect of all TDM measures by adding tite individual estimates of effectiveness since only a few of the TDM measures(e.g., bicycle lanes) can be acted on independently. Moreover, it is likely that TDM measures to be included in the Plan will be combined with complementary actions(TDM and non-TDM)that reflect policy choices on access I strategies(See Appendix Q. Identifying `Preferred' TDM Measures I Identifying TDM measures that should be considered further involved: 1)establishing the importance or weight of each selection criterion,2) rating the performance of each TDM measure on each of the I selection criterion, and 3) ranking the relative attractiveness of the TDM measures by considering how well the measure performs in light of the importance of the selection criteria. I i„y9aae+ba.,io 14 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. IJune 20, 1997 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 The scores for each measure in Table B-1, in Appendix B,are based on multiplying a measure's performance rating times the weight of the criteria(as provided by the Steering committee at its May 1, 1997 meeting). ' Measures were grouped into three categories based on their scores(i.e.,High,Medium and Low scores). Actions included in the `high' scoring group were considered as primary measures,while candidate ' actions that fall into the `medium' group were considered to be complementary efforts. Actions in the `low' grouping were dropped from further consideration. Table 4 shows the TDM measures grouped into `high', `medium',and `low' scores. The TDM Measures were grouped by dividing the range of ' total scores(25 to 70) into 3 groups: (1) High-total score: 57 to 70,(2)Medium-total Score: 43 to 56, and(3) Low-total score: 25 to 42. A total of six"High"scoring and five `Medium' scoring TDM measures were identified,and are considered for further analysis. Measures that scored in the `Low' ' group that were dropped from further consideration include: P. Enhanced Local "web"page ' ► Interactive information displays(#8) ► Enhancement of shuttle services(#10) ► Provide annual transportation pass(#11) ' ► Provide financial incentives(#13) Potentia!Packages of TDM Measures ' TDM measures should be viewed as packages of actions since changing travel behavior requires measures that reinforce each other and get implemented over time as needed. TDM measures that should ' be considered further are packaged in combinations that reflect the strategies underlying each Access Policy(see Section 1: Policy directions)that take advantage of TDM to make parking spaces available (i.e., Funding Constrained, maximum TDM, combined Actions)as noted below: ' 1. Status Quo- no new TDM actions 2. Funding Constrained(Low Cost TDM Actions): ' Modify Land Use Code to Allow Telecommuting(#14) Modify Land Use Code to Require TDM Improvements at New Developments(#15) ' Increase Telecommuting Among City and County Workers in Downtown (#16) Increase Compressed Work Week Schedules Among City and County Workers in Downtown (#17) 1 2 Full participation from the Steering Committee was not achieved at this meeting. Representatives of the BIA elected not ' to participate since the proposed alternative strategies included use of parking revenues to fund TDM measures. 1&,y96-064�:.&W 15 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. lunc 20, 1997 1 1 ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Table 3 Summary of Candidate TDM Measure Effectiveness ' Measure# Description Parking Spaces Made Available Parlun Mana eent 1 g gm1 Preferentially located parking for car/vanpools in public 17 parking 2 Reduce parking charges based on vehicle occupancy 5 ' 3 Increase parking rates for long-term parkers 42 4 Lower parking rates in underutilized parking by time of 0 day 1 . . - rave er: n ormattoa Enhance local"web"pages 0 to 3 6 Communicate actively with residents regarding choices for 0 to 27 ' traveling downtown Facilities/Physical Improvements 7 Designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout 0 to 27 ' downtown 8 Install interactive transportation information displays 0 to 2 9 Expand bike lanes 147 ' Transportation Services.. 10 Enhance existing shuttle services 4 Non.Parking:Financial:;Measures- 11 Provide downtown employees with annual transportation 49 pass ' 12 Lower vanpool fares 27 13 Provide employees with financial incentives for using 39 alternative transportation :< Land:Use<Polictes ' 14 Enhance local codes to permit working at home 0 to 27 15 Adopt TDM facilities requirements for new development 54 to 134 Other Measures .; ' 16 Adopt telecommuting among City and County employees 21 77. Adopt Compressed Work Weeks for City and County 15 ' employees ' 7 Measure numbers do not indicate relative rankings �soyga-oa�prl lip Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 20, 1997 16 1 I ,. i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 I3. Maximum TDM: Medium and High scoring measures Provide and actively market preferentially located parking for car/vanpools in public parking ' facilities(#1) Reduce and market actively parking charges based on vehicle occupancy in public parking facilities(#2) ' Increase parking rates for long-term parkers in public parking facilities(#3) Lower parking rates in underutilized parking by time of day in public parking facilities(#4) Designate passenger pick-up/discharge areas(#7) ' Expand bike lanes(#9) Lower vanpool fares(#12) Modify Land Use Code to Allow Telecommuting(#14) ' Modify Land Use Code to Require TDM Improvements at New Developments(#15) Increase Telecommuting Among City and County Workers in Downtown(#16) Increase Compressed Work Week Schedules Among City and County Workers in Downtown ' (#17) 4. Parking Expansion- no new TDM actions I5. Partial Concept Plan-no new TDM actions ' 6. Combined Actions: Lower parking rates in underutilized parking by time of day(#4) ' Designate passenger pick-up/discharge areas(#7) Expand bike lanes(#9) Modify Land Use Code to Allow Telecommuting(#14) ' Modify Land Use Code to Require TDM Improvements at New Developments(#15) Increase Telecommuting Among City and County Workers in Downtown(#16)4 Increase Compressed Work Week Schedules Among City and County Workers in Downtown (#17) ' The effectiveness of the TDM packages was measured by their contribution to making parking spaces available to other users, as shown for the"Low Growth","Medium"and"High"Growth Scenarios in I Tables C-1 through C-9 in Appendix C. Analyses of the Growth Scenarios were conducted.using 1%, 1.5% and 2.5% annual increases in vehicle trips respectively for the three scenarios. I ' 4 TDM Measure 16 was grouped in the `medium' score range,but has been added here to the `high' group measures to accompany Measure 14. I i.py9a-owWz.s10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 17 Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ITable 4 TDM Measures Grouped By Total Score' I Measure# Description Total Score AHi h' Grou 9 Expand bike lanes 70 ' 7 Designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout 65 downtown 14 Enhance local codes to permit working at home 62 ' 17 Adopt Compressed Work Weeks for City and County 60 employees 4 Lower parking rates in underutilized parking by time of day 59 ' 15 Adopt TDM facilities requirements for new development 57 `:Medium'. Group 12 Lower vanpool fares 56 ' 16 Adopt telecommuting among Ciry and County employees 56 1 Preferentially located parking for car/ Is in public pkg 46 3 Increase parking rates for long-term parkers 46 ' 2 Reduce parking charges based on vehicle occupancy 44 %6W.7 Group' 5 Enhance local"web" pages 42 ' 10 Enhance existing shuttle services 42 6 Communicate actively with residents regarding choices for 39 traveling downtown I 13 Provide employees with financial incentives for using 39 alternative transportation 8 Install interactive transportation information displays 34 11 Provide downtown employees with annual transportation pass 1 25 I I ' The TDM Measures were grouped by dividing the range of total scores(25 to 70)into 3 groups:(l)High-total score:57 ' to 70,(2)Medium-total Score:43 to 56,and(3)Low-total score:25 to 42. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. Iap\j9ti-064\pr2slo ' June 20, 1997 18 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 The effectiveness of a TDM package is expressed as a range since the trips that are estimated to be ' reduced is based on numerous factors that can not be quantified. The estimated effectiveness of the TDM packages defined for the access policies described above, under the Low-Growth, Moderate- Growth and High-Growth Scenarios, is summarized in Table 5 and in Appendix C. These parking spaces ' freed up, as a result of vehicle trip reductions,represent the"ea of the TDM packages at the end of the 15 year forecast period, may take up to 3 years to mature, and depend on the level of effort and vigor with which the programs are pursued by the City. ' Table 5 Summary of Effectiveness of TDM Packages I (Under Alternative Access Policies and Growth Scenarios' Growth.Scenario Access.Policy....:'. Daily Parking Spaces Made Available.. ' Low Growth Funding Constrained 71 to 195 parking spaces (1% annual growth Maximum TDM 443 to 536 parking spaces in vehicle trips) Combined Actions 316 to 408 parking spaces ' Medium Growth Funding Constrained 108 to 206 parking spaces (1.5% annual growth Maximum TDM 466 to 564 parking spaces in vehicle trips) Combined Actions 333 to 431 parking spaces I High Growth Funding Constrained 205 to 393 parking spaces (2.5% annual growth Maximum TDM 885 to 1073 parking spaces in vehicle trips) Combined Actions 648 to 836 parking spaces ITDM Costs ' Table 6 summarizes the capital and annual operating costs of each of the three TDM packages described previously. The cost of the TDM packages is constant. However,the cost per space will vary based on I the rate of growth in downtown access demand. The higher the growth in access demand,the lower the TDM costs per space since more spaces are made available at the same cost. I The Low, Medium and High Growth Scenarios are calculated for a 15 year planning horizon, Iusing 1%, 1.5% and 2.5% annual growth in vehicle trips respectively. lapy9a064%prz.slo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. IJune 20. 1997 19 I i . Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report.#2 Table 6 Costs of TDM Packages Under Alternative Access Policies and Growth Scenarios' Gioivik Scenario TDMPackage Average Cap'IC A A .......... (S/space) Operating C bit.. Low Growth Funding Constrained $ 129 to 352 462 to 1269 Maximum TDM $308 to 373 $998 to 1208 Combined Actions $233 to 301 $221 to 286 Medium Growth Funding Constrained $ 122 to 232 —S 438 to 835 Maximum TDM $ 293 to 354 $949 to 1149 Combined Actions $220 to 286 $ 209 to 271 High Growth Funding Constrained $64 to 122 $ 230 to 440 Maximum TDM $ 154 to 187 $499 to 605 H Combined Actions L $ 114 to 147 $ 108 to 139 --J1 Implementation Considerations The final step in crafting the TDM element of the Plan is to describe how TDM measures are to be implemented including roles and responsibilities, setting of performance objectives, sequence of actions (as tied to the need to improve access), measurement procedures, monitoring and reporting,and milestones that indicate the need to engage additional TDM(and other access strategy)actions. Funding Funding.for TDM measures may be derived from several sources including: City's General Fund ► Air Pollution Control District's AB 2766 Mobile Source Reduction funds(discretionary funds) ► Parking revenues Voluntary or mandated assessment of individual property owners/employers ► Transit Development Act- Section 9 and operating funds Monitoring Operating costs were calculated for a 15 year planning horizon,using an 8.5%interest rate. lapy%-064%prlslo Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 20 Employers should be asked to identify a person at their organization who should be contacted regarding transportation and have their employees participate in an annual survey of travel behavior. This information will allow for monitoring of travel needs in downtown and establish the basis for further ' actions to provide parking either through construction and/or further TDM measures.Data collected in the survey should also be used to produce ridematching lists for employees if they so desire. 1 I 1 I I 1 1 ' lapy96064p!2.do Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lune 20, 1191 21 ! 3. Potential Parking Management & Supply Options ! The Downtown Access& Parking Plan will reflect the City's decisions regarding how much parking is ! required in the Study Area, where the additional parking should be provided and when it should be constructed. The decisions regarding how much should be built and when it should be constructed will reflect how aggressive the City elects to use TDM to either reduce or delay the need for parking. The ! following sections provide a basis for making these decisions and developing alternatives that reflect the City's approach to meeting downtown access and parking demand. ! Adequacy of Existing Downtown Parking ! The adequacy of existing parking in meeting the needs of the downtown can be defined in terms of public perceptions or quantifiable measures. For example, it is possible to use the data presented in Progress Report# I to determine that existing parking demand may exceed available supply near the ! Downtown Center. On-street parking near the Downtown Center was about 80 percent utilized throughout most of the day during weekdays. In addition, parking in the Marsh Street structure was over 90 percent utilized at 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and for most of the Saturday afternoon. At this level, the ! garage is effectively full,with some vehicles waiting in aisles for spaces to become available by vehicles leaving the garage. Lines form at the entry point and parking becomes more time consuming. ! Public Perceptions Is a shortage of parking convenient to key activity centers deterring trips to downtown? While a ! complete answer to this question would require a broad marketing study, some indication was obtained in the Intercept Survey. When asked if they had considered not traveling to the downtown only 27 percent indicated that they had. Of these about half indicated that parking was inconvenient or too ! limited. This suggests that parking availability is not a major deterrent to downtown travel today but may affect some people's decision to come to the downtown area. This also suggests that there may be some people who are not currently coming into the downtown(and thus would not be reflected in the ! downtown Intercept Survey). Parking availability may be part of their decision not to visit downtown. Similarly, when Intercept Survey respondents were asked to rate downtown parking,transit and access, the cost and availability of parking received relatively low ratings, indicating that both cost and ! availability of parking may sometimes discourage travel to downtown. The recent transportation survey conducted by the City(April 1997)confirmed that downtown parking is one of the top transportation needs within San Luis Obispo. ! These survey results may indicate that existing heavy parking demand near the Downtown Center may be emerging as a potentially significant deterrent to downtown travel. The limited number of responses ! indicating a parking problem may indicate that the shortage of parking is geographically limited and affected only those wishing to park near the Downtown Center. This would be consistent with the findings of the parking utilization survey results reported in Progress Report 1. Failure to create i 4y9eo64aaj10 22 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ! lune 20, 1997 ! i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' additional parking in areas of high demand may slow or reduce potential growth in downtown activity. Alternatively,encouraging intensification in areas of lower parking demand could delay or reduce the need for additional parking in the downtown area. ' Estimated Existing Shortfall ' The Wilbur Smith parking study conducted in San Luis Obispo concluded that downtown parking rates are lower than in suburban areas. Existing downtown parking standards in San Luis Obispo recognize ' these lower overall parking requirements in the central business district. In the downtown, one space per 500 square feet of office or retail is required versus 1 space per 200 for office and 1 space per 300 square feet outside of the downtown(C-C zone). Prior to recommending measures to increase the availability of parking downtown it was necessary to determine if there is a current shortfall in parking and to validate conditions in San Luis Obispo with ' other similar communities. The San Luis Obispo land use survey and Central Business District parking requirements in the City of San Mateo were used to quantify and validate any existing parking surplus or shortfall in San Luis Obispo. The City of San Mateo standards were used for comparison because ' parking requirements in their downtown have been reduced to reflect public parking provided through their Central Parking Improvement District(CPID)and to reflect the multi-trip purposes common with downtown travel. The combination of private, public and on-street parking in San Mateo is similar to ' conditions in the BIA area in downtown San Luis Obispo.. The multi-trip purposes of downtown travel reduces overall parking needs in a downtown when compared to stand-alone or suburban uses as documented in a variety of sources. ' The existing land uses in the Study Area were aggregated into six land use categories. The existing square footage in each category was calculated along with the number of spaces "theoretically" required ' are provided in Table 7. The number of spaces in Table 7 should be considered illustrative since actual parking demand may vary depending on local conditions including types of downtown uses, modal split and other factors. ' Table 7 illustrates several important things regarding parking in downtown San Luis Obispo. First,the City is carrying a substantial portion of the parking burden for downtown uses. In comparison to the theoretical estimate of parking needs in Table 7, downtown businesses provide only 1,522 off-street parking spaces(about 35 percent of the required number of spaces). ' The on-street and off-street spaces provided by the City bring the total number of available spaces to 3,720°or about 86 percent of the theoretical need calculated in Table 7. This tends to support the public S Progress Report#1,pp.8 and 9. These are available spaces and do not include the 310 space Marsh Street Expansion. Council direction was to assume that the Marsh Street Expansion was existing. Instead,this report includes the expansion in all future alternatives. ,&',i96-a,,,prr,w23 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Table 7 Estimate of Theoretical Parking Supply Requirements ' Land Use Existing Quantity Spaces/1,000 sf Required Spaces by (sfl Code San Mateo SLO San Mateo SLO ' Wholesale 17,158 1 n/a 17 (<I%) ' Service 1,125,535 21) 2.0 2,476 2,250 (57%) ' Retail 626,259 1.9 2.0 1,190 1,252 (27%) Food& Beverage 132,761 3.9 n/a 518 I (12%) Vacant Commercial 73,343 1.9 n/a 139 (3%) TOTAL 4,340(100%) ' perceptions that there is a shortfall of parking in some parts of the downtown and that this is a factor for some people,when making their decision to come downtown. However, the magnitude of the problem is ' probably not creating a substantial amount of latent demand for downtown parking. Instead,the shortage of parking in the Study Area is reflected in overflow parking into the adjacent neighborhoods. As discussed in Section 1 of this Progress Report, it is estimated that approximately 700 employees ' currently park in the residential areas outside of the BIA boundaries. In particular, employee parking overflows into the residential areas along Pismo and Pacific Streets near the retail core area and into the area north of the Buchon Study Area. ' The data in Table 7 also illustrates the differences in parking demand between land use types. Restaurants can generate twice the parking demand as retail uses which, in turn, require twice the ' number of spaces as wholesale and manufacturing uses. Therefore, as the downtown develops, it will be important to monitor the type of development and intensification to identify changes in the existing overall mix of uses upon which this study's findings are based. ' Future Access and Parking Demand IThe future estimates of access and parking demand for each of the proposed future scenarios provided in Table 8 represent the basis for the evaluation of alternative downtown access and parking strategies. 1cpkj%-064Noa.e1u Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lunc 20, 1997 24 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#1 ' Table 8 Estimates of Future Access and Parking Demand within the Study Area' ' Scenario Peak Weekday Parking Demand Weekday Access Demand Long term Short Term Total Workers Visitors/ ' Residents 0. Existing 1,000 1,700 2,700 4,300/day 2,110/hour ' 1. Low Growth 1,160 1,970 3,130 4,990/day 2,450/hour 2. Moderate Growth 1,250 2,470 3,720 5,380/day 3,060/hour ' 3. High Growth 1,450 3,530 4,980 6,235/day 4,390/hour ' Estimates reflect forecast conditions compounded over 15 year planning horizon given growth razes assumed for each scenario as ' described in Section 1 of this report. A comparison of the potential code required parking summarized in Table 7 and the measured existing ' parking demand in Table 8 illustrates how the location and intensity of use can impact parking supply needs. The amount of parking provided in some areas of the downtown is adequate and, in fact, some areas remain underutilized. At the same time, demand for parking in other areas meets or exceeds capacity leaving downtown visitors circulating through the retail core in search of parking. In other ' words, the existing parking shortfall in the Study Area is only apparent in the areas around the Downtown Center where activity is intense. Overall, it would appear that sufficient parking exists to meet existing demand. Unfortunately, much of the available parking is not attractive to potential users Idue to its remoteness from their final destination,topography, time limits or other factors. ' In addition to the demand associated with development or intensification of uses in the downtown area, the City should attempt to reduce the amount of overflow parking in the residential areas surrounding the downtown. To fully accommodate employee parking demand in the downtown area a total of about 700 ' spaces must be made available. This could be accomplished through conversion of under-utilized short term meter spaces in the periphery of the downtown,construction of new spaces in structures within the Study Area or through TDM measures. ' Parking Management Options ' Parking spaces near the retail core can be made available for short term parkers(visitors and shoppers) through parking management strategies that encourage employees to park in less desirable spaces. ' Parking management strategies can also encourage use of parking spaces in areas currently underutilized. The management of parking generally includes pricing,establishing time limits and providing preferential parking for shoppers. The following parking management measures should be considered I lepy96.oapr2.alo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 25 ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#1 ' for incorporation within each of the alternatives presented in the next section of this report. ' PMAction 1: Reduction in the 90 minute free parking: Reduction in the amount of free time to 60 minutes for short term parkers should be considered for implementation as part of the Downtown Access & Parking Plan. No free time should be permitted for long term parkers. This action would have two ' beneficial effects. First it would discourage long term parking in the structures. This, in turn,would increase the number of short term spaces available for shoppers. In addition,the reduction in free time would increase parking revenues and help fund the TDM or Parking Expansion components of the Plan. Staff has estimated that this action could increase parking revenues by over$170,000 annually. PMAction 2: Elimination of maximum daily charge: The focus of the proposed Downtown Access & ' Parking Plan will be to reduce the number of long term parkers within the retail core. The spaces vacated by the long term parkers will be available for use by several shoppers and other short term parkers during the day. Under the existing hourly rate structure but eliminating free time for long term Iparkers,daily parking(9 hours)would increase from $3.00 to$4.50. PMAction 3: Increase the number of 10 hour meters in the periphery of the Study Area: The parking I utilization survey revealed that parking is under-utilized east of Santa Rosa Street and West of Broad Street. In some cases(particularly east of Santa Rosa Street)parking is currently available with 10 hour meters. Use of these long term metered spaces by downtown employees should be encouraged. ' Additional 10 hour meters could be added along Monterey Street east of Santa Rosa Street. Substantial increases in 10 hour meters within the Study Area could be accomplished west of Broad Street. The existing 10 hour meter permit program is very successful affecting over 60 percent of the available 10 ' hour meters and should be continued. PMAction 4• Reduce the number of free parking passes issued: Currently, about 30 percent of the ' parking passes are issued without charge(excluding rideshare passes). This includes passes to City employees and others. The City's goal of achieving a 1.70 AVR(Average Vehicle Ridership)or larger among all City employees may not be achievable when free parking is made available. Currently, all ' City office locations are working to achieve the AVR goal but are currently operating well below the desired AVR with the exception of Public Works which has a measured AVR of over I.S. Clearly, since ample free parking is available to the Public Works staff,pricing is not the only factor in choosing ' alternative commute modes. However, pricing strategies have been shown to have a significant impact on mode choice. Therefore,relocation of free parkers from key areas would bolster existing efforts to meet the AVR goals and could result in creation of as many as 50 to 100 spaces for other downtown ' parkers. Alternatively, the City could continue to issue free passes but restrict the areas in which they can be used. PMAction 5: Consider a Residential Parking Management Plan in the neighborhood impact area south of the Study Area(identified in Figure 2 in Progress Report#1). Pressure for scarce parking near the Downtown Center and some concentration of employment in that area will continue to result in parking 1.Py96-064aa.,10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,lnc. Ilunc 20. 1997 26 I I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 ' overflow into the residential areas south of the Study Area. Both the Circulation Element and the Parking Management Plan recognize the need for neighborhood parking management programs in areas impacted by major activity centers. It should be noted that the residential parking survey(Appendix A) ' conducted as part of this project indicated that only about one third of the residents in the neighborhood would currently support a parking permit program. Therefore a residential parking permit program would only be warranted if other parking management strategies create increased parking demand in this ' area. Any permit parking program must be accompanied by sufficient parking expansion either through construction of spaces or TDM to provide sufficient affordable parking for downtown employees within the Study Area. ' PMAction 6: Provide preferential parking location and pricing for carpools and vanpools: Convenient parking should be made available for carpools and vanpools consistent with the TDM actions adopted as part of the Downtown Access& Parking Plan. ' Consideration was given to converting some private spaces available to short term parkers as part of the parking management actions. Implementation of TDM measures could reduce employee parking in ' existing private lots within the Study Area. These spaces could, in turn, be made available for general use by downtown shoppers. The parking inventory conducted as part of this study identified over 1,500 off-street private spaces in the Study Area. Most of these spaces are heavily utilized(75 percent or ' more). Removing employee parking in some of these spaces through TDM measures could theoretically create as many as 40 to 50 additional spaces for short term parkers5. However, realistically, some of these spaces are not easily accessed or are located away from the high demand areas. In addition, ' conversion of these spaces from private to public use could be complex and time consuming. Therefore, the total number of spaces that could be created may be as low as 20 to 30 spaces. Therefore,this strategy has not been recommended for inclusion within the Downtown Parking and Access Plan. ' Parking Expansion Considerations ' The parking surveys conducted as part of this study along with the analysis contained in this Progress Report clearly identify the need for parking expansion in downtown San Luis Obispo. The potential ' range of future parking demand has been described in Table 8 above. A key issue,then, is where will this additional parking be constructed. ' Publicly Owned Land The City of San Luis Obispo has purchased a significant amount of land in the downtown area to provide 5 Based on the survey results from Progress Report 1. Assumes 80 percent of privates spaces are suitable for conversion, I20 percent employee parking in private spaces and a 10 percent reduction due to an aggressive TDM program. lep�j%-064%pr3 sla Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 27 I i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' parking. The publicly owned land is illustrated in Figure 2. Use of publicly owned land for future structures will reduce the amount of additional funding that will be required. Alternatively, the Parking Management Plan recognizes the advantages of permitting development of existing parking lots not ' slated for structures to help fund future parking construction. An example of this could be surface parking lot# 6 located on Osos Street between Monterey and Higuera Streets. IThere may also be potential for joint development of parking by the City and County. In particular, conversion of existing County lots near the Fremont Theater to multilevel structures could be financed ' jointly by the City and County to meet each agency's parking needs. Other Possible Sites The City has studied a number of potential parking sites. These include the Wilbur Smith Study,the IBI ' Study,the forthcoming Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Street Structure Expansion and several studies by staff. Sites considered for parking structures in addition to the Marsh and Palm Street Structures include: ' Building over existing Broad Street surface lot between Higuera and Marsh ' Palm H located on Morro Street between Palm and Monterey ► Shell Station located east of Santa Rosa Street ► Wells Fargo lot located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Marsh and Broad Streets ' ► Building over the existing lot at Palm and Nipomo Streets ► Creamery Site ' Madonna Site located between Marsh and Higuera Streets west of Nipomo(Farmer Hardware Site ► Union Bank site east of Osos between Higuera and Marsh Streets ISiting Criteria ' The Downtown Concept Plan recommended parking in the periphery of the Study Area. A total of nine potential sites were identified. This plan is endorsed in both the Circulation Element and the Parking ' Management Plan. While some of the recommended sites in the Concept Plan are desirable as potential parking structure sites,others may not be appropriate until considerable intensification of the downtown has occurred. The recommended criteria for siting future parking structures are presented below. ' To the degree feasible, future new parking structures should be located: ► within the Study(BIA) Area; I 1.py96-06+*2.s10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 20, 1997 2g I . i I 1 1 City-Owned Property e� 1 BIA Boundary 1 1 1 1 Q 100200 Meters map prrrperoe by Scale— 1:6000 1 of Sut Lula o6ispo 2. M" iW Note: City-owned property shown in this figure includes sites NOT intended for parking. Meyer, AfohaddesAssociatesr kc. Traffic Engineenng • Transportation Planning FIGURE 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 DOWNTOWN ACCESS & PARKING STUDY City-Owned Parcels in the Study Area 1 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 ' outside,but within one block, of the retail core bounded by Broad,Pacific, Osos and Monterey Streets; west of Santa Rosa Street ' south of Palm Street ' As illustrated in Figure 3 using illustrative site locations,these siting criteria provide several advantages. First the criteria reduce the effect of topographic or traffic barriers on the effective service area of the new structures by keeping them south of Palm. The grade difference between Monterey and Palm ' Streets is a barrier to pedestrian access. Similarly,the traffic volumes on Santa Rosa Street make pedestrian crossings undesirable. ' Second, each structure provides a substantial amount of overlap within the retail core. This is indicated by the estimated boundaries of the area served by the illustrative parking locations in Figure 3. Finally, locations selected using these siting criteria would preserve the retail core as an attractive area for ' pedestrians. Figure 4 illustrates the area recommended for future parking structures. Available City-owned sites ' within this area are also shown. Some sites currently being considered by the City would not meet these siting criteria. In particular,the site near Palm and Nipomo Streets would not be recommended as a future structure site unless substantial intensification of uses occurred in the area surrounding the site. ' For example, the Downtown Concept Plan envisioned a cultural center in the area of the Mission. ' Concentration of civic theater, music, art and other attractions in this area could provide adequate activity to warrant a parking structure on the Palm and Nipomo site. ' It is interesting to note that the follow-up telephone survey inquired about where people most wanted to have parking. Four geographic choices where provided. The preferences for all respondents and for employees only were Santa Rosa near Fremont Theater(48/50%),the Wells Fargo Site(19/20%), near ' the Marsh Street Garage(15/14%)and Near the Palm Street Garage(8/9%). Selecting parking structure sites outside of the area highlighted in Figure 4 in an early stage of ' implementation of the Downtown Access& Parking Plan could negatively impact the success of the selected alternative and is=i recommended. Given limited available funding, it is important that spaces in any new parking structure be heavily utilized following construction. Low utilization of a new ' structure would slow revenues and therefore delay the construction of additional parking structures. Sites outside of the area highlighted in Figure 4 may be appropriate once available sites adjacent to the retail core have been utilized. However, construction of sites outside the recommended area should be ' constructed only concurrent with or after intensification of land uses in the area. ' Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. �.y}9bowwa.do ' tune 20, 1991 30 W F ® M J ® •�P;:Crtiplp:a N \1 ® x ISI d 1 .tt3,\fi:tl\ gqWIN:l` SANT ROSA �•r Nw c\ �1 W Z N ; co 1 `r N co ¢ 0co G cnQ ,\\;\PS';.X:C:.`Aipi, WH U W co f® LLJ W f azcn ?; w 0 f ■ ■ w ■ '® osos sT a J L afl. „ to Mco 0 :ti..�!:P:,vo';,:'.;ii C2r. �, �,:t::fi:;:.i.;:.,• Q \\,. f i+y :.:.h..�,..�.:. N a so ..1..v.....:::.:,. r ! '. i ■ r, p9e .. :`1,_iiF.�:'!±.`\,�,r�IP 1,,. �\j.;.:For�.,•`1,.;,::.,:\.!:�:,\:. ,,.;:t,:,`. :.���:':: p ;� ■ `.`.`1\1isi�:Ali'�:�:i�`:,1�\t`:.py�.::\1`ii!,`!n•.u..�\,''..��1':i,\`:�!\: ., �.,; m :.\.\:w v ■ M wo ■ ?i m e N. BROAD ST. \\ c \ \ v o .\ e D w BROAD ST. `�,;,;:..\...:....:..::s::;,,::: '.:;`:;: t��';i �.?sr:.. .,.... ..;: ■ a � W M _ r N cf, Y •� L z C11 Lo LE I \ p '\ ■ � 1�1 I� \ v � a \ �an\caca\a\ 0cQ Q ■ e �_ � � z3 BEACH ST O Z a ' y ■ '\a\u�:ar;im;rssaea:!.\l\\e ypa ;G\,a\,:•,:`a I 000 ' W W 9 L LL N UOLL Cj "� D y o o w aL+ Co to w w a Q N Q u O a z z w0 C ' Y Y 2� Y a a W L Q Q O F w SANT ROSA N a 0 R v a a 0 U a Y. Q L xr: W I ..1 W „n ;!.gr.{�".•,. 32$2 r� co 11 El 9 .1. a 'C :•:":; MORRO St. Q v. c m L CD 2,•..,.,.,.,,,`1.1 ,. CHORRO ST IGARDEN ST N' � . c+7 yl N. BROADT S El w ? + " a LU h = V Z . , t V O 11. 11 1 . _ ..1 h m AoQ 1El :`.,.. W. N M C O U 01 � N qu L.N r�7 Q ' CA � Sq) z3 Q a v' O cFF I F BEACH ST. Q Z a yt3 U G , I� i Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 Locating new parking structures inside the retail core should be avoided to the degree possible. Expansion of the Marsh Street Structure would be one exception to this recommendation. The parking surveys indicated that substantial demand occurs at the Marsh Street Structure weekdays and weekends. On-street parking is also in high demand in that same area. The residential area near the Marsh Street Structure is also identified as being impacted by downtown employee parking. These findings combine to make the expansion of the Marsh Street Structure desirable in spite of the recommended siting criteria. Similarly, it may be necessary to construct a structure over the existing surface lot on Broad Street between Marsh and Higuera Streets to reduce land acquisition costs. Policy for Acquisition of Future Parking Structure Sites ' The parking expansion component of the Downtown Parking and Access Plan requires the acquisition of sites for future parking well in advance of actual construction. Any number of factors may affect the I availability and affordability of potential future sites. These include general economic conditions, the magnitude and location of development or intensification of uses in the downtown area, specific site conditions, and the willingness of the property owner to sell the property to the City. Therefore, the siting criteria presented above is intended to provide the framework within which property acquisition I decisions can be made. The City's acquisition efforts should comply with the general siting criteria to the extent possible. Some flexibility should be maintained to allow the City to respond to specific site acquisition opportunities that may become available in the future. IThe City should make every effort to reduce the land acquisition costs associated with the parking expansion component. The following opportunities should be investigated prior to out-right purchase of additional sites: ' ► Are there opportunities for joint agency or public/private development of new parking structures? ► Can the sale of an existing surface lot within the retail core for commercial development provide I revenue for construction of a new parking structure? ► Are alternative sites available that can be purchased without the use and additional costs of eminent domain actions? I IFunding of Parking Expansion It is estimated that construction of parking in San Luis Obispo costs between $12,000 and$15,000 per I space. This assumes about 300 to 350 square feet per space and a maximum of four floors above ground. If land must be purchased to create additional parking it is estimated that the cost of land will be between $35 and $45 per square foot. The costs will vary depending of the size of the structure(smaller Istructures can be more expensive per space produced),number of parking levels, shape of the site, soil I lzpy9o-0"NPrlslo Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 33 I Downtown Access dr Parking Study Progress Report 42 conditions, architectural treatment, whether there is retail provided on the ground or other floors of the structure and other factors. Since the amount of land required will not be determined until some design f of each structure has been completed, it was necessary to make a budget level assumption for land costs of$2,000 per space.' Therefore, the combined land and construction cost for parking structures in downtown San Luis Obispo is assumed in this study to be $16,000 per space. The Parking Fund must be self supporting. Therefore, it is assumed that while expansion of the downtown parking will increase operating costs within the District, it will also increase revenues and ' rates would be maintained at a level to fully fund debt service and on-going operating costs. However, this does not imply that there are no annual costs associated with the parking structures. ' Under the existing parking rates, parking structure revenues do not fully cover operating and bond servicing costs. For example, Revenues from the Palm and Marsh Street Structures total about$262,000 per year while the costs for servicing the bonds used to finance these structures is over$650,000. In ' essence, revenues from meters and surface lots subsidize the costs of the existing structures. Therefore, for the purposes of this study,the net on-going operating costs for any new parking structures will be estimated as $580 per year per space.' Other operating costs(e.g. maintenance and staffing)are not ' incremental. It is possible for the same maintenance staff to handle some expansion of existing parking without a significant change in overall costs. In addition, this type of cost is spread over all parking facilities. Therefore,the other potential operating costs are expected to be insignificant relative to the ' debt servicing costs and have been disregarded in this analysis. The evaluation of costs will assume a 15 year time frame(as with the evaluation of TDM options). An ' 8.5 percent annual interest rate is assumed which reflects the current prime rate. The resultant present value of annual operating costs and initial capital costs are used in Section 4 to compare the alternatives. 1 1 1 1 6 Assuming that structures will have 3 to 4 levels and that half of the structures will be constructed on publicly owned land, ' the land costs are estimated as: (300 sf per space/3 parking levels per structure)X S40/sf X 0.50 (5650,000-5262,OOOy669 spaces=5580 per space Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20. 1997 34 1 4. Alternatives and Recommendations IThis section utilizes information presented previously to formulate specific downtown access and parking alternatives. The alternatives can be implemented within one or more of the initial policy directions presented.earlier. The number of additional parking spaces required under each of the three growth scenarios can be calculated by subtracting the existing parking demand from the total future parking demand for each future scenario(Table 8). The results are summarized in Table 9. Table 9 Summary of Additional Parking Spaces Needed' Growth Scenario New Spaces Needed New Spaces Needed w/ reduced Neighborhood I Impacts Low Growth Scenario 430 1,130 Moderate Growth Scenario 1,020 1,720 High Growth Scenario 2,280 2,980 I ' The number of spaces requited would be less if future intensification occurs near the periphery of the Study Area where some underutilized parking spaces exist and would be available to meet future demand tThe following is a summary of study findings that must be considered with any of the alternatives presented in the next section of this report. ► It will not be possible to fully meet future parking demand and reduce impacts to residential areas adjacent to the Study Area without a significant expansion in available funding; I Satisfying future demand and reducing the existing impact to residential neighborhoods through parking expansion alone, may require increasing the size of identified structures(e.g. Palm II)or acquisition of additional downtown parking structure sites(e.g.Union Bank site); I Use of parking revenues to support TDM activities will directly reduce the number of spaces that can be created in the downtown with existing funding; ► If successful,TDM measures will produce more available parking spaces,per capital dollar Ispent,than construction of new spaces; ► Producing downtown spaces through reduction in parking demand(TDM) introduces uncertainty I regarding the long term number new spaces that should be constructed; ► The effectiveness of TDM measures must be measured and reevaluated; ► If TDM is pursued as part of the plan, its potential impact should be maximized. This reflects the large number of parking spaces needed under each future growth scenario and the relatively I 1sp%J9fi4M%przab 35 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 I Downtown Access& Parking Studv Progress Report#2 small difference in initial costs between the maximum and less aggressive TDM action packages. A larger range of annual costs per space exist but TDM remains a very cost effective alternative I to constructing new parking structures; The creation of both new spaces and spaces made available through TDM requires considerable lead time. TDM measures can take years to show benefits. The planning, environmental and construction time required to build a new parking structure also requires years to complete. ► Given probable funding constraints, each expenditure will either delay or preclude other possible property acquisitions or construction projects. ► If advantage is not taken of opportunities to purchase property for future parking expansion, the land may not be available in the future. Conversely,money spent on property acquisition delays the City's ability to build new parking structures. I Parking management strategies exhibit considerable potential to make more effective use of existing parking spaces. This could delay the need for additional parking spaces and reduce the total number of spaces required. The number of net new spaces has been estimated for the parking component of each alternative. The actual number of spaces may vary depending on the configuration, number of parking levels and whether retail uses are incorporated into the design. In general, it was assumed that most structures would net approximately 200 to 250 new spaces. Description of Alternatives IAlternative 1: Limited Parking Expansion Applicable Policy Directions: Status Quo, Funding Constrained Parking Expansion Plan: Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) Expand Palm/Nipomo Surface Lot(35 spaces) I TDM Programs and Actions: No Change Total Spaces Created: 335 spaces Issues: Does not meet future parking needs under any growth scenario and will I not relieve existing overflow parking impacts on adjacent residential areas; Can be accomplished within available funding levels; ' Can be implemented over relatively short time frame. Alternative 2: Limited Parking Expansion and Implement TDM Applicable Policy Directions: Funding Constrained,Maximum TDM,Combined Actions Parking Expansion Plan Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) Expand Palm/Nipomo Surface Lot(35 spaces) I 1,p%j964)64Xpr2.i10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 20. 1997 36 I Downtown Access.&Parking Study Progress Report 92 TDM Programs and Actions Maximum TDM(400 spaces) Total Spaces Created: 735 spaces Issues: Meets future parking needs under the low growth scenario with some limited relief of existing neighborhood overflow parking impacts Will not meet anticipated demand or relieve existing overflow parking impacts on adjacent residential areas under the moderate and high growth scenarios; Parking expansion component can be accomplished within available funding levels; Requires new funding source for TDM measures ' Can be implemented over relatively short time frame. Could use parking revenues for TDM without jeopardizing ability to meet parking expansion component of the alternative. Alternative.3: Funding Constrained Parking Expansion ' Applicable Policy Directions: Funding Constrained, Partial Implementation of Downtown Concept Plan Parking Expansion Plan Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) I Expanded Palm/Nipomo Surface Lot(35 spaces) Structure over County Lot near Fremont Theater or Union Bank sitea(est. 200 spaces) ' Purchase Future Structure Site in western part of Study Area TDM Programs and Actions None I Total Spaces Created: 535 spaces Issues: Does not meet future parking needs under any growth scenario and will not relieve existing overflow parking impacts on adjacent residential I areas; Can be accomplished within available funding levels: Can be implemented over relatively short time frame. IAlternative 4: Funding Constrained Parking Expansion with TDM I Applicable Policy Directions: Funding Constrained,Partial Implementation of Downtown Concept Plan, Maximum TDM,Combined Actions Parking Expansion Plan Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) 8 The preferred location is near the Fremont theater. Joint development of the structure with the County would be the most I effective alternative. However,if agreement cannot be reached with the County,consideration should be given to the Union Bank site which could also serve the eastern side of the Study Area. I Iep1j96-06Apr2.s1e Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 37 I ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 ' Expanded Palm/Nipomo Surface Lot(35 spaces) Structure near Fremont Theater(est. 200 spaces) TDM Programs and Actions Maximum TDM (400 spaces) Total Spaces Created: 935 spaces ' Issues: Meets future parking needs under the low and moderate growth scenarios Provides some limited relief of existing neighborhood overflow parking ' impacts under both scenarios; Will not meet anticipated demand or relieve existing overflow parking impacts on adjacent residential areas under the high growth scenario; ' Can be accomplished within available funding levels; Can be implemented over relatively short time frame. Use of parking revenues would jeopardize ability to meet parking ' expansion portion of the alternative. ' Alternative S: Full Parking Expansion Applicable Policy Directions: Parking Expansion,Partial Completion of Downtown Concept Plan Parking Expansion Plan Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) ' Structure near Fremont Theater(est. 200 spaces) Structure - Palm II (250 net new spaces) ' Structure in western portion of downtown(Structure over existing surface lot on Broad between Higuera and Marsh or Wells Fargo Site) (250 spaces) ' Structure on Lot near Palm/Nipomo(250 spaces) Structures on currently unidentified sites meeting the siting criteria recommended in this report(1,050 spaces) ' TDM Programs and Actions None Total Spaces Created: 2,300 spaces Issues: Will fully meet future parking demand under all growth scenarios and 1 will relieve overflow parking demands in the residential areas adjacent to the Study Area; Will require identification of additional sites for future parking ' structures or significant increases in structure size on identified sites; Will require substantial increases in available funding; ' Alternative 6: Full Parking Expansion with TDM Applicable Policy Directions: Parking Expansion, Partial Implementation of Downtown Concept Plan, Maximum TDM,Combined Actions Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 38 I i ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 91 Parking Expansion Plan Marsh Street Expansion(300 spaces) I Structure near Fremont Theater(200 spaces) Structure on Palm II-Morro between Palm and Monterey(250 spaces) Structure in western portion of downtown(Structure on Lot 2 or Wells ' Fargo Site)(250 spaces) Structure on Lot near Palm/Nipomo(200 spaces) Structures on currently unidentified sites meeting the siting criteria I recommended in this report(300 spaces) TDM Programs and Actions Maximum TDM (800 spaces) Total Spaces Created: 2,300 spaces I Issues: Will fully meet future parking demand under all growth scenarios and will relieve overflow parking demands in the residential areas adjacent I to the Study Area; . Will require identification of additional sites for future parking structures or significant increases in structure size on identified sites but ' will required construction of 400 fewer spaces than Alternative 5; Will require substantial increases in available funding; I It may be possible to combine alternatives as phases of the same plan. For example, Alternative l does not meet the expected demand under any of the projected growth scenarios. However, it may become the initial phase of a multi-phased plan to fully meet the long range parking demand in the downtown. IThe comparative costs for each study alternative are summarized in Table 10. ' Recommended Alternative It is recommended that the City pursue an aggressive strategy to make additional parking available in the ' downtown area. This strategy should combine both parking expansion and TDM components to create 2,300 spaces to accommodate future growth. Parking Management strategies should be used to make better use of existing spaces and to relieve existing and future overflow parking in neighborhoods I adjacent to the Study Area and to"stretch"the amount of time before major expansion of the downtown parking supply will be required. I The recommended Plan will require a significant increase in the amount of funding available for parking expansion and TDM programs. Some portion of the new revenues generated by the implementation of the parking management strategies recommended for inclusion within the Downtown Access and I Parking Plan should be considered for funding TDM programs to reduce downtown parking demand. The existing parking revenue stream should be reserved exclusively for parking expansion. ' 1,p%j9"64%pr2.,1u Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 20, 1997 39 I y fH 4N�A' O O O O O O ca r-CL 0 � tnfkn � � � VA , cli O v FA (A 69 69 69 69 U ' c m o a .�. O Q O+ C N O N N N n Vi 69 69 69 69 69 O '0 0 0 0 o o y DD N U %O oo06 06 ' 69 69 69 61) 69 664 00 C CDV ' C to O O O C VY Vl C rn y G kn M to y p• 69 69 69 69 69 69 O V O O O Q Q •� O O O F a O O U I w 69 609 69 609 69 p C C C C C O C y C O O O O_ = O T C aCi E E E E rn E o o C a vn to -tCL p n 7 O 69 69 6N9 44 69 444 me e c 0 c 0 ° ° E d o a x E E E E oho o a ' U IT q %0 %C \6 vi v; e0 00 m N y 69 69 69 69 69 69 L T ... yy y IO N d N CS f"1 fn Pl 7 t"1 H1 V H P1 r- V1 O� N N .9 9 U L° C a C y � cc e •� E CJ O ° JS c x x d v y 3 H a `u C9 [t] 59 m d d ccy -14 rz CLO an a U U Y Su �' c v c p A I � •� •E _ _ a e O * N � � o N F w i Dolvntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#1 ' Current and projected revenues will be sufficient to provide only about 750 new spaces by 2010. Use of these funds generated under the existing parking program for TDM will reduce the City's ability to Iaccomplish the recommended plan. fSome basic changes in the City's downtown parking strategy are also recommended. These are: ► Purchase of the Wells Fargo lot should be delayed until downtown intensification in the I southwest quadrant of the Study Area is more evident or until it has been clearly established that alternative sites between Marsh and Higuera Streets are not feasible. ' The next parking structures to be considered should serve the northeast quadrant of the Study Area. These could include a joint project or land owned by the county, Palm 11 or the Union Bank site. ' Opportunities for joint City/County and public/private funding of new parking structures is essential to accomplishing the recommended Plan. ' TDM should be funded as an integral part of the overall parking strategy for downtown. • Revenues created through the implementation of the recommended parking management Istrategies should be considered for funding on-going TDM programs. ' It is recommended that the City follow a phased plan for implementing the Downtown Access& Parking Plan. The recommended plan combines Alternative 4,Funding Constrained Parking Expansion with TDM in the near term, with Alternative 6, Full Parking Expansion with TDMto meet long term parking ' demand. The Plan should include the following phases: Phase 1 ' ► Construct the Marsh Street Expansion(net 300 new spaces) ' Expanded the Palm/Nipomo Surface Lot(35 spaces) ► Aggressively implement Maximum TDM actions ► Implement all of the recommended Parking Management Strategies as outlined beginning on ' page 26 of this Progress Report ► Initiate discussions with County regarding joint development of structure over existing County surface lot near Fremont Theater ► Begin planning and design of joint City/County structure near Fremont Theater I Note: If agreement cannot be reached with County, the planning and design efforts could be focused on the evaluation and design of the Palm II structure. Phase 2 I i.py96-064v«.si, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20,1997 41 I Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 ► Construct joint City/County structure near Fremont Theater ► Begin planning and design for Palm U structure Note: If agreement cannot be reached with County in, or subsequent to, Phase 1, the Palm II structure could be constructed in this phase of Plan implementation. Planning and design efforts would focus on a site west of the retail core. This site should be located between Marsh and Higuera Streets if possible. If not, the Wells Fargo site should be considered. Phase 3 ► Construct Palm lI structure ► Identify other sites(probably outside of preferred siting area)and begin planning of subsequent parking structures to meet downtown needs Note: If agreement cannot be reached with County in, or subsequent to, Phase 1. A structure on the west side of the retail core identified in Phase 2 would be constructed.. Planning and design efforts would focus on a site west of the retail core. This site should be located between Marsh and Higuera Streets if possible. If not, the Wells Fargo site should be considered. Implementation Strategy Implementation of the recommended Downtown Access &Parking Plan will be dependant upon available funding, actual rate of growth within the City and County and the effectiveness of the TDM measures selected for implementation. Tinting of Future,Parking Expansion Phase I of the Plan should be initiated immediately. Generally, several years will elapse before the TDM strategies can be expected to yield significant results. Planning and design efforts for the Marsh Street expansion have been initiated. Phases 2 and 3 of the Plan should be implemented based on direct measurement of key indicators of downtown access and parking demand. A number of indicators can be used by the City to gauge the timing of the recommended phases of the Plan. These could include parking revenues, sales tax, population and employment. However, while these should be monitored,the key thresholds for moving between phases of the Plan are cordon counts, parking utilization and employee surveys. The"phasing triggers" for each of these indicators are shown in Table 11. These triggers will be further defined once the City Council has selected a preferred alternative for inclusion in the Draft Downtown Access& Parking Plan. The employee surveys will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM actions and to modify them to best meet the needs of ,,oy96-ww,310 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20, 1997 42 i IDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 92 Idowntown employees and visitors. Successful implementation of TDM measures will permit construction of new parking spaces at a slower rate since spaces made available by TDM will satisfy Isome of the total demand for new parking spaces. I Table 11 Pltnsing Triggers Indicator Indications Phasing Trigger ICordon Counts Changes in downtown Access %change in vehicles per hour demand and vehicle occupancy and vehicle occupancy versus I Study findings Parking Utilization Changes in parking demand % utilization by time of day I Employer Surveys Changes in travel behavior and Not Applicable mode choice IThe phasing of the selected Downtown Access& Parking Plan could be impacted by actions initiated by others. For example, as indicated in the notes above, a lack of interest by the County to develop a I parking structure on County-owned land would eliminate that site from consideration and could delay implementation of Phase 2. Alternatively, interest from downtown property owners in jointly pursuing parking as part of a major retail project could expedite later phases of the Plan or affect the site selection. IFinancing Options IThe construction of parking structures in San Luis Obispo is reliant upon meter and surface lot revenues. It is these revenues that create the surplus that permits the City to bond for construction of new I structures. The meter revenues also partially subsidize the bond servicing costs. The City anticipates sufficient Parking Fund surpluses sufficient to bond for$5.4 million in new construction and land acquisition by FY 97-98. With a 10 cent increase in meter rates in FY 98-99 and increases in parking violation fees from$8.00 to $10.00 in FY 97-98, sufficient surplus funds would then exist to bond for an Iadditional $4.0 million by FY 01-02. I The$5.4 million would permit the completion of the Marsh Street Expansion and some portion of the City's costs for a joint City/County Structure' The additional$4 million would permit land acquisition and construction of an additional 250 spaces which would permit completion of the joint City/County Istructure with some funding for the Palm II structure. Periodic meter rate increases(e.g. every 5 years) 9 51.5 million currently slated for acquisition of Wells Fargo lot I lapy960"\prlsle Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Ilune 20, 1997 43 I I IDowntown Access& Parking Study Progress Report 42 Iwould fund an on-going parking construction program. However, it is estimated that this funding source could fund only about 250 new spaces every five years. Under the high growth rate scenario, this rate of Inew parking space construction will not be adequate to keep pace with anticipated demand. It should also be noted,that, based on the Intercept and Follow-up surveys, San Luis Obispo area I residents are sensitive to changes in parking costs. Since the metered spaces in the retail core are intended for short term use, excessively increasing meter rates may have a significant negative impact on downtown shoppers and visitors, particularly if competitive retail areas exist outside of the downtown. IGiven these existing funding conditions, it will be necessary for the City to secure additional funding. The following funding strategies should be considered: I ► Limit free parking in all structures to 60 minutes for short term parkers and provide no free I parking for long term parkers; ► Increase the in lieu parking fees from $4,000 to at least$10,000 which is closer to the actual cost of providing parking($16,000 per space); ' Implement an assessment district or other funding mechanism to permit downtown property owners to share the costs of expanding the parking supply; ► Investigate public/private partnerships to share the cost of providing parking while using ground Ifloor space to intensify downtown retail activity. Land use Considerations IWhile this Progress Report includes forecasts of growth, it should not be inferred that the recommended I Parking& Access Plan will be used to stimulate growth in the downtown. Rather, the forecasts have been established as broad brackets around the most likely rate of increase in downtown access and parking demand consistent with the expected rates of growth in employment and commercial activity in the downtown. The rate of growth will be dictated by market conditions, the City's Land Use Element of Ithe General Plan and individual decisions regarding specific projects. I The recommended Plan, to be successful, will need to be supported by land use policies that restrict the amount and type of commercial(and particularly retail)development outside of downtown San Luis Obispo. By implementing the recommended Plan,the City will be committing to a significant I investment in downtown infrastructure. This investment should not be diluted by allowing major retail development in the outlying areas of the City. Similarly, since some increases in the cost of parking in the downtown will be required over time, creating outlying commercial development with ample free parking could undermine the intent of the Downtown Access& Parking Plan. I I Iep�j960Wipr2.�lo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 20. 1997 44 I I I to t0 dP 01 dP v ow co ow to dP aw dP IT aw r1 dP I In N r N m N V r-4 c'1 a% r r N Q I E I V' in d N al OI � I I E 1 z I E I tD v ow O1 ow O ow N ow %D ow O 00 co mp O dP W 1 Ul >+ 1 %0 c•1 N N v N O .4 OO rl C rl to N O D I 1 0 1 to a m rt N rr rr ' W 1 0 0 1 fL' 1 l W. 1 tD cow vow o x v aw New c^t dP o aw o ow W .1 E >4 1 rl to In r1 c•1 to r1 O1 o O I Lx I U1 a 1 N N t0 N ri rl w 1 1 z 1 o O I 1 I r o ew r ow ID dP N dw m aw %D dw N dP ri de N N rl %D rl v .4 %0 .l c0 P1 v N sy' I E I v a i o i I W I E 1 O vaw Now N0P vdP Io dP Nd0 to dw Oow O U' O 1 UI I w N o c+1 r) N r ei cn O .•I O t1 O a z 1 4 1 IT to m N .i N r1 Q. En H z I w I I m H i z O a i 1 m In ow t••+ 0\0 H ow rl dP co dP rn dP c1 dP o dP U1 U l x l to N r N m N O H ri to r %D O tr1 H W O 1 E 1 v v v N .1 .1 C I a o a10 a Iz1 I c'1 r aw N) aw O dw V• 0w co aw rl dP co dP rl dP (n Ul H I E I o1 t•1 O to r P1 N N t0 O1 r1 N O1 rl C I IZ I v to n N rl O o E wiai ++ 7. z 1 1 01 N ow V ow rl 0 ri ow r4 0\0cD ow In ow O ow r I 9 I W 1 z 1 1n c"1 v ri V P1 M rl O1 N %D v CO O >1E O g 1 3 1 1n N - cn H r1 .i tt! q H I O I E I W O I t_7 1 0 a% dP a% ow O dP tD ow co dP O dw N aw .i da z In tD %D to %D O O M v N O1 N I') rl c0 rl 'CJ U] I E I rl v v v N .•1 rl al N I O 1 41 s� >+ I E 1 M W H I 1 1 In 1 r N ow 01 dP cq dP ch dw v dP to ow N aP O dP .4 OC H W I N r1 v m .•1 .•1 In O r O to W W E 1/I W I v f 1 r, .4 .i v+ E a W E cO0 W I x H z1 E W r7 1 t0 co dP to dP v dP ON do .i dP c0 dP In dP rt dP G+ RI 04 1 r r d• r m %0 %0 c•'1 N P1 co N t0 .•I C% rl O E I rl v IT In N r+ rl I W O E I 9 H c N u I c C 3 c N al a) N •r4 a N 0 ca O al P f 4 as >t >w a >+ x H rn ra b1 9 --1 $a ro 0 w (a Cd n 0 w r, z c c w v 1 44 a V wl co I a H 0 m •�I m in c c a c >a a a W x a.) ++ 0 •.+ ur a •r1 m a! m O i•1 r•1 1•I c N c V L2 !I c a! E cO A 0 ON m 3 •r1 OI I to O 3 a a +3 c r1 0 E C a al s 0 N al al N U •rl V q c w 41 I 3a b e 4) c --49 a1 C r♦ g 1d a1 c w al •.+ 3 O to k w 01 3 1-t 14 11 ON 3 r7 A > O R w 41 ro w o w to w •,.I C 1•4 O IE z 134 a a u E 0 4 u I I 1 � m ow r da N da I x I Ln en en �r-I 1 E I %O to 1 0 cn I 1 F I Z I E+ Q I Ilya I cnLLl cn NH '� N G\ H 1 Lc. z I m I k. O 1 W I O I al ' l a I r, CA OW co *6 Nan r-4 do z i EF >4 cn In � N ko IT rl xWIz01 3 I 0 1 ' I I 1` (n da \0 0 00 da v dp I x l y N !n H v r rn ft I E 1 d ''I IOI II u1 1 1 Gr 1 E 1 l� N6\0 N da l� da 111 6\0 ON ° ° 1 1 C'1 N N rl 7 aLn ' H 0 1 1 1 � H ° I z 1 U EI ° aI 1 rn r1 0\0N da atda da I N N in co N V V ,0j 3 a i 0 E I Z 1 N I EE a% In a1 i coo o rn da o da P1 da N ' N a H N a' a LMU 0 w 1 a i o E' ' 7 U 1 t•1 r4 do Nda 100 %D da H I Z 1 I ONN Ln M H N H it O 0 1 0 1 E I C] F-4 a A r1 da H oM Ln as a% da W I E M N 4 I H In N '�a z 4-) I N 01 E fW Ox 1 1 K o r] I In I I` N da O as e'1 m N da A y H W I N •4.co 'i � n &4 I W !p F U1 y I a E a7 z x H Fz a 'w da N da O dP I PLOH I 01 � ko ko O WO >~ E I W U1 I a N u1 H H o a a O lam+ cy En O I N a 4J as l 0% 0 co a $414a N w n • • M ° ON -4 I a r � a � o. m I E z z A' H w I o n a (D o � i s c > ' tr rt N r• N r- 7 J] N 1( a to 1 't7 0 to G ? G MO a G rtID (D F+ I a 0 r N M G lG M rt < r ►1 N O 1 n (D Cr) N O ft m r• (D H G b r•'< I r• F1 I rt K rt n a o a %Q m I rt � r• N O H a 'ss rt Iy z (D 1 •< N m0 (D pi a5 0 a 1 m rt rt DK 11N pi r" rtG 1 ►i N G v rt N xE a Z m N 1 N b tL H E P. N to 11 (D 1 1+ O H b I tD r G M O tr l a O z N rt N O %Q G F+ m to I rt Al 0 H H Nrt O (D ►t r F� rt a " I W z C N a m n 5 rt v N In SD O r- m r N H I rt Wti N rt GI C < 1 O O O K N N O\ 1 q t+i O Ul G\ co co O N co N G\ UI D7 I > U) dP A dP UI 0\e .J dP .3 dP A dP J Z H ►3 I ttlj to 0-3 fy!) = I I OCO N tai N N N W V I to to y tsi O co W Ul W CO -4 N r 1 t=i H :0 dPO Op dew low t%) Ac 6) GOP CAP W I W 1 r 00 1 1 tli I �• N o, i y i ro N Ul to Ul w co r m r A A J 1 1 xl z dp A dP a dP A dP 0% dP W dP \D de ll W 1 r 1 O hi 1 w < I 1 1 rij I ED H I z 1 O 1 H Q v N W ON I E l y 0 -4 r N 1 1 M dP N 0\0 O df N dP N dP 01 dP co dP W �l 1 I z l-3 II SO I (A H 1 t+7 1 z r N rn I z 1 G1 I A co A Co UI w N O N A V) dP N deA 0\0N 0PA dPV 00H GW %D O I I z z of > r Iz1r � c I O O O N %D r N N N 1 :L' I r) y, to 0\e O dP N dP O de W dP UI OF m OF O\ (h 1 I y O 1 z I H CD I I I D H I I t=i I z In r w v l > f 'U %D m Di W \D N r UI N w I N 1 0 O dP W d^ N d> N o\" A dP W dP O dP A N 1 ►3 1 'zJ 1 I O I I I O I SL1 N N r UI 1 :to O .P H O F' -1 O r N 1 .'S I de O MP N 0\e lr oW O dP UI de A dP N A I 1 I I O I Ioz1 I .zI It=i r A I r to I z co O co m O Ul Ch H I K 03 I t+i I dP r dP o eW F+ e\e H dP r eW N dP Ol w I "a i I O m I Vi IzOliIH N N Ch I C I I U I W m W %D A JP N N w l ►C ED I m dP 1•+ dP N 0\e N de W dP O OF O dP 1-' A I ►3 I y I I N I Gi I 1 O A O W co Oi N N N N I z I 7xC1 CAPN 0\0 N de N de N D\9 A dP W 0\0OD UI I I I I cru � o Q En rt, (D 1 � C q I N N rn 'O C 0) t0 N a N I ru 1A O N O O N ct (D M w rf w 1 0 tr t' O rf r'( K rt n O N a 1 n (D [+] (D N 0 0 ri rt rt w N 1 O n ' N El (D r.10 N r•(D O I (D N w rt n 0 (o 0 n b rt I El 7(1 tD r ►i N r• rt rt (D (D I (D (D •• r (D 0 O (D n b 17 N (D a ro (D 'C n r O 0 w I rt to ri rS a N W m W.r'( 1 O H 10 ' N O O r'1 O rt 7. 1 " 7 z N rt O 0 7 7C O w M N r• 1 (D 11 0 H H m C OH rtO 7 I r (D ra+ [' Q. (D rt H rt N (D tR I AI C C N N D) � mO m i s N � N N ' C t+J 1 H t7 G1 ►< I O O M O I H w I H � C9 N N W W .1 �1 H ON W co I � W 'z1 dP N dP N dP w dP w OP 0% dP to dP H �1 1 r Z 1-3 ►3 I t%] C O N to tj1 ' O O OD O co O to H I L=J H 'D' ^=J dP O df O dP H dP O dP H dP O df N W I N 1 t" 00 H w i H I En z I w W W A �1 t0 H OD N I b I dP N oP N dP N df w do to dP A dP co W I r I 0 ' H 1 O 1 H 0 O r N A 1 1 C 0 o o r of oo H N I I L71 to ' dPN the 00w dP0 OP Li d° �l d° W 1 I z H I N H 1 1 z H w I z z l � O 0. N Q1 A �1 W H A I H I N de O 0\0N dP H e0\0W dP N 0\0 00 dP C\ co 1 'I z z 1 xl 1 N N ' 1 �•3 I 0 O p W O co 00 00 �I N I .`C 1 0 N dP O dP N eW O dP N dP N dP N dP �1 Ol I j y 0 I z I H w ' 1 I 1 Z In N W I � I to w O w O O to 0o H w I to 1 0 O cw dP 0 dP H dP 0 dP N dP co d^ N N I H I '21 1 O 1 I 1 C I m a 0 co A co H O H N I x I ' dPH OPO dPN 00H dPN df Ln OPN A 1 t 0z A In i tz" f11 i z I m O O O O m N r t K ►3 I Cr1 df H eW O ep O Of O eW H dP of I O I m H W I Cz" ON to to H w 1 K N I L*1 dP0 ONO d^ H dPN dPN H I I 1 En I 1 t}y I 10 Ito r w I H 19 O N 01 N I S 1 7�C7 OP H df H d° H dP H dP N dP w dP t0 to I 1 I 1 ' I I to rl AP O 0\0 m CAP rl 00 O 0W N dP r•I dP 1 x I N v O N v O 00 v 4 I E 1 rI a I O 1 I m I ' ul I 1 Z 1 E I v O dA rl 0W (A oW N 0\0 cn dP 1-1 0W rl 0\0 W I U) >a 1 t') O m t0 w CA f'1 m OH 1 W Z I N ' W 1 0 0 1 Gx I I x I en 0 dP 0 dP %0 0W (1 dP 11 0w 0 0W o 0W W I E >a 1 rl O 0 t0 cn O 0 O Z I v N 1 O O 1 I 1 v O 0W r 10W rl 0 O 0W O 0W N dP r•1 dP ' I I N0 v � v O O O E W 15 1 a 1 O 1 1 U) I ' Lia I E 1 N H 00 O dP 1- 0\0 P1 0\0 O 0W It dP O a\0 O O 1 U) I f'1 t1 O N ai O en O Ul z I W l N H OI I I ' 00 H I Z 1 O E 1 a' I 1 %0 0 0\0 0 eW 0 0W t•) 0W w 0W 0 dP H oW U) d.' U I x 1 N O O rl 00 N m O v H W O I E I H N 1 o 1 ' z Iz1 �a H I I co rl dP o oW t[1 dP tL1 oW tC1 oW N dP 11 oW U) I E l y N O rl r1 O O v N ' Ur 1 z I m rl r4 H In i a E W 1 1 FC z 1 1 0 dP H dP to CAP .-4 0W r-( 0\0r-1 CAP ri 0W ' a w I z 1 N o a Ch v v v v o z UHi 1 0 1 ri ' W O I a I 1"1 r-4 dP r-i 0 C\ 0W ko dP U1 dP In dP N o\0 z Ix I 1 n 1-1 r1 rl tD co 1` v n W I O I N H 1 E 1 ' 4 o 14 1 U] I cn o dP 0 dP r4 dP o 0\° o dP o dP 0 0W W ac H w 1 r-1 O O 0 O O O O Cil Et 1n U) I I x O E E 64 m z I E E W ►] 1 (� r-1 dP r4 dP 0 eW W dP %D dP M dP N dP Cs. U) I c0 H r1 N C'1 l� C7 N O NO o1 N I W ] U E H N G Cl iT O O N I In N Im V •r4 x W P r. O 0 N a R 9 p 0 O •ri 04 X: A H r-I U rcl 10 m 04 r.. W P 14 Ul; 43 Cl N Z C LL 4J m l >1 to 10 If C ' O)H O -r-I 41 41 7 1 to 04 -� G to W 04 V C CO O 1 04 90Z r1 Cal w r. Cl b b 9 1 m N •U •N p N T LL' ra W O rd I p ?r 04 W V k N •11 W CI H 1 Cl 0 •H •11 I f I W Id Q) 9 rA I >.r-1 !-I z !d Ifs W C) d 0) 74 0) 0) 1 O a () 0) a Q p p Cl U I r-I z +) -W +-1 C) a � cc -P Ni 04 s (d 4-J O ) - m N IE z z 0 z l W m m £ 1 1 I Ln o ae o aP o aP 1 xIN o 0 0 I E I ' ai mi cn I I W I U] 1 N1 N OO do 0 Cie >40 AIrx4zi ' �nIw01 w 1 0 1 W l do HE-1 >+ 1 �/ O O rl cO c0 xlcnal w1 -IzI zIz01 l o I ' I 1 v H aP o aP o aP 1 x I N v o 0 W I O I ' I ca I 1 w I E I N rl dP rl oW r1 dP 04 cn W a ' HIzi ° sa H W O 1 E 1 N O O 0 0 ° 0 O ' a `� 1 0 IzI ° HI E I V N V 0\0O O H N 0r. CA U3I z I ° O I W I U 0 W l a l 0 E-4 � I 1 z z I I r o COP .-I as o ae 3 p' w i i N o v o > p O H 1 0 1 E z 1a I de ' I AS r cn NHH H ow H '0 z a� mz 0 'a ' E I � 1 1 o a1cn1adp o0\0 00 � Gr �i H w I rl t0 O O lro ' x off EMz 1 E H a t r c4 aP H WH e I rx1 cn I <o Nr4 r-4 >+ (09 U E 1 ] z 0 I~ -r4 sa ' (n N 0 1► p 'O N O oi .7 G 04 Id 4J C `0ul I H N z r1 CN '� H N N 4J 0) r. I it a 0) N >r+i 11 N .Q � b H U C A G ON rIN 4) r. I cnE z ria a I 1 ^� z W Ly `" rtaa.y sr � •yi 's zi y o fs. G N N W yy.r n:F. LV, > L r. e, ru O 17aO sr. 1• • DED �� w •i I + C¢ C W t R W� 9 Cc V Cc 3! I E �:.+'.AOL CT. 'JMra Crit. N W 0 W I r s ' C a(xU. C 0 ¢0 xesus s, o 2 t fi i'iY7Y�" C Z H uj rOagO T tC Ill J El :1P _ ' Z fr:P1.4.ji et�•C43•. 0 W H cr L,,w! ZI • UJ to.. t: � 11 � ' 1: •+I r1MPCO IT � O �•w i...i1i! F Ll 11 El I �: •: ' 1 El 9 pt OMCEN 1.1.. t C` A•I].O ti, i ' Mo(WO It 9 J y^ d ry c 12 'Ir I �ti .M,.s• h m x i Ll aT ,A)ifl n I c � o u o w- w ,:[ V d 4• a MMff[l. ~ f _ O , r t 025 City of San Luis Obispo Parking Survey . The City of San Luis Obispo is conducting a study of parking and access in the downtown.area.. As part of this ' study we are investigating parking issues in the areas that surround the downtown. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey and mail it back to us using the enclosed envelope or drop it off at the Cityof San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, 955 Morro Street. We would like to receive your completed survey by May ' 9, 1997. Thanks a lot for your help. 1. What is your address? 9. How often do customers or clients. visit a your ' business? (check one) _ Daily ' 2. Is this a:.(Check one) _ Weekly Residence only (if checked, answer questions 3 _ Infrequently and 4 then go to Question 10) _ Never Business only (if checked,skip to question 10) ' Both (if checked,answer all questions) 10. Is sufficient parking available off-street at this location to meet your needs? (check one for each 3. Do You personally live at this address? column) ' ✓Yes _ No. If yes, how long have you lived Weekdays Weekends here? —years. Always Most Times 4. Do You own or rent? ' Own Rent. Sometimes _ How many people live at this address? -e-. Total Seldom number of vehicles owned by current residents? Never ' Are these vehicles parked(check one): All off street 11. Is sufficient on-street panting available to meet your All on street needs? (check one for each column) ' Some on and some off street Weekdays Weekends Always _ If a residence only,skip to question 10. Most Times Sometimes 5. If a business, what type of business is conducted at Seldom _ this address? (check one) Never ' Professional Services Real Estate 12. Is available on-street parking in your area Other Services convenient? (check one) ' Rrtail Sales Very Convenient Other(describe) ✓ Somewhat Convenient _ Not Very Convenient ' 6. Are there other businesses at this address? Not At All Convenient Yes No Not Available 7. What are the hours of operation? From_To_ 13. When is additional parking in your area most often ' needed?(check all that apply) 8. How many employees including you work at this — Weekday Mornings location? Weekday Afternoons I Number of Full-time Employees Weekday Evenings Number of Part-time Employees _ Thursday Evenings Weekends _ ' Not Needed Please Turn Page Over ' I 14.,Is .the amount of. available parking in your area 20. What types of neighborhood parking management ' 'affected by the Thursday evening Farmers Market in policies would you support in your area? (check the downtown?(check one) one or more) Always Parking permit programs _ -Sometimes Time limits on parking INever Parking meters _L--� None of the above ' 15. If parking in your area is affected by the Farmers Market, does it result in inconvenience to you, your 21. Do you have any suggestions for improving family or employees?(check one) parkigg.in your area? ' Major Inconvenience ' Minor Inconvenience ✓ No Inconvenience ' 16. How do you usually travel from this address to the Downtown? (check one) Private Auto ' Walk Bicycle Bus/Trolley I17. Is downtown parking usually available to meet your normal needs?(check one in each column) ' Weekdays Weekends Always I Most Times ✓ ✓- 22. Other Comments? Sometimes Seldom _ I Never 18. Do downtown employees and visitors use parking I spaces near this address?(check one) Always Most Times I _ Sometimes_ Seldom ✓ Never I 19. What actions(s)do you believe the City should take to make parking more convenient and available in your area?(check all that apply) I Promote use of alternative transportation (buses,bicycles,carpools,walking,etc.) Provide more parking downtown I Charge more for parking downtown THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! Charge less for parking downtown Restrict parking in your area by non-residents. I Limit the number of businesses in your area. Place time limits on parking during daytime hours in your area. I Other TneYPrtlnllt I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#? ' A-2: Farmer's Market Impact Survey A survey of neighborhoods adjacent to the study area was conducted on two Thursday evenings during the Spring of 1997. Areas where parking exceeded 60 percent of the estimated number of available on- ' street spaces were recorded between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM and between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Areas where 60 percent or more of the available spaces were utilized between 6:00 and 7:00 PM but not between 9:00 and 10:00 PM were assumed to be impacted by the Farmer's Market. Those areas where utilization exceeded 60 percent during both time periods were assumed to be impacted by residential parking demand rather than the Farmer's Market. Clearly,areas where parking was never greater than the 60 percent threshold were not signficantly impacted by the Farmer's Market. The results of the ' survey are illustrated in Figure A-1. 1 I 1 I iaoy96-0e+b,1,io Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I 1 1 r y L Y a V ? PEPPER Sr � C4 `r h W V JOHNSON AVE N AVE. cc L PENNY W. < 1 } m O7 O L roao sT. H d ca TORO ST rT d9 Z Ycc QROSA ST. SANTA OSAW W N T F � N cc N I Z O J TxrOSOS ST 0 Q ❑ mz El ITW W ,o 1 z BURRO ST. ❑ L UJ MORRO ST. CN� Q Np N z ' 1 0 3 � (7I CHORRO ST J Yui}s 01 ag' ❑1 � 'i N � ❑ .ararA GARDEN 9T. A � 2 N. BROADST. BROAD ST. ❑ OROAD ST. 6 F 1g C RwoMosr. C a y^ c F BEACH ST. � x IQ O CARMELST " O Cu c O U ' Ig z z� Q ARCHER 6T. � � S ' h O I F U A I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 f A-3: Telephone Survey METHODOLOGY ' This section describes the results of 141 telephone interviews conducted by Taylor Consulting Group. ' These interviews with downtown visitors were conducted in May, 1997. In an earlier phase of the Downtown Parking and Access Study,Nu-Stats International conducted ' intercept interviews with pedestrians at several downtown San Luis Obispo intersections. The results of those 793 interviews, conducted in November, 1996,are reported in a Final Report, City of San Luis Obispo Downtown Parking And Access Study,dated January, 1997. ' Near the end of those interviews each respondent was asked if he/she would be willing to participate in ' subsequent research. Two hundred and thirty-four respondents indicated they would be willing to do so and provided telephone numbers. These 234 intercept respondents were the starting sample for the telephone survey. Disconnected and wrong numbers and people who live outside San Luis Obispo ' County were dropped from this list leaving 192 working local telephone numbers. Interviews were completed with 141 of the 192, or 73 percent. A copy of the questionnaire used in these interviews is included in Appendix?? The tables referred to in ' the following summary are also contained in Appendix??. SUMMARY OF RESULTS I. How Do These Visitors Travel to Downtown? ' Driving alone is the most popular form of traveling to downtown. More than three-quarters(78%) have at some time driven alone to get downtown. Driving with someone else, including car and vanpooling(41%), and walking(40%)are travel modes that have been used by substantial numbers of downtown visitors. These are followed by bicycling ' (28%)and bus/trolley(11%). Many people who drive alone also use other means to travel downtown. About one-half report having ' used city buses, one-half having ridden the trolley,and one-quarter having used CCAT buses at some time. This experience with mass transit suggests that under some conditions downtown drivers are open to I using other means of travel. I 1.oy96m+%Pa,10 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I I i i Doivntown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report 92 ' The mixture of travel modes is essentially the same for people who work downtown and those who do Inot. (See Tables A and B) IIl. Why Do Downtown Visitors Choose a Particular Way to Travel? The most important consideration in deciding how to travel to downtown is convenience; 74% say it is ' Very Important. The chief reason private vehicles are viewed as more convenient is the ability to carry packages and passengers, including children to daycare. ' The most convenient aspects of using alternative travel modes are not having to find parking and being picked up and dropped off closer to one's downtown destination. ' In addition to convenience, travel time is the second most important consideration in selecting a travel mode; 45% say it is Very Important. Private vehicles are generally viewed as having an advantage over ' other modes in terms of travel time. However, not having to find a parking space and walk to one's final destination makes other modes quicker for some downtown visitors. (See Tables C, D, and E) Ill. What are the Hurdles to Using Alternative Ways of Travel? Downtown workers were asked about a variety of problems they might face in using alternative means of I travel for downtown trips. The following paragraphs report the more prominent hurdles for each mode investigated. ICarpool and Vanpool: Unpredictable work hours(54% say it is a major problem) is the largest hurdle to using carpools and vanpools for downtown travel. Other significant hurdles are missing your ride(36%) ' and need for a car in emergencies(31%). Buses: Infrequent service(64%) is viewed as the major hurdle to bus usage for downtown trips. Missing ' your bus(54%)and not having a bus stop near your home(41%)are also significant hurdles. Only 13% of respondents view transit cost as a barrier to using buses for downtown trips. ' Bicycle: In general fewer downtown visitors report hurdles to using bicycles for downtown travel. Distance to bike(39%), need for a car in emergencies(34%),and lack of bike lanes(31%)are the most prominent hurdles to expanded bicycle usage for downtown trips. IWalking: Time(57%),distance(52%), and unpredictable weather(49%)are viewed as the major hurdles for walking to downtown. (See Table F) I I hpgfi-W*2.:io Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' IV. What are the Hurdles to Telecommuting? ' Only a small fraction of downtown workers(7%)meet all the conditions needed to be able to work at home, or telecommute. Most downtown workers(80%)say their work responsibilities can not be ' performed from home. This probably includes retail workers and others that require personal interaction with coworkers and customers. About one-third say their employers permit working at home. About one-third also say they have all the ' computer and communications capabilities needed. Most(72%)report they have a suitable place at home to work. ' Thus,the largest barrier to working at home is the nature of the work that downtown workers perform. Presumably, little could be done to make these jobs suitable for telecommuting. ' (See Table G) V. How Do Downtown Drivers Make Parking Decisions? ' Most downtown drivers report parking on the street or in the public garages. Their decisions about where to park are guided by availability(62%), location near destination(52%), and time limit ' restrictions(52%). Much less important is cost(24%). In terms of evaluating downtown parking, drivers are evenly divided over whether or not it is convenient. ' Downtown drivers tend to agree, but not overwhelmingly so,that downtown parking is difficult to find (56%agree, 39% disagree)but is not expensive(52%agree,40%disagree). (See Tables H, I ,and J) ' VI. Where Would Drivers Like to Locate Additional Parking? Santa Rosa near the Fremont Theater is the location where most downtown drivers would like to see ' additional parking(48%). Three other locations tested, near Wells Fargo on Marsh(19%), near the Marsh Street garage(15%), and near the Palm Street garage(8%)are much less desirable to current downtown drivers. (See Table K) ' VII. How Would Drivers React to Reduced Free Parking Time in the Garages? ' Most drivers say they would no longer park in the city garages if the free time were reduced to 30 minutes from the current 90 minutes. More specifically,37% say they definitely would change their decision, and 25% say they probably would change their parking location. ' Many people have a tendency to overreact when survey questions pose hypothetical situations involving taking away a benefit they currently enjoy. It is human nature to object to losing something you have ' been getting for free. Thus, survey responses often exaggerate what citizens would actually do in such situations. Nonetheless, the negative reaction to the possibility of reducing the free parking time should be considered as opposition to such a change. (See Table L) ' 1.pkj9a064Vr3.do Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I I ' Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report 92 ' VIII. How Would Drivers React to Increased Parking Fees? ' Current downtown parking fees average about$.60 per hour. About one-quarter(27%)of downtown drivers say they would not drive downtown in a private vehicle if the rate were increased to$.75. If the fee were$.85,43% say they would no longer drive via private vehicle. At$1.00 per hour almost two- thirds(63%)say they would change. As mentioned in the prior section,citizens' claims often overstate their actual behaviors in situations ' where their benefits are being reduced,as in increasing parking fees. Therefore, if the rates were increased, we would expect actual changes to be considerably less than the survey answers suggest. (See Table M) I - I I I I I I I 1mVy96-0"\,r2..1u Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19,1997 I Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE A ' Travel Modes Ever Used for Downtown Trips 1 Work Downtown ' Trial ]La hLo ' Number of respondents (141) (61) (78) % L % ' Drive alone 78 79 76 Carpool/vanpool/drive ' with someone 41 39 41 Walk 40 30 50 ' Bicycle 28 28 29 ' Bus/Trolley 11 15 8 Other 4 2 5 ' SOURCE: Intercept survey Q2 plus Telephone survey Q2b ' I J,py9&-0&*aA0 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I 1 Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report ff2 TABLE B ' Transportation Services Ever Used 1 Work Downtown ' Total —Yea `JL4 ' Number of respondents (141) (61) (78) is is L Downtown trolley 48 54 44 ' San Luis Obispo City buses 47 49 46 CCAT buses 26 31 23 ' Regional Ridesharing information 16 25 9 Ride-On services 12 16 9 IInternet information 18 11 21 I SOURCE: Q5 I I ' ,,py96-064%P,21,310 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19, 1997 I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE C ' Importance of Factors in Selecting Travel Mode for Downtown Trips 1 Travel Mode ' Private IQW Vehicle Other ' Number of respondents (141) (98) (43) o� Y2 o,� ' Convenience 74 81 58 ' Travel time 45 49 37 Personal safety 38 40 33 To avoid driving 22 17 33 ' Cost 21 22 19 ' 1 1 SOURCE: Q4, percentage saying Very Important .. I I I Iapy96-0&%pr2.310 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report 92 I TABLE D IReasons Prefer Private Vehicle for Downtown Trips IWork Downtown ' Total Yes NO- Number of respondents (141) (61) (78) ILe Y-0 L Travel time is less 52 51 54 ' Easy to carry packages 47 34 55 I Can carry passengers or children 39 31 45 IDon't know bus schedules 21 21 22 ITravel on my schedule' 18 16 21 Feel safer 18 11 21 IBus schedules too unpredictable 17 8 24 ' Too hard to find out about other available choices 13 15 12 ILike driving alone 13 8 15 IDon't like to ride with others 8 3 12 I ' SOURCE: Q 19, percentage saying Major Reason * Volunteered in Q20b ' lsp,j%46ftr2,,o Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I i Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE E ' Reasons Prefer Alternate Modes for Downtown Trips I Work Downtown ' Total YYe. NQ ' Number of respondents (141) (61) (78) L % L ' Not have to find parking 57 49 64 Takes less time 41 36 46 ' Pick up and drop off closer ' to downtown destination 40 38 44 Lower cost 29 26 31 I Like riding with others 17 15 18 ' Not familiar with downtown 4 3 5 ' I SOURCE: Q21, percentage saying Major Reason I I I 1•c\,9s064wa..10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19. 1997 I I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE F ' Major Problems in Using Alternative Travel Modes for Downtown Trips ' Total Works Downtown INumber of respondents (61) Carpool and Vanpool Problems ' Unpredictable work hours 54 Missing your ride 36 ' Need car in emergencies 31 ' Need car during day 20 ' Identifying people with whom to ride 18 ' Need take children to/from daycare I 1 Rus Problems Infrequent bus service 64 ' Missing your bus 54 ' Not having a bus stop near your home 41 ' Need car in emergencies 34 ' Need car during day 20 ' 1ep\j96-0"p2.a10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress:Report#2 i Takes longer' 16 -- -- Cost 13 ' Need to take children to/from daycare 11 Bicycle Problems 1 Distance would have to bike 39 Need ca in emergencies 34 Lack of dedicated bike lanes 31 1 Not owning a.bike 21 Need car during day 20 Not.safe/too inuch traffic' Need to take children to/from daycare 1-3 _ Walking-Problems Time it would take to walk 57 Distance would have to walk 52 1 I laati96-064Xp4,10 Meyer; Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19; 1997 I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' Unpredictable weather ' conditions 49 Need to carry too many things 39 Need car in emergencies 33 ' Need car during day 23 ' Need to take children to/from daycare 13 I SOURCE: Q11-18, percentage saying Major Problem * Volunteered in Q14b I ' iapY964)64ba.No Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19,1997 1 I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE G ' Telecommuting Barriers 1 Total Works Downtown ' Number of respondents (61) ' Y2 'Yes, could perform primary work responsibilities at home 20 Yes,employer permits working at home 34 . Yes, have tools needed to work at home: ' All 34 Some 13 Yes, have suitable workplace at home 72 ' Yes, meets all 4 above criteria 7 ' 1 1 SOURCE: Q's 6-10 ' 1 I•ati96-0+an.zIo Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 ' I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report U ' TABLE H ' Usual Parking Location Drive Downtown IEver For Work Number of respondents (124) (44) lsr L ' On the street 37 43 Public parking garage 37 27 ' Private lot 12 23 Public Service Lot 11 5 I ' SOURCE: Q23 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 1 Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLEI ' Factors Considered in Decision on Where to Park Drive Downtown ' Ever Wor• ' Number of respondents (124) (44) L L ' Parking availability 62 55 Location near destination 52 57 ' Time limit restrictions 52 45 ' Cost 24 30 ' SOURCE: Q24, percentage saying Very Important ' 1 I+D49&064%P(l.do Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 ' TABLE J ' Evaluation of Current Downtown Parking Conditions (Base: Ever drive downtown) ' No ' Agree Opinion Disame ' Convenient 48 3 48 Not available in convenient ' locations 44 6 50 ' Difficult to find 56 4 39 ' Readily available 36 5 59 Expensive 42 5 53 Inexpensive 52 7 40 1 ' SOURCE: Q22 ' i.oyvaababrtsro Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progren Report#2 TABLE K Preferred.Locatiori.for Additional Parking Drive-Downtown Ever For-'Work ' Number of respondents (124) (44) . %. % ' Santa Rosa near Fremont: 48 . 52 Near Wells Fargo on Marsh 19 20 Near Marsh Street Garage 15 14 Near Palm Street Garage. 8 9 I 1 • 1 SOURCE: Q2.5 lw�i +an.,io Meyer;Mohaddes Associates,Inc: lune 19, 1997 I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#1 1 TABLE L ' Impact of Reduced Free Parking Time on Parking Location Decision Drive Downtown ' Ever For Work ' Number of respondents (124) (44) is %s ' Definitely change decision 37 43 ' Probably change decision 25 20 Probably not change decision 22 18 1 Definitely not change decision 14 16 ' SOURCE: Q26 ' i.pycsoea�p.x..e Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 Downtown Access&:Parking Study DroJl;Progress Report.#2 TABLE NI - --- --- impact of Parking_ Fee Increases on Decision to Drive Downtown Increase Hourly Parking Fee To $15 $.85bo i Number.of Resp its its (124) (124) (:124) jQ % ls' Would change decision 27 . 43 6.3 Don't know 19 16 7 Would not change-decision. 55 41 30 ' f - SOURCE: Q27 I lap�j%-O %pfl;lo Meyer,.Mohaddes Associates, Inc: Juna 19, 1997 _ ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#2 1 1 I I 1 1 Appendix B Candidate TDM Measures ' IeDY96464WAo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19. 1997 I i Measure#1: Set aside preferentially located parking for car/vanpools in public parking facilities Description: Public parking facilities would provide preferentially located parking for carpools and vanpools for all ' employees working in downtown in a manner similar to that afforded to employees working for the City of San Luis Obispo. Employees would be required to register their carpool/vanpool vehicles with the Program Manager.This measure is distinguished from the City's existing preferential parking set aside at the Palm St.garage by an active ' marketing program. Performance Rating: ' 1. Effectiveness- 17 parking spaces made available=7.6%of work trips reduced at a market penetration of 33.3 % (based on 1 minute car/vanpooler time savings and SOV penalty of 3 minutes; 1/3 of workers surveyed would trot walk further if parking were less expensive at other sites)=7.6/100. 2,680 average daily vehicle trips • 33.3/100 * ' 24/100(24%of employees park at public facilities).10 2.Costs: ' • Start Up--$35,000 includes signing,striping,registration,ridematching,publicity • Ongoing —$15,000 for staff to market,register,enforce,manage the program 3. Cost Effectiveness: 8,340$/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk-medium ' 5. Timing ' • to be implemented—within 6 months • to achieve effectiveness—6 to 9 months after implementation 6.Acceptability ' • community-high • business-high ' Comments: ► Organization responsible for implementation-City of San Luis Obispo and Ride On TMA ' ► Difficulties with implementation-Verifying ridership;communicating with employees/travelers; enforcement;visibility to general public ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-No effect ' ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ► Conformity with public policies-Yes ' CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 2,059$/Space 17 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score =51 ' to The number of employees estimated to be traveling to downtown by vehicle(SOV&HOV)is 3,570,representing 2,680 work trip I vehicles in downtown on a typical day(see Table E-1 in Fust Progress Report)after adjusting for an AVR of 1.33 persons per auto. 24%of those employed in the BIA arca indicated in the Intercept Survey that they park in public parking areas.Trip reduction ' factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation Demand Programs."April 1993. L.pti9e-as,a,:..w Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. ' June 19, 1997 ' Measure#l: Reduce monthly parking charges based on vehicle occupancy in public parking facilities ' Description: Monthly parking charges in public parking facilities would be levied based on the occupancy of vehicles using public parking facilities.Vehicles with 3 or more occupants would not pay a fee while vehicles with 2 occupants would pay half of the monthly fee.This measures will require an increase in the marketing of commute ' alternatives. Performance Rating ' 1.Effectiveness-5 parking spaces made available=3.9%of work trips based on$22/mo reduction in parking fees for HOV at public parking sites,at a penetration of 18%(18%of workers surveyed considered financial incentives to be most important in their decision not to drive alone downtown)=3.9/100 * 18/100 * 2,680 * 24/100" ' 2. Costs • Start Up -$10,000 for conversion of parking rate schedules and support for rideshare matching and assistance ' 0 Ongoing -$10,000/yr for staff and materials to market ridesharing services ' 3.Cost Effectiveness: 16,238$/vehicle trip 4. Risk- low ' 5.Time • to be implemented-within 6 months ' to achieve effectiveness-within 6 months of implementation 6.Acceptability ' community- low • business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ' Organization responsible for implementation-City ► Difficulties with implementation-verification of vehicle occupancy,providing daily validations for rideshare vehicles,hostility of parkers,time needed to find ridesharers,Potential for abuse,spillover parking into neighborhoods. ' Effect on downtown's competitiveness-None ► Conformity with public policies-Consistent with General Plan,Parking Plan,Air Quality Management Plan ' CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 2,000$/Space ' 5 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=44 ' u 24%of those employed in the BIA arca indicated in the Intercept Survey that they park in public parking areas.Trip reduction factor. Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation Demand Programs," ' April 1993. 1ep1;96-"r2.rlo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19, 1997 Measure#3: Increase parking rates for long-term parkers ' Description: Increase fees for vehicles parking 3 or more hours in public parking facilities. Will require and increase in marketing of commute alternatives.This measures will require an increase in the marketing of commute alternatives. ' Performance Rating- 1.Effectiveness-42 parking spaces made available=6.5%of work trips based on$1/day($22/month)increase in ' parking charges=6.5/100.2,680 average daily vehicle trips"•24/100(24%of employees park at public facilities. , 2. Costs • Start Up-$15,000 for redesigning,striping,publicity,verification of long term parkers,and marketing of t commute alternatives • Ongoing-$7,500 for enforcement and marketing of commute alternatives 3.Cost Effectiveness: 1,628$/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk- low ' 5.Time • to be implemented-within 6 months , • to achieve effectiveness-within 6 months of implementation 6. Acceptability ' • community-low • business-low Comments ' ► Type of Trip Affected—Primarily work ' ► Organization responsible for implementation-City ► Difficulties with implementation-complaints by parkers,potential neighborhood spillover ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-May inhibit longer stays among non-employees ' ► Conformity with public policies-Yes CAPITAL COSTIPARKING SPACE= 357$/Space , 42 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=46 1 tx 100%of workers surveyed would not park at their current location if they had to pay$I per day. 24%of those employed in the BIA area ' indicated in the Intercept Survey that they park in public parking areas. Trip reduction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal FHghway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation ' Demand Programs,"April 1993. lsp 9%-064b2rW Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. , June 19, 1997 1 I ' Measure#4: Lower parking rates in underutilized parking facilities by time of day or raise rates in overused facilities at times of peak demand Description: Fees for parking in public parking facilities that are not utilized fully would be reduced ' Performance Ratine ' 1. Effectiveness-3.9%decrease in work trips at heavily utilized parking facilities based on a$I/day(or$22/month) increase with a 3.9%increase at underutilized facilities" ' 2. Costs • Start Up-$10,000 for signage,publicity,and administration ' a Ongoing-No additional recurring costs 3. Cost Effectiveness: 96$/vehicle trip(based on 105 vehicle trips shifted from heavily utilized to ' underutilized parking facilities). 4. Risk-low 1 5.Time • to be implemented-6 months ' to achieve effectiveness-6 months ' 6. Acceptability • community-medium • business- low ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work,shopping ' Organization responsible for implementation-City ► Difficulties with implementation-Confusion among parkers,need to communicate alternative parking supply ' Effect on downtown's competitiveness-inconvenience of parking downtown ► Conformity with public policies-No conflict ' CAPITAL COSTNEHICLE TRIP SHIFTED= 96$/vehicle trip No Parking Spaces Made Available-Parking Demand is Balanced,Total Score=59 I ' rr 3.9%of 2680 vehicle trips(equivalent to 105 vehicles)are shifted from heavily utilized to underutilized parking facilities. Trip reduction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation Demand Programs,"April 1993. ' 1•p\j96-W%p2.s10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I Measure#5: Enhance local "web" pages to allow shopping and business with public agencies Description: San Luis Obispo Rideshare's Internet Home Page would be enhanced to allow merchants to advertise ' products and services,communicate with customers,and conduct transactions. Performance Ratine ' 1. Effectiveness-0 to 3 parking spaces made available-Up to 0.5%of non-work trips or 3 trips=0.5/100 * 60/100 ' • (1560/1.56)vehicle trips 10 2.Costs' • Start Up-$50,000 to$100,000 for creating software,upgrading hardware,marketing ' • Ongoing-$10,000 for maintenance of web page and relations with participants,$10,000 for marketing 3.Cost Effectiveness: Between$64,127 and$80,798 per vehicle trip reduced(based on the two different ' startup cost estimates above). 4.Risk-high ' 5. Time ' • to be implemented- 1 year • to achieve effectiveness-2 to 3 years 6. Acceptability 1 • community-high • business-high ' Comments ► Type of trip-all ' ► Organization responsible for implementation-Ride On(Overall management), SLORTA(web page host), ' BIA(merchant interface),City/County(Access to government services) ► Difficulties with implementation-emerging technology,need for extensive communication to potential users,cost,slow adoption of using telecommunications by general market,security of transactions ' ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Generally positive,however it may reduce discretionary trip to downtown where unanticipated transactions take place ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COSTIPARKING SPACE= 16,667 to 33,334$/Space Between 0 and 3 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=38 ' I is 60%of 1997 SLO Residential Transportation Survey respondents had access to the Internet at their homes or offices. ' Iap\j96-064\pr2 slo Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19, 1997 I i ' Measure#6: Communicate actively with residents regarding travel choices to and in downtown Description: This activity would consist of continuous,high visibility marketing among employees,residents,and I businesses including publicity,promotions,advertising,and sales activities. Performance Rating ' 1.Effectiveness-Up to 27 parking spaces made available-Up to 1%of work trips 2. Costs ' Start Up-$150,000 for creative development,graphic design,printing and production,outreach staff,paid advertising • Ongoing-$50,000 for design and creative development,printing and production,outreach staff,paid advertising ' 3. Cost Effectiveness: 18,739$/vehicle trip reduced 4. Risk-medium ' 5.Time • to be implemented-6 months I9 to achieve effectiveness- 1 to 2 years from implementation 6.Acceptability ' 0 community-high • business-high IComments I Type of Trip Affected-Primarily work ► Organization responsible for implementation-SLORTA/Regional Rideshare ► Difficulties with implementation- labor intensive, low market penetration,creates positive impression of ' convenience of traveling to downtown,need for constant attention ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Positive ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 5,556$/Space IBetween 0 and 27 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=39 I I1ap1j96-u6•brz.10 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I Measure#7: Designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout downtown ' Description:Areas on,or adjacent to(e.g.,surface parking lots,alleys),streets would be designated as zones that carpools/vanpools could pick up and discharge riders.This measures will require an increase in the marketing of commute alternatives. I Performance Rating ' 1. Effectiveness-Up to 1%of work trips or 27 trips/parking spaces made available" ' 2. Costs • Start Up-$1,000 per site for signage,striping,redesign of street plans,plus$5,000 for marketing of ' ridesharing • Ongoing-no additional maintenance and enforcement costs incurred 3. Cost Effectiveness: 371 $/vehicle trip(assuming 5 pick up/discharge zones in downtown) ' 4. Risk-high - 5.Time • to be implemented-within I year ' • to achieve effectiveness-6 months after implementation 6.Acceptability ' • community-high • business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Primarily work I ► Organization responsible for implementation-City ► Difficulties with implementation-conflicts with existing street uses by motor vehicles and bicycles, I enforcement ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-None ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COSTIPARKING SPACE= 371 $/Space(assuming 5 pickup/discharge zones in downtown) Between 0 and 27 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=65 I . I is Trip reduction factor:Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation I Demand Programs,"April 1993. 1,pi%.0„r2.Aa Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19, 1997 I 1 Measure#8: Install and maintain interactive transportation information displays at walk up ' locations Description: This measure would provide information on traveling to and around downtown,location of businesses and governmental services,and other information on a real time basis accessed at a walk-up display. I I. Effectiveness-Up to 2 parking spaces made available=Up to 1%of all trips,at a penetration of 2.8 ' equivalent to 1/100' (2680+(1560/1.56))vehicle trips '2.8/100=2 trips 16 2. Costs ' Start Up-$50,000 per unit for software and hardware development,equipment,marketing to merchants and travelers • Ongoing-$50,000/yr for unit and content maintenance ' 3.Cost Effectiveness: 302,977$/vehicle trip(assuming 5 interactive information displays in downtown) ' 4. Risk-high 5.Time • to be implemented- I year • to achieve effectiveness-2 years 6.Acceptability • community-high ' 0 business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-All ' Organization responsible for implementation-Ride On,SLORTA/Regional Rideshare ► Difficulties with implementation-Changing technologies,vandalism,liability ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Positive ' Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 125,000$/Space(assuming 5 interactive information displays in downtown) Between 0 and 2 Parking Spaces Made Avaflable,Total Score=34 I 2.8%of respondents surveyed(1996 Intercept Survey)considered having immediate access to information on carpooling/bus service most Iimportant in their decision not to travel to downtown by car. I.P%j%-0 W..w Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lune 19, 1997 I Measure#9: Add dedicated bicycle lanes Description: Downtown has many bicycle facilities,however there are only two streets with bicycle lanes. Many ' respondents to the Intercept and 1997 Residential surveys cited adding of bicycle lanes as being a significant factor in getting them to not drive downtown. I I. Effectiveness- 147 parking spaces made available=4%of all trips or 4/100 • (2,680+(1,560/1.56))" ' 2.Costs • Start Up-$50,000 for design,signing,striping,communications ' • Ongoing-no additional maintenance or enforcement costs incurred 3.Cost Effectiveness: 340$/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk-low 5.Time ' • to be implemented- I year ' • to achieve effectiveness-immediate 6. Acceptability ' • community-high • business- low Comments ' ► Type of Trip Affected—All ► Organization responsible for implementation-City ' ► Difficulties with implementation- insufficient room on streets for dedicated lane,confusion about new traffic flow/pattern among downtown drivers ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Positive(if not perceived as creating congestion) ' ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 340$/Space ' ANNUAL COST/PARKING SPACE=$O/Space 147 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=70 ' i'Number of downtown non-workers is estimated to be 1,560 resulting in 1,000 vehicle trips(1,56011.56)-First Progress Report,Table E-1. The 1997 City of SLO Transportation Survey reported that 12.2%of respondents who do nZ bicycle would bicycle if more bicycle.lanes were ' added.One third(4%)of this figure was used to reflect persons that would actually bicycle as a result of this enhancement;approximately 30% of respondents survcyed considered separate bike lanes to be most Important in their decision not to travel to downtown by car. 4N;96-06+\pr:sw Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. I June 19, 1997 1 ' Measure#10: Enhance existing shuttle services Description: Expanded shuttle services to downtown would serve employees living within five miles of the Study Area in locations not served well by existing transit.This service would be similar to the`Hop' service being Ilaunched by Ride On TMA.Marketing of ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure. ' Performance Rating 1. Effectiveness-4 parking spaces made available= 1%of trips for downtown workers living within five miles of ' downtown(estimated at 2,000 of 6,441 downtown employees),at a penetration of 24%18= 1/100 • 2000/1.33 • 24/100=4 vehicle trips ' 2. Costs • Start Up-$25,000 for route/service design,start of operations,and marketing • Ongoing-$45,500=$35/hr/service vehicle• 52 weeks• 5 days/w• 5 hr/day for operations; $10,000 for staff ' and marketing 3.Cost Effectiveness: 87,230$/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk-medium ' 5.Time ' a to be implemented- I year • to achieve effectiveness-6 months after implementation ' 6. Acceptability • community-high • business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ' Organization responsible for implementation-Ride On ► Difficulties with implementation-Expensive service,reaching target market,building and sustaining ridership ' Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Positive ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 6,250$/Space ' 4 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=42 ' to Trip reduction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation Demand Programs,"April 1993. 24%of workers surveyed(1996 Intercept Survey)considered having more frequent bus service to be most imponant in their decision not to ' travel to downtown by car. lapy96a64\p lslo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lune 19, 1997 1 Measure#11: Provide downtown employees with annual transportation pass Description: Employers would purchase annual transportation passes for employees working in downtown that provides access to all forms of ridesharing,transit.services,bicycle lockers,and reduced car/vanpool parking rates. Funds generated from the purchase of passes would be used to expand transit services,provide ridematching services annually,offer demand-responsive midday transportation,and guaranteed rides home.Marketing of I ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure.Revenue to support improvements providing the pass(many of which are included in the list of TDM measures)would come from user fees,individual employers, and/or the downtown parking fund. ' Performance Rating - I. Effectiveness-49 parking spaces made available= 10%of average daily vehicle trips at a penetration of 18a/o"' ' 2,680 2.Costs I • Start Up-$50,000 for administrative start up,arrangement of interagency agreements,and marketing.Does nog include enhancements to transportation services • Ongoing-$50,000/yr for administration and marketing;$100 per employee/annually(or a total of$322,050 ' per year 50%of downtown employees receive/purchase the annual pass) 3. Cost Effectiveness: 8,285 $/vehicle trip I 4. Risk-high 5.Time ' • to be implemented- 1 to 2 years I • to achieve effectiveness-4 years after implementation 6.Acceptability ' • community-high • business- low Comments I ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ► Organization responsible for implementation-Ride On ' ► Difficulties with implementation-Few precedents,reaching target markets,relies on voluntary involvement,uses parking revenue, long lead time,arranging interagency agreements and procedures ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-None ' ► Conformity with public policies-No conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 1,020$/Space I 49 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=30 I 19 Based on University of Washington's"U Pass"program-Annual Report 1996; I S%of workers surveyed considered financial incentives for ' using alternative transportation to be most important in their decision not to travel to downtown by car. ,,pywomxpd,,, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 I 1 ' Measure 912: Lower vanpool fares Description: Fares charged for riding in vanpools would be reduced in order to stimulate ridership among ' employees traveling longer distances(i.e.,greater than 15 miles)to work in downtown Marketing of ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure. ' Performance Rating ' 1. Effectiveness-27 parking spaces made available=3.9%of longer distance work trips(>15 miles),or 25%of work trips20,based on a$1/day(or$22/mo)reduction in fare and a penetration of 18%. ' 2.Costs • Start Up-$10,000 for marketing ' Ongoing-$ 19,380=$11,880 for subsidy(@$264/yr/rider)and$7,500 for marketing and administration 3. Cost Effectiveness: 5,480$/vehicle trip 4. Risk-low ' 5.Time • to be implemented-6 months • to achieve effectiveness- 1 year after implementation ' 6.Acceptability ' community-high • business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work • Organization responsible for implementation- Ride On I Difficulties with implementation-may generate significant demand,providing vehicles,continuing funding ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-None IConformity with public policies-No Conflict • CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 371 $/Space ' 7 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=56 I20 Approximately 25%of San Luis Obispo county commuters travel an average of 13 miles one-way to work,"SLO Regional Ridesharing I Survey-I995". Trip r duction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Mghway Administration,"Manual for implementing Transportation Demand Programs,"April 1993. 18%of workers surveyed(1996 Intercept Survey)considered financial incentives for using alternative transportation to be most important in their decision not to travel to downtown by car. I lap\j%064\p2.alo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. IJune 19, 1997 Measure#13: Provide employees with financial incentives for using alternative transportation Description: Employees not parking would register to receive monthly financial incentives in cash or merchandise. ' Marketing of ridesharing would need to be increased as part of this measure. I Performance Rating 1. Effectiveness-39 parking spaces made available=8%reduction in work trips at a penetration of 18%or 8/100 * ' 18/100 * 2,680 work vehicle trips" 2.Cost ' • Start Up-$15,000 for administrative start-up and marketing • Ongoing-$137,250=$40/per month/participant*215 vehicle trips * 1.33 per/vehicle12 months ' 3. Cost Effectiveness: 25,438$/vehicle trip 4. Risk- low I 5.Time ' • to be implemented-6 months • to achieve effectiveness- I year after implementation ' 6.Acceptability • community-high • business- low Comments ' ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ► Organization responsible for implementation-Ride On,employers ' ► Difficulties with implementation-high ongoing cost,sensitivity to subsidy may erode over time,should be linked to changes in parking pricing policies,hard to reach all employees ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-none ' ► Conformity with public policies-no conflict CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 385$/Space ' 39 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=39 I I zr Trip reduction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation Demand Programs,"April 1993. ' 18%of workers surveyed(1996 Intercept Survey)considered financial incentives for using alternative transportation to be most important in their decision not to travel to downtown by car. 1&py,b064aR,1a Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19, 1997 I ' Measure#14: Enhance local codes to permit working at home Description: City and County land use codes would be amended to eliminate restrictions on working at home Performance Rating ' 1. Effectiveness-Up to I%of work trips or 27 parking spaces made available u ' 2.Costs • Start Up-$ for City staff to examine and make needed changes ' a Ongoing-no additional costs incurred 3.Cost Effectiveness: 0$/vehicle trip($ for City staff are not included in calculating cost effectiveness) 4. Risk- low ' 5.Time • to be implemented- 1 year • to achieve effectiveness- 1 year after implementation 1 6. Acceptability ' community-medium • business-high ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ' Organization responsible for implementation-City and County ► Difficulties with implementation-monitoring of effects in neighborhoods ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-none ' Conformity with public policies-need to review defmition of business activities allowed at home to make sure that working at home(vs.having a home-based business)does not invoke the City's home-based business controls.,may need to revise and/or add employee policies that set participation objectives CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 0$/Space ' Between 0 and 27 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=62 I I == Trip reduction factor:Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation ' Demand Programs,"April 1993. 1,Py96-W\p2.,1• Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' lune 19, 1997 Measure#15: Incorporate TDM facilities in new development projects Description: The City's land use/zoning code would be amended to require new developments to include TDM ' facilities including preferential parking for car/vanpools,bicycle parking,changing facilities, information displays, pickup/drop-off zones,and bus stop improvements.Property owners would be required to have tenants offer annual ridematching services to employees. ' Performance Rating ' 1. Effectiveness-Between 54(2%of work trips)and 134(5%work trips)parking spaces made available" ' 2.Costs(to developer) • Start Up--Time for City staff to examine and make needed changes;Private=depends on project. May ' include dedicating parking spaces for car/vanpool parking,signing,striping, installation of equipment • Ongoing --$based on project. May include monitoring and enforcement,maintenance 3.Cost Effectiveness: 0$/vehicle trip($ for City staff are not included in calculating cost effectiveness) ' 4. Risk-low ' 5. Time • to be implemented—within 6 months ' • to achieve effectiveness— 1 year after implementation 6. Acceptability ' • community-high • business- low ' Comments ► Type of Trip Affected-Work ' ► Organization responsible for implementation - City of San Luis Obispo individual property owners and/or developers ' ► Difficulties with implementation-requires new ordinance and/or modification of existing bicycle parking codes, increases costs for development in downtown, ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-Marginally negative ' ► Conformity with public policies-Yes CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 0$/Space ' 54 to 134 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=57 ' za Apogce Research,"Costs and Effectivcncss of Transportation Control Measures:Rcvicw end Analysis of Literature,'January 1994. ' ,yy96-064kpa.,tu Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19, 1997 I 1 ' Measure#16: Adopt telecommuting(from home and/or at facilities outside of downtown)as a regular practice among City and County employees. Description: Employers would be encouraged and assisted in adopting telecommuting.As part of this effort,City ' and County employees would be assigned a goal for having employees telecommuting as part of a demonstration project. Individual offices would develop a telecommuting goal based on their functions.Administrative policies and practices would be amended to facilitate telecommuting.Training sessions and coaching of management and ' employees would be provided. IPerformance Rating II. Effectiveness-21 parking spaces made available=3%of City and County employee would telecommute on average per day/1.33 persons per vehicle(existing Average Vehicle Ridership)24 ' 2.Costs • Start Up-up to$40,000 for equipment(if necessary),training,and staff development • Ongoing-$ 10,000/yr for telecommunication services,program administration ' 3.Cost Effectiveness: 5,295 $/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk- low 5.Time ' 0 to be implemented-6 months to 1 year • achieve effectiveness- 12 to 18 months after full implementation 6. Acceptability • community-high I0 business-high Comments I Type of Trip Affected- Work ► Organization responsible for implementation-City and County ► Difficulties with implementation-need to plan,conduct,and evaluate demonstration project;develop I policies and training programs;overcome organizational resistance;address public service issues when employees are telecommuting;,develop scheduling routines;acquire equipment and services Effect on downtown's competitiveness-none ' Conformity with public policies-consistent with policies that allow telecommuting CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 1,905 $/Space ' 21 Parking Spaces Made Available,Total Score=56 I I =• Apogee Research,"Costs and Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures:Review and Analysis of Literature,"January 1994. 1rp\i96ra,\pr:s10 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. ' June 19, 1191 Measure#17: Adopt Compressed Work Weeks for City and County employees Description: Employers would be encouraged and assisted in adopting compressed work weeks.County offices ' would have at least 50%of employees working 9/80 schedules(i.e.,9 days over two weeks).City offices would adopt 4/10(i.e.,4 days per week, 10 hours per day)for at least 50%of their downtown permanent work force since many employees currently work 9/80 schedules. ' Performance Rating ' 1. Effectiveness- 15 parking spaces made available-based on having the 48 City employees that work 9/80 schedules(i.e., 1 less day of travel to work every other week)to move to 4/10 schedules(i.e.,4 days per week, 10 hours per day)and getting 50%of County employees to work 9/80 schedules=2%reduction(2/100 •48)+4% reduction (4/100 • 50/100 ' 700 County employees)' ' 2. Costs: • Start Up—staff time to revise personnel policies,conduct training„and conduct demonstration program ' • Ongoing —no additional costs incurred 3.Cost Effectiveness: 0$/vehicle trip ' 4. Risk-low ' 5. Time • to be implemented—within 6 months ' • to achieve effectiveness—6 to 9 months after implementation 6.Acceptability ' • community- high • business- high ' Comments ' ► Type of Trip Affected - Work ► Organization responsible for implementation-City and County ► difficulties with implementation-conducting demonstration programs, identifying departments ' that can rearrange schedules, minimizing schedule conflicts, perception by public of services not being available at all hours(although some jurisdictions have been able to keep counters open during the noon hour due to employees taking breaks at different times), ' ► Effect on downtown's competitiveness-No effect ► Conformity with public policies-No Conflicts CAPITAL COST/PARKING SPACE= 0$/Space ' 15 Parldng Spaces Made Available,Total Score=60 ' 35 Trip reduction factor.Institute of Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration,"Manual for Implementing Transportation ' Demand Programs,"April 1993. ,.py9"64%pa.m• Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19, 1997 I ' Z Z U +H+Z Z Z V U Z U U Z Z U Z Iz N Z N Iw Z Z Z lu Iz Z iuwz U ' N Z N N N N N IIWIIW N N Z Z Z. ' - Z Z Z Z Y Z Z Z N N N Z U Z N U = NYINZNNNNNNNYIZNZZ N N NHWI- N N Z U Iw N N N iI U U ' aP Z N N N N N Iu N Iz Z Z N U N Z Z ' m Z Z Z N 11+1 N N N Z N N N IZI- Z Z n HWIZ Z Z N N U N Z N N IZH Z Z ' 3 b N N N N N Z N N N N N N N N N U F Z Z N N N- Z N Z N Z U U N N U N i � a Y a i w per. 1 . ; 410 C 4 d .7 Y ; < F - Z Z Z Z N Z N N N N N N N N N N 7 U Z N N Z N Z N U Z Z Z N Z N Z U a a 's e 3 s� ?Q ' ^i c N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 j U Z W V N w U N N Z Z Z N Z N Z Icj d - Y 00 C n N NN Z N N Z N N N N N Z Z N 4 U Z N N N N Z N U U N U N U N Z Z F t= o � O 7 o eV ZZ NN cnZZY1NN V .lU V A N N N Z N U Z Z Z Z U N Z N U U ; 7 0N a a 4 Y N N N N N N 2 2 Z Z N N Z N U U o o e e $ N N U Z Z N N N Z U N Z A U w V U i F• m' � � : ' m X e _ ' s 588 � S y Y r F y a v V S 8 Y a s ills e ' A �: g i D C 1.2 D• e y y y a u U cm V= Y 0 yr. yy y y Q W W b 1 9 1 6' < f. [Y H W W S 1 Y. < < ? C Lp 'J p o � « nTNbe- pC ! ^ ae - n n t Yl b n a a - - - n + .n b n a - N n w M b n a •. - - - - - - - - `. ;C o 1 I Table B-1 TDM Measures Grouped By Total Score26 ' ...'High! Grou ' � P 7 Designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout 65 ' downtown 9 Expand bike lanes 62 14 Enhance local codes to permit working at home 62 ' 17 Adopt Compressed Work Weeks for City and County 60 employees 4 Lower parking rates in underutilized parking by time of 59 . day '15 Adopt TDM facilities requirements for new development 57 `1Vledium' Group: 12 Lower vanpool fares 56 ' 16 Adopt telecommuting among City and County employees 56 1 Preferentially located parking for car/vanpools in public 46 pkg '3 Increase parking rates for long-term parkers 46 2 Reduce parking charges based on vehicle occupancy 44 `L'ow' Group ' 5 Enhance local"web"pages 42 10 Enhance existing shuttle services 42 6 Communicate actively with residents regarding choices for 39 ' traveling downtown 13 Provide employees with financial incentives for using 39 alternative transportation ' 8 Install interactive transportation information displays 34 11 Provide downtown employees with annual transportation 25 pass 1 1 1 1 1 w The TDM Measures were grouped into'High','Medium'and'Low'groupings based on their Total Scoresby dividing the range of total ' scores(25 to 65)into 3 groups:(1)High-Total Score:57 to 65,(2)Medium-Total Score:43 to 56,and(3)Low-Total Score:25 to 42. iepy96464ba.,m Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' June 19,1997 1 - i Append C TDM---Relationships and Combined Effect i,p%,96-N4\pr.2..,l, Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. IJunc 19,1997 I N 3q V O O O u U = G Z iE coo i U 0 U U O N 'd O cts .w+ O. V N Q) N N N L b ' a) U E MQ 33 3 .. cs 1 .�. O 7 O C c y d •L � C4 � � ted O N O V N 6i t+1 + F" ' ca a m � ^� a0i 3 N •� O O N n 3 i i O N O N i pp G a �p q C7 R N Ol r 3 UN I u u s I cj c w A e 0 T 3 -�dcti N Y O O I A o m ° 3 O O ON U U n' C N LU a a0 C14 � O. i y r� u 'O 'C 0 �" _ d O .N q O. 7 A E � U a N cu � H L -e N r n � I I •c fn d C o o .y. 0 0 t; 4t .+ 4t Wb .Z C a. Z Z z m 2 Z Z j iE Y O p d C 71 C C O C 3 C3 C C o � U � as U � U U ai°i U �� ct N++ U ��(U+ a E C '7 H � 7 •v V Iyi V O V _ L V V L V n •e>g _O d -'4 ,y ` Cn 4 ` ` x ` Y s N O O O O O + C •r s 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 N G ° 3 0, ai A •--. v b s F M en CIS e ° cz a x a cc c 4) M00C3 VS CD 00x .0 en G N 7 N O y C14 y O d + L :: a app ti /AIn a/ L to a+ V] Q cn �. N u .Np a p C u _ -cl x 00 fn +ca .CC CC F = Q eny G v1 s a 0 S o EG vi c'3 a+ N S C C V] O w V i O O y v G O � Cl y 'n pp >+ dC vi z eA c H o a� d o ° 3 x + 7 c ca cm 03 —114.203 a N ° �. °' ° 3t, i ° ca c o Eo cq t U IAI Oe 0 0o ClC yE o O ❑C ppA = U U _ E [cn oQ oyca ° o° N 0 o y Ev C's i ca p .4 M Uc m � ° u `c E 4% c2 0 Cc r x o ° ° E E o c E w y14 y A a U O Q. a m Q w a .. .. U .. cc o 0 v W O `Gw :., .r N M Q P O\ .N-� .�-i 4 to C z cw: r N � 7t a E I I b CJ C y V N V G L: yN.. aN+ r_ U G L Z G C z z C 7 p U L7 ca d U C 53 a� N. N y cc cc . __ y C PC T U `u aas b ca N N N cn ca c Q N ca ' U O 8Qom., Q. N e y U M v ca U y U o C/7 R O M Do M ['r U cn .a N `G O O cli t 3 au• •3 O C7 m N h v ai '6 -0 ca = � y u n y C ►7 tn O O O V Q N N C cn w F e°'c ° e .t L ' o o w wCa N cn O �r y U O. ~C.. O` to eto 0 03 M o ca o Ato CCS Aa ax3 '-- o � c0a g3NU ,yo CE y 0 U y o u . E H 4 o o CIS v or. .. .4� M _ � � M W. y N _ U U a Y E No y I aca sH3 � p" toe N 1'' ' c �' a N o ca m o -o N 3t a c ;? o o a 0 °0 0 vi ii w A aaA ¢ w � Au r- z Fr •U U + Clu O O ca Q c� C� ply tiH NcNa R d N ❑ •.� y y I 1 ' N N 07 C C O N N O O 7 V 7 z zm cc N N u U O CL ' N J ld a Q Y Y Y Y Y y+ R O O N 00 •� � O vi V L p p II aoi C .0 Cl CJ r � N s W10 7 `D + een o O N v C .r C` y N n y+^ C a Cto e0 w es U a o g E N A o 0 3x a o .w > ¢ Y o > ' ° acriA to 0 oz a yU 0 y C U U ca y0 O n U p w O N ►°. m m y IV In �p n u w 1 I r r �o t� ,•, OVw OL 300 z z Z CaV rNH C = as U U UU V 33333 °. vmaC �•2GL�3 N L c + a asLa Lv $ o ca E a � Ecl Tr N r N O t1 O DD M O O N O m .+ a+ ++ ^ G y d) E cl ° m L° � CIS 0 4a F. G td n to ti Ln a caQ e D ° m �_ to E Z, o E" o chi a° > ° N s E � eU cn +C14 _TM. c y C t.°. ° 00 '.' y y �' t �.. Ln m a) 3 + o = > E Eca 1 3 + `o a =i o ° 0 m ° N a =6 ti w _ o A C-4 w y a Q o u a N C .0.o U a c C w u �..+ E ayi U t to o a (U ami a C A� Hay 0 ° 0 oo 0 j aas to L~a ° p = mCO 0 `� a a 0 ° 3 N U � i tn ami °' a=i a� y 0. E e ° �' � m �' m do AF C'4 Ll L7 y 00 d O` y C y C N .� cw: L v O. 3 0 0 0. V O O V ° w m a) vi U as La 0 v O O T u k O E. = E O O �.. a� w A a U OR 0 ° a as A w a ,. .. U - La a ° � :rb F. a) U N i w o 423 y n .+ 0. a I I � G � N L7 y yG s ° 3 y 33 3 :d3oi CU ' O 7 7 0 0 0 y V z A CA, zz C y C U C O C 7 C C.j s U U U a"i U atdi vai c7 cts cu N � 7 CL T .G O U cn a N O O N O U N 0. Err O ¢ O O O O M G Y •'q cs �' M Gn 3 0, .> o g vi y y ' Q N Cd C 6i M �"•. ,J U O O d tn v Q V V M MC co CA 00 > o o n a °Q a Mo p ci e aczci i v ci O C DD cc L H v ca E U v m �' o U o cn 0 ID pQ y m ca JV.03O OD co a) o N m O O O E y p G. G O ;D C" N N cv C7 'D 'O YN E H U = O 'C UCC I b0 O O N O-C (� y C U G F m w U U = AR Y E W F M v� G au uU ci � •aVi 3 Y .y d 'Ctj 2 C" co C14 ED 0. v O W N G o cs y y � � w ' u Zit v . o a� 0 � tihi wCD y vGi d G q 0 . . � � k / /} d 2 � / � / � 0 2 al \ -19ca 44 \ � ! � � \ . . ../ . � w cc = CL 2 a (14Cc a \ § © ;0. C) � k \ 12 00 � I � 164 + k � \ tn cc / 42 c / \ \ \ _ a 2318 j ° f x -000 B r 9 \ \ k k k 0 \ \ | ug S ( N » §� ® § Cq 0 0 ` 0 r 2 2 k U 5 § 2 / § 2 t r � | k , . | | 1 I b Do. Do. . •Y -°o 3 ' 3 :tt 34t 4t 3eqon y y � � C N V r ° O p O .U.. H U y U 0 O O U # U Y qq V C L Z Z Z C 0 A = , Z Z ;? 7 U p 07 c y c ,`: c �, - c C c c p O. •b O V U V •G U G U ctsd) U u U U, 1r,- C�ptl .G b 1 _ N O. U II �'w _ _ v N � "CU d U U U N N N N N N UN-• 3 3 ° 3 ¢ 3 33 3 3 CD � •" es es c c . e o � o ° L E a E to73 v� V R 7 7 r, + F c y 0 p 0 en O n `D v �O ° o � r- q d M `y= r O Itr O M O .r v1 N N O y .'�'•. O O N + aj 3 5 .3 L awn p � L' R f•1 y y M 00 ' 00 Y 4 O V y OD y + CJ CJ w y v y Fe VI d) •� m p '�" d V �C O A L3. c ran iqC pp a+ Q Q E C d �y' � y y N F e y o a2i a °1 0 ° 3 + .� e eY`a 00 `o o y rn on m y C L c [ 3 a o R0 3 0 ' o 0 to ca� °e' w izE V Na >, •0 •O ea y ° u ?+= y C Q m d °d U U c u x E m R N ai s Q T ca f1. Y c d d O O Y 'O 0y y id Cb 2 ca D = 3 F to 3 D o n w ` c A N . ... d 0 U C O >% 0 k O ° �°+ E U o � E F M N rn A �r V 0L Q r m Q W .4 ! r r V r la u. •y w I ° cC y 3 L)i H O .0 N N M IRt [� Ch ti .moi .moi W �. rte. 0 ' 3C N z R E O. r- I I � y s mss, � L_+.� •'a.. � a 3C-43C-4 I Vl V c o o o ' E G Z C Z Z U O U U C y o x � N N 4 ca d d O Vl y VJ N 43 O O 7 3 3 3 3 �� •2 Co � 3 ' .93 cc o ° I u C d vcou o as to lqr Cl) rz 3 ° OL OL N L oa ^•' N � � t m d Y ' {' v U u 'u00 N _ v to u v 7 o d C •fl Fd ._ N,y u m y � to � • a co N N i E C V O = T Q•1 .= N Q Q. G y Ov N .A L A c. a >1 e c to ° 3 000 � Aa ¢ aQ � 3 = C) y accso 00 m i y o o z E e y o on m _ ALM C) fC •d ld E V N L 00.E y .4 O O y U a) d p d d•3 E O F m �_ U U N O O i0 "+ p e 0 e vpcoo WQ, no $ N °0 cco o L ` o °L' o v 5 y 0 o 0 o a o 0 o W 4 .� V _ � U N N 3t .n A L u�� a r I I I I Appendix D Summary of Responses to Steering Committee Comments I Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#1 ' Appendix D: Summary of Responses to Steering Committee Comments ' A review draft of this Progress Report was provided to members of the Steering Committee to obtain ' their comments prior to finalizing the report. Responses to the comments received have taken one of the ' following forms: Changes have been made to the report in response to comments received;or Comments have been noted and will be addressed in the Downtown Access and Parking Plan once the City Council has provided direction to staff and the consultant; or Where the comments contain inaccuracies,these have been clarified in this appendix. ' The following sections summarize key comments received and indicate which of the above actions have been taken to respond to each comment. Comments regarding potential policy actions by the City ' Council have been noted. It is assumed that the City Council will address these policy issues during the public review process. 1. Letter from Tom Fulks of Ridesharing dated June 13, 1997 ' Comment 1-1: Requests that information be provided regarding methods for fintding the TDM component of the Plan. This should include a table breaking down funding by source. ' This should also show how revenues generated by proposed parking management actions will be used within the Plan. Response: Meyer, Mohaddes concurs with the need to provide more detail regarding funding both ' the TDM and parking expansion components of the recommended plan. The Progress Report outlines the issues surrounding funding of the Plan. It is expected that additional ' analysis and definition of proposed funding for each component will be provided with the alternative selected by the City Council for inclusion within the Draft Downtown Access and Parking Plan. The tabular information requested will be provided to the ' degree the necessary information can be assembled. 2. Memorandum from Craig Anderson representing the Sierra Club ' Comment 2-1: Concern is expressed regarding the inclusion of the Marsh Street Expansion in all alternatives presented in Progress Report#2. ' Response: Staff has indicated that City Council direction for the Study included consideration of the Marsh Street Expansion within existing conditions. This was not done. However, ' based on the analysis described in Progress Reports#I and 42, the Marsh Street Expansion has been included within each alternative described in this report. It was found that sufficient demand exists within and near the Marsh Street Structure to warrant ' its expansion. Comment 2-2: The study ignores the broader social, environmental acrd financial impacts of building ' more parking to accommodate more cars in the downtown. Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. ' 1.FAi964e+br2 ao June 19, 1997 I I Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 t Response: Review of the potential environmental impacts of the selected Downtown Access and ' Parking Plan will be required. A determination will be made by the City regarding what level of environmental review(if any)will be required. The financial impacts have been outlined in the report and will be discussed further in developing the Draft Plan (see ' response to Comment 1-1). Meyer, Mohaddes Associates agrees that a fundamental issue exists regarding how the City will address future growth in downtown access demand. The recommendations in Progress Report#2 suggest a balance plan that I incorporates a maximum level of TDM with an on-going expansion of available parking. This issue will be at the heart of the City Council discussions. Based on public input,the City Council will define its preferred policy approach for addressing the access demand. Meyer, Mohaddes will then incorporate Council direction into the Draft Downtown ' Access and Parking Plan. Comment 2-3: Report recommends that parking revenues not be used to fund TDM and this leaves no ' credible way to fund an effective TDMprogram. Response: It is incorrect to say that the report recommends against the use of parking revenues to ' fund TDM. The report recommends against using existing parking revenues to fund TDM. However, it is recommended that supplemental parking revenues generated by the proposed parking management actions recommended for inclusion within the Plan be ' considered as a potential source of TDM funding. Some additional wording has been added in the Recommended Plan described in the Progress Report to clarify this issue. In addition, more detailed discussion is intended as part of the Draft Downtown Access I and Parking Plan once Council direction is received regarding the consultant recommendations(see response to Comment 1-l). ' Comment 2-4: Concern is expressed regarding data and statistical information upon which the study findings are based. In particular, reference is made to cordon count data inaccuracies and the estimated number of downtown employees. IResponse: The cordon counts are considered accurate. No additional data collection is necessary. What was being considered during the study were additional cordon counts that would ' reflect Christmas holiday shopping conditions. The City elected not to pursue this extra work item since it was not in the original scope of work and would not add information essential to the decision making process. The employment data used in the analysis is ' identical to that referenced in the comment letter. The derivation of the parking demand based on this employment is clearly defined in Table E-1 of Working Paper#1. I Comment 2-5: The recommendation is made to provide less specificity in interpreting the data and, instead,presenting the results as a range of values. Response: More narrow interpretations of some data elements were used but ranges in ultimate Iparking demand to be satisfied have been created. This should accomplish the same purpose. I Comment 2-6: Future access scenarios assume auto access to the downtown and do not assume increases in alternative modes. I I i.py96-06e%pr2,iu Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. lune l9, 1997 Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report fit ' Response: The access scenarios reflect mode choice conditions in the future similar to existing ' conditions in San Luis Obispo. This permits analysis of the potential effects of modal choice changes in the future. It would not be appropriate, for example,to superimpose ' the Maximum TDM parking demand reduction onto future conditions that already assume a substantial shift in access modes. Comment 2-7: Use of residential parking permit zones surrounding the downtown are recommended for ' consideration. Response: This recommendation is included as a parking management action(PM Action 5). It ' should be noted, however,that the residential survey conducted as part of the project did not indicate a strong interest in residential permit programs within neighborhoods affected by overflow parking by downtown employees. ' Comment 2-8: The discussion of the cost of parking spaces within parking structures is inadequate. The commenter believes the cost of new parking spaces is$40,000 rather than 316,000 ' as reported in the Progress Report. Response: The $16,000 cost is only the land acquisition and construction costs. The analysis also ' assumes $580 per space in"annual operating costs". These costs reflect debt service costs less revenue generated by the parking space. Therefore,depending over the term of the bonds used to construct the spaces,the bonding costs can increase the cost of the ' space by 20 to 30 percent(see Table 10 of this report). Comment 2-9: The recommendation to reserve parking revenues exclusively for parking expansion is ' unacceptable and politically motivated. Response: This comment is not accurate. See responses to Comments 1-1 and 2-3. ' Comment 2-10: Parking in-lieu fees should cover all the costs of building new parking spaces. Response: This approach could be adopted by the City Council. The report suggests bring the costs ' closer to the actual construction costs and suggests a minimum of$10,000 per space. 3. Memorandum from Mike Spangler representing the BIA ' Comment 3-1: One key concern outlined in the memorandum is that parking revenues should not be ' used to find TDM. Clearly, this is a policy decision that will be considered during the public process and City Council deliberations. Similarly, the memorandum discounts the ability of the City, through the Downtown Access and Parking Plan, to alter travel behavior of San Luis Obispo residents. Reliance on the Downtown Concept Plan is ' viewed as superior to the alternatives presented in the report. The memorandum suggests that six alternatives are presented but no clear recommendations are made in the report. ' Response: A number of comments about the study are included in the letter. They are not framed as specific questions or comments on the contents of Progress Report#2 but rather the ' process, policies and findings, in general,thus making specific responses difficult. Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. 1.py96464a2.w June 19, 1997 ' Downtown Access& Parking Study Progress Report#2 However,the comments do not accurately reflect the contents of Progress Report#2 or the recommendations that are presented. For example, specific recommendations are made regarding TDM,parking management and parking expansion. If adopted, the Plan would include immediate efforts to increase parking demand through the construction.of new parking structures(as recommended in the BIA letter). The memorandum is ' inaccurate in its claims that travel behavior cannot be changed. While it is difficult and usually requires a combination of both incentives and disincentives to be successful, there are examples of Cities similar to San Luis Obispo that have actually achieved ' significant reductions in access and parking demand. The report also indicates that using existing revenues only about 250 parking spaces(or approximately one new structure) can be added each five years. It is pointed out in the report that this will be insufficient ' to meet parking demands in the downtown unless very little growth in access demand occurs. Therefore, it is recognized that existing parking revenue streams should not be diverted to fund TDM. Rather,parking management strategies that increase the revenue ' stream should be adopted and the revenues should be used for both parking expansion and TDM. I I I I I I Meyer,Mohaddes Associates, Inc. I 1av1j96-W\pr2j10 June 19, 1997 Downtown Access&Parking Study Draft Progress Report 92 I I I I Appendix A I Supplemental Surveys I I I t,vy96W4W.,w Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. June 19, 1997 45 I Downtown Access& Parking Study Draft Progress Report#1 ' A-l: Residential Impact Surveys ' A survey of the areas impacted by non-residential parking were surveyed to help identify perceptions of the residents, to quantify how much of the employee parking is generated by commercial uses in the area ' rather than downtown employees and to identify possible strategies that might be effective in reducing downtown employee parking impacts in the residential areas. The survey report follows. 1 1 I I I I 1vy%-Ob4*2 i10 Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc. June 19,1997 ' 1 1 a o Z W x o I a � w 1 o"i a o � oQ. i � wz � � o I Q I I N ' co C O ' v C a� 00 N ' O O U (. c (D Co - Z � N o O U N E ° c ' Cot m a) N O N ' w > j O X 0a Z '^ N VJ 1 O `°cu X w `: c � J I F— o z ) a m cn � a N N >. O E- I C7 L W 0 � F- c c O Zz N Q LL. w Q C: N m 3 y Q U] Y O Cl) H cn L1.' Q a H I ZN c U Y. 50a 3 c J ° a c m fx N N 'O NQ A FC Q.' N J N N E p; 4a. wzz3 w o N a c z , H O H C: L t ° 9 w H a En x cn moo c 3 14 w H a w a > w CL 0 y 0 � y � w a F a H w H a a H z 0 x 0 w I cv0 :3 m H QQ w > a a > z m (ca D 5 = N z z x x a x i°-+ w 75 c -1 c a o °a w ° m m ° N N ca p cII U w I H rn N " N w w a z 0 z z a >4 c Co m a) fZ D E' � Q O ro A ro A U 'O CN Ln I O C ? rl N C1 N1 d C d C U m w N as a a a a a a a a w a� O in - O N .0Q. L O a .r r4 rl N ('1 e1' lLl t0 l� co 01 CD N ( �+ U A FL- Q F I I 1 fw z H M a u � a >4 o w H z z o w >4 z a o ff z z 3 w wHx4 E a H cn 1 1 3 3 a w z a w w I E w >4 o z w H E H a a a W a x z w °a H I I cm � W w w w oa. cn H w kW. z z 0 3 w H > O O O O H W E W I I a E En O U >4 m to !!1 E 1 1 I I C7 W W a O a t!1 W H-1 W W W W H Z H W E z z E E w En w U CaA GaD z E w z E E N a esw '' ww >rin >+ >4 a u o z w O O Z ° c as w w z a x > > > > w a u 3 u u z m in Nz w rC a 4 4 a z O z z 4 w [x E 4 M W a H H >+ E w w z z z a zo z `I a w z x d ' w H v1 H E F uEi a ° a z w w w o w w E a Eo a k. 4 k. O a a > In 9 cn 0 u as w a w O z u W w w W a f` a o z z z z u H ° ~ z E z W w H O W ru W w W w Z H >+ W E 3 3 U1 O O >4 H H H H W a U O O O 3 ' O W U U U U U H a z kd a a O W Gq O P4 M 2 H H H H z a W W O E Z W W w W W W k. w D W In N O Oww WaOO E: W 0 O xa a a aE O Z Z W a Z O x w ro ro ro to rd .0 ro o O o o N cn v In %o r I- co m co 1- co o) 0% ra .-1 r-1 r-I r-1 ri H r-1 ri r 4 r-I r4 r-I Ia< a a a a of a of of a a a a a of of or a o .-+ N cn a cn %0 n co m o H N n a U l %o n N N N N N N N N I i 1 i EnE z w U O D a a En 1-4 i A .a o r'� E z z W H i C7 Z z O w aaa CD H a 0 cmz B o — W N Z En 1 o C3 w � a E N N cd 0 a a N N 1 1 � N caC aa)) aTi ca N L o C y .0 W N N O _T X L � C W/ rI 7 m C (!7 O fn a) co L C a) a) U ~ O N C T C N C ca ca O m j v a) v a) a) 7 a) a) .0 >, >. Cl)M 01 � a) CO Z N y C C U) > 7 > 7 YAC Co (J) ccN a) ♦��/� m UO- L a) L a) a) y a)a) cn cn W CU-- mM = N � a) 0) N U O U " av, -- z r. c _, a) v m c I� (D cnU ;0 U N 1— U a) O -0 N 5 O L N L W Q NF- c a .cv 3L 3t CI C fn w C y -0 MD Z 3: U) ai o a) C C C (U C C C C a) a) a) Co c: -6 a °n, cN cC cN cN cl 0 t .CO. N m N N U)N U) m O`p a) ... N W — a) > a) a) V a) U W C � ` Q n Q' aQ'7 ca O Li. a) O (L) a) a) F- U) a of ti CO qT A rn O (c) Z 'y a a cc) m m o O F- t O C I d N E Y ` 6 (n W O U -00) gyp vi O W LL ' Cf O 7 U fn Q W LL N 5 E o) m Z Cf) O I a S C N Z) U z o yoa) U) m zQ F- O d' a) U) C J J LLI D O W Q m m o c ,o w F- (n F- O W V I a) C a) w Z W U) a) O w ` ' Z a) y C13 F- n Q ca F- � « k k f \ ) / § 2 � § § / ca C e ■ % § / $ e > o ° - a) CD 0) \ k 2a \ � E £ £ ° ° ° _ 0 3 B0 d / d k k j § ^ 0 \ � k � 0 " C � � a) u) 2 / 0 \ � 2 o » o ¥ o � > 2 > a � c ° Ea » 0 o e o © C n 'a 0° LU ° a ' m m = c c k � k � � \ � t � �\ a) $ / � \ ccc ac at 22 � o � / k / k fq # \ # � E2 \ Via § m 0 2 M _ _ V- U) r % _ _ e a) e e e m e e o _ o _ o — » = m _ � m � m Q. 2k /k / � $ � � � § E § E § E o2 02 0 $ ° § 2t a e = £ _ & = m 2 £ 2 £ § £ » 2 » 2 3: e / § (n >, >, a = m £ _ o o 0 2 e c m c m m c > a o j7 j2 j2 C k § k ) \ fk @ m e M 0 m o 0 o 0 0 £ ° c 'U 2 = � 'a � E= E£ Cl. 2 = % 0 7 10 e — m m g ECL « : « : « X 0 2 0 X £ ° a a) c » / a � / E 2 2 co 7 2 K-D / ° U) ` .0 k 0C LO \ 2 d R 2 \ � -0 E / 22 2 � f ka fE w � C a a) I � ¥ f / E k0 k k / 'a kr- k U) U) I . ) / \ = 0 0 � @ 2 w o ° e 2 - k z q % E A 2 cm 2 ( c / & 0 k _ R CLC ff § LU ca o ° S ° | k 2 f 0 m C £ R e e E L a: | | � kf � � a) k / � . 0CL\ - § � CL ° LO K \ \ cu ƒ 2 f � 2 g ° k $ § T m � k 0 � / . / 0 k 2c 2 2 E ° a k k R £ § c 0 � § / % § m k \ / 2 k 75 2 c / cn 2 7 0 E - . cc § > % / . £ _ k k ' � k � a a $ 2 m § (D _ a-/ k cK / c E ® 0 @ 2 E e / \� | I 1 I e1 Ln N N n cn ri O t 4 0 H aw 1 x I ri ' I EI c N N N a � 01 0 1 I E I Z I E 1 a' r♦ 0\0 v dA m ow ' W I M >+ I �D If e� N c0 N un W 1 0 0 1 a i ax I co o 0W cn oM m dip ' a I Cl) -4 1 rT-4i Ln N xWIz0 3 1 0 1 ' 1 en o 0w o do m ow 1 x 1 In o o In o W I a 1 lz 1u0ii ' O 0 1 cni � ko0 00 00 a~a 10-+ 1 1 1 0 w ' O E I C7 RB 1 1 1- o 0 r 0 o ow rn U I x I cn 0 In o 0 ON ' aiai o •� a 101 iJ I z I ri 1 I In In 0\0 N 6\0 co ow En ' en 1 E 1 4m m I- v V r! a% G I z 1 r, r, o rn i a o w1 1 1 0 z O .Z 1 1 nr LLl dP rl oW N ow r-I 0 v 1 �3 1 `n H N OD H N N In as O Z H 1 O 1 E a 0 W 1 1 >r W E a IQ I 1 a 1 co odw Now %00 z 1 04 1 v In .r In In v rt 'o W i E i 'roi a 1 rn I co to dA In d0 co 0 A w z F y vi i `�' n � N Erol a Oxln 1 x EGOz i E aw W a I n %D %a Ln tin Ln r-I OH OE I '-I cn cn cn >+ E E I w z H N ro b O H x b (a En �4 a I N e3 EA 0 0 D O 0 .0 W N C N z O $4xtiaroI -W I F °z zz M I I i toco1nln 0o "' I1�i 1 E I M al 01 I ul I W i ccn >4 1 r- r- L ° 0 � LO ❑ 1101 rn H I w x I ' w 1 0 1 a i x 1 to to ae 0 aP o ae W I E >+ I H .-1 0 0 0 c>; 1 rn 0 1 0 ' W I z 0 1 H 1 O 1 I 1 N d' aP %D 0\0 N oW 1 x 1 In V U) N V ' W I ❑ 1 O ri 1 O I I (n I 1 ' G4 I E I N I- 0W N 0 c l aP O 0 1 d1 I t0 v to r4 Ot 1n (n Z i w 1 n H O I 1 1 O w H I Z I N IO P I ( 111 OdP C1 oV0 C14 ow H O 1 E I Ol a 0 i O 41 ' I z l r I a 1 1 111 c'1 e\0 O ae N aP W t!1 I E Icn 6t co O N T. Izl CA u 0 U j 1 O z I I a% V' 0\0 O oM In 0W r'1 W 1 1 to to of o r b p H 1 0 1 E M i i .a I a i 0 1 to (71 de oow nae Zi F i � r-i M m 1 O 1 43 1 E 1 ro ' a 7 a 0 I vn I m o are N CAP r ae 11 EdnfA I N O N � W N E W O ❑ V) 1 ' ELC W 1 � zP En 1 (sa co Ill In O ❑ O I H r-I 0 H I >a E 1 W O G N rA E G ro m x ° `-1 ,> G ' Of 04 N ° o to a GI Ol •r1 N N a G N CI C ' 4 N Cl) 1-I •r1 W N 'rO N N 41 A c EE-r z a a° n I I I %D 0 d° to dP a1 01 I o4 I cn I I E■ I Z I E+ I v Ol dp to dp ' wnI I� -qi `� � s ul) Ir0 w10 I w i a >4 i � o o E-4 ' a1cna1 o z O 1 1-4 I O I ' 0 Ixic° itdn ndo tn 1 E-4 I ao ri aai I O I 1 fA I I O 0 1 co 1 v v� v W U3 z I 1 O1: ' H HIz O E-t I 1 E-4 1 o do � Loc � 0 ' a 101 „ 1 z I r� I M I E+ I a%% 0m (A r�-1 IZI C% o I w I U 0 U i a 1 0 LZ z I I tb 0% da a% d° r-I ' 0 c 1 1 ko Lnm H ro H 1 0 1 E+ cn a I 1 A ' [n 1 0 1 N ra dp r•1 dP In O i 0 i � rA rn H r 41 H i H ' w E to cn 1 to xH r-I E+ z I E-4 a b O z G E I H r�•1 00% H n I w a1 0 1 w z �° E• 1 CIO a� I cn w ;NI t-7 � •a ani ra I n N O 01 m a 1-I N 10 a I sa ja to w a� H m >4 z I I 1 0A C% dP co dP N dP lw dP rl ow r4 ow rl dP ' E4 I M W I O I N N to O rt n D7 I IIS 1 Vl I 1 ' EI Z I E I ri 01 dP In dP [. dP N dP H ow rl ow rl dP O Ia l I U) co O � 1w N N %D I H 1 W Z 1 Vl I ru O 1 ' a10 I 1 a 1 m 0\e d ow r1 ow o dP r1 ow o ow o ew ai M a 1 N N `' o o 0 xWx i z 0 1 I 3 1 0 1 1 Ol d' 0\0 In dP N o\e r1 CAP O ow N ow rl dP a 1 E i �' r-4 `' o o o 1 to I I Cs. I E I Ln ri da %D de N dP rl dP ri ow O ow rI dP H O 1 �I 1 o E1z1 �. 1 I co 0% dP W 0\0In dP N CAP C19 ow H ew N dP U) U I x 1 r� v �o m In cn cn ,n H O 1 EEA 1 N ri H a Iol Izl N I 1 N d' ow f- 0\0LO 0\0 1p de m 0\0 r4 0\0N 0\0 E I I- N m rl w H co v H rl 3z I z I M N rl ' v W 1 a z I x I 1 0 0 d HdP Now oew oow New vdP W 1 z 1 v o rl In o o In o ' In o 1 o Ul w I I w ai I Iz I a I Cl r, ow co dP O dP %D ew r, ow rl d° ko ew O I H N N H "I r-4 01 l0 rl rl �O w E i E I N o-7 I cn I r1 O da r, dP O dP O dw O dP O dP O aP W Hul O rn W I O cn O O O O O F M ed Ez Ia 1 N dP ao dP o dw cc aP m dP rl dP In dP O 2 ro H i H N N rl rA rl Ol l[1 c' r, In I W Ix GNi E 1 CO -i r♦ N m 4J ' a z 41 ani col A r. O ' Of R. N Ix 1% a ra rz o E oa z rl N r1 v In ko [� I aG I 1 rn O ap r1 do G4 I x I M O ri 00 ' W 1 O 1 N 1 RI I V1 1 1 E 1 z 1 E I rr v dr m OW ' W 1 UI >+ 1 In co r♦ r- 1 owzI` +' En 1 k. 0 1 W 1 0 1 W I a+ >+ 1 O O k E-4r-4 ' Z I M I O O 1 ' x i °i N dho rOi a wiEi M aiuoii ' 1 O O 1 U)i I c O o �4 r4 a I m 1 M a ' H I 1 O x Iz1 H >4 O E+ I O co H 0 1 E I Men ON ' 0 +1 1 z 1 ri a I cn i E i r4r-I rii v c 1 z 1 r1 O 1 W 1 U U) 1 E U l a 1 O ' N z I 1 O M dr co d0 H 3 W 1 1 w 00 N O fn U1 I O 1 t` Eco pa 1 ' W fx I 1 O de x D I E I r01 Nr M cn cy m 1 O I y ' E 1 E I to H IA r] 1 to I M O do N dP A W > E cnn tW!] 1 O to Ei z a b EaaaW H Ian to z 1 O W cc E I >4 O 1 f 7 O4 y E I > W > I O � N y � � z1.4 ++ a c o a O a a N a x o w m � 14 O I Etc Aq z m m I I ' LL I O I �co En dO m de N v I 0 I ' E I I Z 1 E I d' ao dP tp dP W I U1 >c l r cn r1 N 0 1 I a I AL1 v H t w z ' w 1 o o a I Lx I to c1 d^ N dP W I E-4 >+ 1 'I r 1 r-1 rn W I n 0 I 00 H 1-4 I 1 z o 1 0 I o 1 1 1 Ln m de 1- dp H I v t N op aio I In ow to de O O 1 UI I In c'1 O H O PA zImI r. N Ha as 0izi ° ' O EI C7 U I ',>~ I I11 IT co H N 1T ] oa h N a 1 O I 4-3 1z1 1 I in In 0\0 O dP N co I z I ch � 0 0 0 ' O W I a 1 H U 3 U 1 0 ° z 1 I O\ O Coe O\ o0\0 , 4 I O of Ito o too >10 H 1 0 1 rl E-1 1 1 a 1 v In dP 01 ap 'A ' z I E-1I � tCOn v N 1 0 1 41 to I a 1 Un I 1- N dP In cw M W EMU] 1 N r Eroi W 0D:) m 1 ' E M z I F ro O z a I v 1n dp ON F 1 °' Ln `° N � I >4a O > O N E I �4 to Ia o .� 41 H b In IT NI C OI O O Q+ b N ul LL' I W y Do a ul a F m z a o I h v 0\0 rt oM Cl dw W 0\0 N aw O oW 'i 00 ' Ln h N h rl c'1 rl IT O N ai of ' I C11 1 In I I E I Z I E I N N aP Ln ow m aw rt aP N aw d' dP O aw W 1 In >4 I h N rl N C% v rl cn tC O ' 1-41 w z 1 In I Gr O 1 W 1 O 1 to aw co aP N dP rl do O aw o dP o aw ' aiacn M `O i `� Eno 0 0 w1Iz1 o 1 1 N N dP 00 dP m 0\0 m d0 ri aw rl 0W O 0W ' 1 x 1 v H C1 .-1 r'1 h h N N O 1 E I N v aloe ' ,y I C!] 1 I L4 1 E I Ill h 0M 01 ow H 0w N 0W N dP O d0 1-1 0W O0 1 U) I v W 1-4N H v v v O N rl v N In z H OH I z 1 04 1 1 v cn aP h 0W m dP H 0 rl 0 t'1 aP O dP H O I E I v rl 0co 0 ri a oi Izl I 1 h v 0W h 0 to 0\0 ("1 0\0 rt dP v dP rl 0W I In 1 E 1 00 N co rl m rI h rn H to r1 I z 1 N V ''I En 1 9 1 O w I 1 EI I z ' z I I O Cl aP h do 01 dP to d0 C'1 dd0 o O O o40 W I to N to to co to O O e1 v rl p to OH 1 O 1 N W I 1 ' (a] W I I QP4 1 a I m f'1 aP to dP v dP c0 d0 v 0\0 v d0 rl aP z Q I 1 v M N tC v N W tll co Pl H I E I r1 N v T-1N & I E I I W a 1 cn I h rl aw H aP O aP O 0\0 000 rl aP O dP w H E In to 1 � ,4 O O O r O I a a E x90 E a :4 a 1 co m aP In o v dP co OP v dP v aP rl 0\0 I ly O 4] a' 1 v m N ko v N tC Ill m c'1 r1 O w9 I H N v .-I ad 0) O >a~ to EDa iY4 .14 I p 1 I 14 N a z w H � � a I ca a� I a E z H N m v to I I ' I I n Oda vow NM n W O 1 I 1[) O n NO N I W 1 VI I 1 ' W 1 u] >+ 1 n Cl C N chi In N0% 0 1 1 x 1 N O •••1 En 1 44 O 1 ' W 1 O 1 W I E >4 1 00 OO 01N G1 a I M a 1 '+ 0 '•i ' xW i z O 3 1 O 1 I I N NoM NoM n c•1 O Ixl � M ' w1E-41 NON 7. I O 1 r� I VI 1 W I E-4 1 111 r1 eW N eW 01 c•1 c•1 ' U] Z 1 W 1 N N O N 1-I 0 1 1 1 O Rl H 1 z 1 31 I O I 4 C7 ( I v O o� C'•I ow c•1 O 0 1 = 1 d O N 1••1 O 1 E+ 1 N O N G a 1 a 1 ••1 a 1zI � IW I E-4 I co a� 1-1 � V' N0 C I z 1 N O N O E U l a 1 O W I i � `" cn Ing .1v' "1 .I z ' o m Q 1 0 1 N r, oE a z i 1 .c W Q 1 x 1 co c•1 as %0 as n N 1•1 I z I E-4 I '•I N N O N N 4 Ea I E-4 I as IW ►] I v) I n N eW N oW .-1 rl co IQ W �7 O ul 03 1 N N \O r-4 r- P ' F a o Exz1 W O 4J gc I v c•1 N t0 v n N 1-1 O W 9: E+ 1 rl N O N a a� O 1 I w a -HE-( I > W N 9 41 z . Ij I z N >~ rSWQ H • j •O ,�' U] '� d N O cr I Id N tp a p IQ W N O 4 ro E+ w z co o+ I i I I 111 V dp N dP 00 mo N 0 00 00\0 E I In n (n co 'i OD In w o O ,1 a. 1 ora E I Z I E 1 ri D\ CAP a0 0\0 ko dp N 0 �4 0\0 r♦ ap O dP . ..' Q I l a l n N V4 N N m c•1 1-4 H O H I W x I W I 0 0 1 a I a 11D 01dP w 00 f-4 GIP 0 d 0 a Ode ' a i uEia i %D co o �c o O o wI1zI Izol ' l0 1 1 1 N c'1 0\0 ri 0\0 c'1 0 O o\0 0 0\0 r1 0\0 0 do I x I cT .-1 rl N O n O O N O 1 E I e'1 In I O 1 ' t N 1 1 G. I E l c N oW 01 o`P t0 0\0 M 0 N aA0 O oW 00 0 0 1 to 1 w r1 n rl m V' n Ln O O a I Ac 1 N V' H ... .I H O 1 W 1 H 1 Z I O EI I 1 C'1 %D 0\0 w dP n aP N 0\0 r'1 dp O 0\0 O 0\0 H H I E I H N N � Ln N O O O ' O Izl I I d' O 0\0 %r 0\0 r-I 0\0 V 0\0 N dp r4 0\0 O 0\0 I to I E I tp c'1 W Pl O r-I r1 Ln N r i O N � I z z 1 I co N 0\0 rl dP ko OP N 0\0 H dP O dP O 0\0 W W I I I In rl ri M N O r1 N O O O Q Q 1 1 N In H Q H H 1 0 1 N ca I Wa ax I a I C, N op n dP %D dP In dP ra aP O dp z >4 I Iy1 1 a' v 01 to cD rl N IT N 1-4 O m r4 I Q I rt N V' ' I E I pQ.l I 1 a 1 N I n rl dP r-I dp O dP r4 d0 O 0\0 r-I dA O ap O 04 H W I � -W o r-4O v O I a W E-4 Mf4 I x a r-I z I E H r4 a t m N dP kD dp n dP cD dP cn cw dP O df I w x 4-3 a I v v D1 kD %D I f N Q N rl O O W9 f-4 N O I H N l' b E I y.l N N 41 z a H v to 0 a $4 m ° b 'x a� F r-I I I I In O dP v dP co n N I x 1 In o N wi of NON 1 W I N I I V1l� N � N � >4 1 NNIS QI Wz 1 NO r-4 W I W O 1 ' a i o I W i E-4 >+ I Op oO %oNc w i i' z 1 o '� 1 O O1 v Ni N � InC16� ' w i ] i N O r-I 1 U) I I W I EI 1 d O CNP N ew 1n M O O W 0 1 U3 1 � O Ln N O N LL ca W IH5a 11 ' O0 z ' �a+o 1 O oov ' ' N0 m N alai N O ri 9„� 4-1 ri dP ri ow U) I E I cC ri ri r ' z I W I N O ri O U E U l a l 0 z z I I co H ow In ow o W W I z I In N n t'1 o r•1 3 O Im I O I N O N b O U] 1 1 E+ aai a a ; ' >, wR z n Now %o aP C N01 I H 1ri N O ri N N 1 0 1 41 r ° ' ro o � Hw i riV NN roc. . A W E+ U] U) 1 ri N In ri %o '-4 a Oxva I H w E' °° z E U ca W x 41RC I 'T N ,H v V N o� O W O E I H NOri > 0) O I E4 I > W N 1.1 tl1 I a z -ul U NN H Q1 Id N �r 0 O W .. co N 19 A 0 O H � C0 2 co rn I I I LO OOde Do do 0 1 x l Ut o o In o 1 1 a 0 0 ' 1 0 1 �+ 1 oa 1 N I I EI z 1 E+ I Ln Ut ow o ao o 0\0 W I U) >+ 1 n Ih 0 O O ' � ir%4zI off unIw01 W l 0 1 w i H >4 1 � 00 %0 COP 00 ' 06 I m o 1 O W I I z l r1 x 1 z O I 3 I o 1 ' I I U1 m owcn ow v 0.0 IxI - NN � HH 04 I E+ 1 to M W I O 1 1 O 1 ' I � I I Gr I Ei 1 v H 0\0 O 0\0 c"c 0\0 O O I U) I v rl U) H N Na4 04 . H O I j� 1 N N U1 O o E 1 z 1 4 1 1 c'1 c de cn 0\0 t0 0\0 H O 1 Ea I N LC) H a a i O 1 •.1 +-I Iz1 3 I I %0 CO d P c"1 0\0 U1 0 N ' iU �na E U 1 1 0 O ' z I 1 N �o ae cn ow r1 ow W 1 z I c0 e 1 co in N r- >r O Q 1 3 1 U) cn b p H I O I E+ V1 I I I z >ti H 1 .a 1 0+ In dP W dP co aw zi F i � noH ln � � m w a � E � to I cal aHw i n v ^ 0o N6+ w H E-4 (n N I U) v E- ' a w E0-1 En M w i x > z I E w a t m Ln dP to de m dP ' >• o� E 1 > H m O k I r. H a b ++ w m o (L) (1) ° I 01 m a p m b 'C N N 4-) c0 b Z W 4.3 I m yc w 9: O 41 En ro 7 � � O N I E1 co z 94 FC W Nn r, 0 00 0 1 E I tD M al OI I a4 1 W I 1 ' w I uul >4 1 00 `tet HLn 00 ❑ 1 I a I r N HlwzI ' wio0 1 0 0 0\0 00\0 o dP o 0\0 W I E•t >4 I o O o 0 ' 10 I o I O ew rt dA rt 0w ri e\w I I x l 0 M r+ N wial n (n m a1uulI I W I E I to M0\0 N0 OdP OdP O O I V) I O O O O P4 1041 v a H O 1 �1 1 0 I m H 1 z 1 ;4 1 c•, N oM H ow o ow O d\ 10-1 O i Ex•E I kD m o o C o a 1 1z I •� 1ZI � ' z 7 RC 1 I N O oW N do O oW O oW Ul UI I E I O O O O C Izl 0 0 U E U I t O z I 1 to N 0 N 0\0 rt dP O dP r-1 O ❑ t 3 1 -W IV N rtS ❑ H 1 0 1 E W I I >1 I a 1 a 1 r N 0\0 v da rt da o 0\0 z I F 1 ro LO r-417 0 i tea► 0 1 0 1 b sr I E I W I t .1 rt to dP v df r1 dP r•1 0\0 A W E (n W 1 H v � E ' x w E °° z [:+ to m 4 1 ML -W CW NOON Hrn O D N E I v cn I >+ ❑ C H I O to d a U •,i Ia F 11 ani ani 'r. N N to a! Ln I ol w Q. o W b aNi 0 ro m a Ix n m N M I >, W al 14 ❑ N 44 r-4 Qj O (a 4 ' E-4 c Z a O a O 0 N ao C11 to In to I 1 zIE Id oo � o 0 N I w 0 1 W 10 1 i ° 0 0 0 0 alu� al w I I z I O O xiN OO No rl t E I WtY, 1 O 1 H I W I E I 111 N ow rl oda ° O I N 1 � 1 04 H O I I 1 ° tq H I z I 4 O 0\0 tT ] .0- 9 N a 101 Iz1 N 4 I E4 I N 00 O ' Izl U I W 1 Wiai �+ 0 Q I O I N E+ C] to 1 1 I N N a A rl aO r-I m d E-1 i �1 ' I :1 a ►aW i � o � o ro W W 0 =) cn I d E � E 1 E+ z 0 1 o a 44 H N F I H O O 0 cn (A to >+ m G H I iI > W in � H 41 to G a ° H t0 N ° °I N N w � Io a a� Ul E ct1 z ul >4 z I I ' 1 I N r♦ 0 00 00 O dP O oW ri dP I E I 0 O O 0 O O a1 01 1 m ' EI I I I z I [4 I N O oM O oV° rl 0\0 O oM rl oW O 0\0 W I !A >+ 1 O O O O O O O 1 1 a 1 Ln U) ' HIwz1 Enlwol w 1 0 1 a1 1 a l 0 0 eM o e\0 0 oM 00 o eye o o\e W I E >4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' xIz0 3 1 0 1 1 1 rl O 0W 00 O oM o 0\0 rl 0w 0 0\0 ' I x 1 O O O 0 O O 0 r, owci0 I m I ' W 1 E-1 1 cn N 0\0 H 0W O 0\0 00 O dP O 0\0 O O 1 cn I r n o 0 0 o A. p, I ul m I �O M H O 1 WI 1 O m F-I I z I 4 1 1 to 1-1 0.0 rl 0\0 0 0\0 r1 0\0 H ci O 1 E 1 0 O c'1 en M O c-1 C o aioi J a " 1 z 1 H 1 1 r1 0 0\0 O eW rl 0w 0 0\0 O dB o 0\0 N wo a o 0 0 0 0 z i o U 0 wiai Eo E-4 U I z I I en H 0\0 00 O 0\0 O e\0 r I eW r-4 de 14 ' W I z 1 M O O 0 n cl b 1 cn p 0 1 E' W I I >4 A I W a 1 r7 I d' r1 ew 0 010 r1 e\0 O � r4 0\0 r4 d0 ZLn I in E 1 N O N Ln O N N In I E 1 r-I-I ' I I 0\0 rl 0?0 ri 0\0 r1 0 r♦ dP r1 dP A z aHw 1 a` qT I ro W OH O 'J cn 1 NH r1 .a E ' xE-' mz 1 E W 9 1 r N eW rl dP rl d? H 0\0 rl 0\0 H de W a m I rn v v c v d ' O O UI O I N r1 r-I rI r-1 ri >W4 O r E I p En A to N a x >1 H (a « I r IEn n O O O O O 'O O N O N O O O .. .. to .. Ln M %D 1L) to Ln x 0 0 0 0 la 0 .. m "+ + +1 4.1 o +i 1.4 0 M 0 0 0 o c o m In 7 0 ' E m z rn r m r N co I I N rt AP O dP H 0 ' 1 x 1 O o 0 I E+ ILO ui GL 1 0 1 I m 1 m I I E-4 I E 1 0 0 dP o do 0 dP wIm >4 o O o w 1 o xo 0 1 0 O dP O ae O 0W W I E >4 I O O O WIz0 1 0 1 I 1 ri 0 dP 0 de rr 0 1 x I O O 00 c` i �I 0101 1 U! I 1 Gr 1 E• 1 cn N dP O 0W ri 0W ao, 0 o m a I-I Hizi o I 0 4 I 1 N O 6,0 r1 dP r/ 0 U I x 1 O O 0 ON a aial '� a izi -4 �a 1 t o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M U WI 0 U I O E-4z Z I z3 I N W-( dP 00 .-I de r1 0 L Ln N H1 O I O E W W 1 I >1 A I >4 oa i 0 i N rt 0 00 rr 0 '� -- z pa, 1 E 1 In in W 1 E 1 b W O cm aP rt do (n ao .A W E P En ul 1 cn Ion H a ° SWI z1 E W a 1 %D N AP r+ do cl de ,n r, 0 O O ul E-1 In i cn ra W W -,4E I al t A N cn z 4J rl ani °` � a. .. b aNi I a� a CV 0 o IW 0 E ro z v In ON I I ' I 1 0 o as 1 x I o I E-4 1 al 01 I W I ' ul I I E-4 I E+ t o o aP w I cn >+ 1 O Q1rZ4zi ' w i 0 a i a 1 0 00\0 W 1 Ey >+ 1 0 ' W i I z 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0\0 ' 1 x I O 2 101 I u] 1 ' W 1 E+ I rl rl o`P a4 I VI z I . W 1 r-I H 0 1 1 1 O ' m H I z 1 )4 0 U3c�iI = 1 0o b+ H O 1 Ei 1 G 1 0 1 41 IZI rI t 1 0 0 0\0 N cn I Ea I o G ' z cn1z1 0 wE4 u 1 I O z w i zz 1 0 0 0 >, f 0 m i o i H W En I I >0 z 1a 10 00 m w 101 4J W I E 1En I r♦ H W 1 ri 'i0 rt W E+ E4 to cn 1 0 E4 W E• O D cn I •1 ' E+ xz i Ey a rz4 w m I O O O W 0 1 0 W W C E� I rf W N I z N a •� w H a b C N C °I aNi a � w �, •o a I � a sa w •• a� a m � I F m z r1 xis Nr 00 � � 00 I E I %D Lh ' °' i mi N 1 I E 1 W I U) >4 I N Hm Hcy 0\0Oow O H N 0 I I a I c1 N Ln wo w I w i Ea-L >4 1 o 00 00 0 0 0 0 a 1 !n a 1 w1z01 1 I N '"1 oW O oW 1-1 d° O 0\0 I x l O O O O E I Ln Ln I O I ' I I 1 W I H 1 d' N ow O dP e-1 oW rl do Ln ul a M 0 1 41 111 O N N LL H z 0 1 x H Hlzl �+ I c'1 r-4 oW r-I oho r-q 0 O eW 1Ni O I E r1 M '^ o a z aioi 4J H 1 z I H I 1 r-I O oM r-1 0 O do O 0A0 N En In I H 1 O O O H I z IH U N 1 a 1 OE E U1 1 a O W W I I Ln N 0\0 O O O dA e-i CAP r-+ 0\0r 1 O O >1 oin0 I N N E w Z a i tl 1 to c`1 0o r-I ao z Eat i Lon H � � a I E I c0 E1'40 WD E-4 CA rAO D U) I d .-1 r1 r 1 E U ErnxI E' p a 1 0+ v oW r� dP rn dP .1 do O U N O I •H-L >d z EW 43 1 ] w 4I N w -� w a a N N > IrC A a b H z E Im z D 3 I I L�YC I I t0 rl dP In dP 1. CAP v OP I. dP 1 E I to N HH 1` m r M N H ' 1 a I O I ' cn E1 Z I E I v a' dP cel 0w t0 ow tp 0\0 In ow W I CA >+ 1 1- d' ON H co m co 1, C] 1 1 14 1 In H [_. z 1 w i o o a I a 1 co N dP O 0w O dP rf dP In dP W 1 E+ >+ 1 r♦ 1-1 0 0 to rt C7 W i z O I O I ' I 1 N O 0w t'1 0w t0 0w t0 dP I x 1 Ill N c0 H 111 N N (n W 1 5 1 N N H r1 r1 x101 I 1 Ir. Z E I N N dP Ot dP n 0w O dP �r ew a O 1 fn 1 t0 N In In .i r1 %0i m. I a' 1 m r1 r1 rl N � H 0 1 1 1 O ' m Hlzl �+ O 4c 1 I 111 c'1 0w N 0w t0 dP N 0\0 N dP Vl E U 1 x I 111 N N H N r1 e! r1 N 1:T H W O I E I v N rt N a a 041 En Izl 1 I I t0 111 as a 0\0 Ol 0w rn 0w ON 0w N In fs, I E+ 1 Ol v n r1 In 01 rn rt o C DLI0 1 Z I v ' { N0 O En 1 0: I W I I O E I z 1 1 I� t0 dP t0 0w 1. 0w Ill 0w cn 0w r� W I N 1 t0 N r1 N O h '4 rl f0 oo3 i E w i i Q ' A H a i .7 I ,-4 N GNP o dP tc dP v AP rn aP 1 �i I t0 1. 1Ol rt O rl of N W 'd z 11 c•1"j I E I r1 d' H H 'i N 04 I E I b z H r7 1 v] 1 ON l+ aP O dP In dP d' dP ('l Ow A � HW I N v H -T 1� v o ro WO U) EEn 1 N cn rl '-Ir-4 l EaaW E z r7 I W r dP r dP H ew co 0w Ill dP Gy W a' I tb rl c 1 O N r1 ri O 1'1 01 ' O H EO r-4 rI N rl rl W w E 1 > W co N4 En A H O W I 01� o iL W fn� O/ O m In 04 w rZ I rI pq la N43 '4-) O 1.1 W 'A b 4-1 a) b > iii O O G) w IE z ,� 0 u1 z aC I I t0 0 dP V' 0 d' 0 In ow v 0\6 I In N N .•i In r 0 n a i 0 1 N ' 1 � 1 1n 1 I HI Z I H I O In dP t0 dP U) do Nd0 N0 ' W I (A >4 W 1-1 t1 1, N1 1n OH I W Z 1 t0 N fn I Ls. O 1 W 1 O 1 a I r- N dP o 00 r-4 0 o 0\0 c 0\0 ' a l EH >4 I H r4 O t0 O C-4N En xW I z 0 1 3 1 O 1 ' 1 1 O V' CAP th oW t0 dP N o\O to CAP I = I to N m r•1 W N IT O 1 H I d' N H r•1 I O I I f!1 1 ' 1 W I H I 01 N dP rl dP N dP C dA O 0\0 a0 1 FC I 1'1 Ln IT `4 � cn l� '� r-1 04 En H O I W 1 0 I O M H I Z I O H 1 4 1 1 t"1 NdP mdP 1. d° C" 0\0 00 0\0 En E-4 U 1 .= I to N N r•I 111 cl t0 U) ' a W a 1 Pr' I N ri E-4 iz En 1 1 1 r•1 1n CAP co dN to 0 t- dP t0 CAP N W W I H 1 01 v rn ri O Ln co r-i epi O w I Z I a N U w1ai o H I Z I I t0 m dA d' dP O dP N 0\0 I, oW r•1 W Izz33 1 t0 t"1 a r4 N r1 Ln c'1 r-4 10 D 0 HH 1 0 1 H 0] W I 1 >' A 0 d NdP cdP 01 do No\0 Z I 04 1 Ln H 1 r•1 CO rq to N N f-4 01 N Hcn N I E 1 r-4 pad H a 1 U1 I 10 -W dP 01 dP r•I oW r•i do r•1 dP A W IT E-4 En vi I N H In m v F p; Emz I H Z ra 1 O rl dP O dP t0N4w dP O1 dP C o\a 04 1 m 01 H V' N f-4 ON In N M O I H 1n N U O >+ H H I y A N I N W 41 013 O a N N N O I � a r-i -rl W A to a 0 r4 O O d 41 I H z ,y N ul z I I (n dP m eW d' dP 0% dP 0% dP Q' 1 E I Lo to HN HN r-4m rl al 01 I a0 I ' ' E z 1 E I l- r1 oW In ow Op dp a) CAP da W I U) >+ 1 l0 r1 k0 H N M 1-1 QH I Ga 14 1 z 1 '"� N H N N W I O 44 O 1 a1N I ai 1 rl dP Ln 0\0 H 0\0 cel 0\0 r� dP W I E >+ 1 ON t0 co 1-1 wiulz1 N '' ' 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 O 1-1 da v 0\0 0% 0\0 rt d0 l'1 0\0 ' I x I In N r1 m co rt %0 .i %0 WI a 1 N rl N N Qi I O 1 Q 1 U] 1 ' G+ 1 E I rl V' dP O dP In da O dP N dP P4 0 1 4 1 n r4 %D rlN N � rlN LL N HOI W 1 m off i z i ' O E 1 C7 ry' I I N P1 oW oD dP Co oM [, apo %D Opo U ( x 1 In �o In Ul rt m rt ,- w a i E-4 i r4 I E i z i ,"1 U] I I 01 m dw rr apo 1- 0M rf 0M n 0w till U] 1 I E 1 co m N v rl (A m In r1 CA G O I W 1 N rl t 1 rl O 0 wiai u 1 u 1 z I I 07 N dP -W dP CO oW U1 opo Op aYo ri ' W 1 %0 rl 00 H r1 N r1 N r1 co >4 Qa Q1 O i rl N r1 N N 10 V) I I E W I I >4 ' H i ►] I In In dP In dP to aw %o da v dP A U] > I O 1 03 H HH t�1N N H v � N N b W I C7 4t' E 1 I r+H a 1 1 m v dP v de IM dP � dP to dP E U1 U1 I N r1 r1 r 1 N N A W 10 W E O O w 1 Ia P m w I E E zl DW W a 1 m %D CAP code IlldP H0 mdP O H 1 m .-I 0% m r-4 CW) Ch In co v fnC.1 O 1 rI N ri N N I w [r E I U) a ul a a4 ow b I of o N N fk 0 d >, A O 14 F z � z 3 m z I I In N Ln N %D to 1-4N V' 1 EI cn • i 0 In I I Z Irl 0 to dP %D dP Ln ao NN rlm co in N m N uHiiwo w10 a s 1 v N dP Go rt an N C r♦ dP w 1 1 z I 3 1 00 0 1 I 1 co 00 a0 0\0 O dP DA dP rt deN I x I rt H rt co rt H N f'1 N 1 O I 1 fn I I [_. I E1 �0 O dP %D 0\0Pf arP V' dP t'1 dP O 0 i cA 1 In N � N In Ln 0. a W�d 0 En H Dix 0 E Ide O U I x 1 V' ON ow to dP c'1 d0 kD dA N IT H E O 1 E-4 1 '�"1 N � w ai0 z 1 E I I cn O dP M oW n dr 1-1 dA %D dP U1 1 E 1 00 N d' m O r1 kD r-4 t•1 O z I Z I N r4 U 0 wix 0 EI Z 1 1 %0 r♦ dA CdA HdP wd+° d ON ?� N N c r t0 fn I 0 r+ aP o dP e� dP r dr o dP 7" 1 E 1 rr � N U) ON r-3 Ln r! � 9-4 r- r-4 +-) IU1 1 E I z H a I w 1 In or-IO n � � O N w ra � I E-t U) In I co N d N E N w 0 En 1 p, EWz E y 1 N co dP Ln dP 0% dP 0% m rl d° I m1 [� V' co \D 00 N rl ri %D WO U E I .4 N M E I ul ul G N I N W 4J G I CI 013 0 O aul I m A aNi x Go F+ N 4J ,ato N 9! ri > F z a con W z I I 1 ' I I m to dP Ln ow m de 0% 0 rl dP 04 1 E-4W 1 O I H N r-4l N v - N I Lq I U) I I ' Z I E4 1 O M 0\0 I[1 0M 1!1 0\0 N 0 Ill ow Im 1 1 0 1 r- NM HN HN H1 l\ ' W I 0 0 1 al I IYi I CO t0 0\0 to 0\0 rl 0\0 M 0\0 M 0\0 W I Ei >c I rr M 00 t0 n [� xW I M x 1 M N rt rt ' z 1 O 1 I I N 01 0\o 0\0 M dA O 0\0 M 0 x 1 to l` H M rl to H 01 tD ' W 1 E-4 I H M N rl 1% 1 0 I 1 ' [i. I E I H N dP M d0 0 0\o ct 0\0 t` 0\0 O O 1 W I t0 r1 O N Co H t0 Ill H UI z 1 W 1 N M H H H O I I I O H O E-I I Z I }.l 1 4 I I -W co aP v 0\0 00 rn 0\0 M ow U I x 1 to ri M rd t0 rt m r tD 1T .0.7 1 z I m Hrt .� a I11 4J z 1 r4 1 I I M n de v dP M o\0 In o\o v 0\0 d) U] I E-1 I O\ N 0 M 1, rl v H t0 v >•., I z I N M rc 1-1 O IH UI I i%I U 3 C7 U 1 I O z z I 1 O 01 dP t0 0\o v e\0 M 0\0 t0 0\0 r 4 H W I I 1 t0 H W r4 HH H01 01 >r ' D H 11 I O 1 N N N HE-4 E-I a i 17 I rn %D dP H dP r. dP In dP o d A ' z W I I In v M In N N t` N t0 rt %D b Ul a 1 O I H 4-3 N M rt rt H I E-H I to (n 1 I z o-7 I y I 01 1- CAP O aP t0 dP N dP N dP .� W O Eam U) I N N H M N [roi a o E•Omw I E• W z l U 0 1 %D o dP o dP v de m de M dP OW E I Ln r, � ( M � N � rl t- >4 zW W E-1l V V tq U V N ID a o c c V °rl' . 0) > ��r. ro ON a G >, to 9 •-1 r+ O to s'♦ 0) ro w ani ° a > (d a ro ri p r +► bl U J-1 F z> (nn z z z I co 01 da %00 r- do m oW 61 do m da . I to m r. 124 1 O I � fhH to N � N ri ' 1 m 1 rn 1 I E I Z I E I r, Now coda rn CAP vow O1 ono v6P ' W 1 UI >+ 1 %0 PI 00 N N N O rl H H co ri ri �M 1 1 z 1 v v d' N N N UI I W O 1 W 10 I' a1 ' I a I n N dp How 01 da t` d.^ M ano c+f ono W I E >+ 1 rl ri .4 r-I Ln r'1 r-I co co xW I n x 1 v r` %D LO ri ri 3 1 0 0 1 I 1 O1 Nono IT 0\0 r- ow co GNP r-I ow Mdo ' 1 x I v M U1 N O\ N Ln kD rl N �D to v U) ri N (� I O I ' �2 I U1 1 I 44 1 E 1 N v da 00 dP O1 0 (1 da kD ow Ln dP Om v � v teO 1 I `o r. Ln r-I M O co Is. a a ' H 0 1 1 1 W 0 H I z 1 }� O E I C7 Q,' 1 I r-I r dP O da O dP w 0 %D 0\0m ono cn U 1 x I In m r'1 m at M 0% H ri H rel 10 ' H r0.7 t a i r U)tn m r' c i z i 4J 1 I ri co aw N da r- dP Gi dP 01 ono %D aP N I U] 1 E I O1 In v In r M r-I N N H ri z I z l to In IT m N O $ W ca I a 1 U 14 E W U1 1 O W z 1 I %D M dP r ow r da N dP co do cn da r-1 ' z m 01 en %D N H H O H r r-1 O >1 0 C7 A ; O I In In v N N N b E H w l 1 >, I %D Ln da r dP r'1 CAP N dP r, d° O da z 1 1 Ln O1 ri 00 to %00 vr- t"1 v N M b rl1 a I O I H ko Ln v N N ri (1) rte I E I ' a I W I co rl dP n AP v dP N dP Now c'1 da 12 A' H W 1 N N In r'1 r-4 v n r` rr n] ' W O a rrto n I H V-1E �O l x O E z 1 E H E ►] I r ow Ln dP coo In dA oo da O dP ' k+ H 1 co r1 In Oco Wco -W to (nH NH O Q O I r-I 1-1 w H In l'1 N N H >4 E I W W z N 4J C N C O N 9 N I r. ri cn C 1-1 rq r. C °l a °4' m >4) ani aNi a 0 a>i w I N a >. > ro >1 b m w ami ra � b ani G H z 3 E 3 3 0 I 1 ' 1 I c0 O CAP co aP 00 1 In N v H '•I N IT I E 1 t1 to wI O1 I R1 I to I I ' z i E I LO 00 Ln aP o aP W I rn ># I n V' ('1 H O (N I� 0 1 1 0 1 U) N N H I Gr x 1 ' W 1 0 0 1 a l a 1 00 M 0 0 aP cn aP W t E >+ I r1 co H. ka r a 1 1n a 1 N Ln r1 w i z 0 1 3 1 O 1 1 1 cn 00 ow o 0\0 in aP IE I Ln M n H ' a i o 1 G, I E I N %0 0 a% eM n Of O O 1 to I %D o r4 r•I cn o N z z I mi "' 1O H H 0 1 1 1 O In o E1z1 0 ' 4 1 1 t0 In aP ui eM %0 cw H cL o 1 E i tn r, % � ro � UN D a I a I a 101 41 1 z I rI a m z i E i rn -wLn m � N v c O I z I v cn N O E U l a 1 O a z l 1 0 .-+ aP v aP In Op r-1 ❑ H Q 1 Z I t` N qw a rI N N n E IQ I -w v ap N aP co aP U1 I O I H c.N N W w a iEi ;a 1 i-1 1 W 1 aA r aP N ode a% aP A W EU1tA 1 N N O� '1 � b E a w O+ CO w E-4 ' E o z 1 W >+ i rn mNrl av IT 0 z E-1 IT N N ' w If EI � a ' w V O 0 ' 01 a N N a d 4' >1 4J 14 Q 7 .3 O aGl ' Ei z 4 m z I I 1 m V' da N da N da V' 00 N to N t0 a i o a f 1 � I u1 I 1 EI Z I E 1 r I� dW U1 oW U1 da o i `ila i `o O Nr. m HIwz1 wi0 aI w i F >+ i r�1 m to da `° � ,dn" zi `•I M N 0 1 �S I E I ri a• r1 1 cn I 44 I E I r•1 N da ri dA m d^ O O 1 En I v U) e I I- N c0 G+ I mI N %D 134 a H E 0 1 1 1 O O w E I Z 1 >4 C7 U3 U i x I Ln �� GW N v .-I V 0 ON a 1 a 1 N N G 14 a m 101 4-1 z w Iz1 4 1 1 r-4 N dP U) 0\0 V' da N O I EE I co ri U) (n M m N G G4 I W 1 ri V V O cn U E f�A U 1 a 1 O z I I N O da N oW O da r-I O W G I 1 r1H Nen Ln N V to Q U1 H 1 0 1 E p� M 1 1 WU a i a 1 ri v, ow C-1 da to da A y tD z ioiH NH � co � � W I E+ I cd az I I ri 4 W r7 1 m 1 O of dP v aP ri do A W O O O U] I N Ln H N ri to E E z E Z I aj E ri 44 1 Ln N O O 1 H cn V i4 O 1 w wz E1 In a z 4J c H In W U of a o > > °i a a G G N a i' c r N .I ri O N U WW1 A O O .14 E zgo z 1 ' I I U) '•1 aP � 0\0M ide n 1 [� I n N al of I ¢1 1 E-4 I Ey I Ln o aP N 0ff0 rn 0\0 ci En %D n Coco � 1 v ' w i o o al 1 a I n ri x m dO m dw W I H >4 1 r4 r4 Ln m o0 a1 <na1 k ra H 1 0 1 I 1 (n r•I oho N 0\0 O aM U) U1 w V O a1o1 I ' Gr I E•f I N d' eW m oM U1 eW a O I PC I LO N cl t], In Z I W I O H 0 1 1 1 O ' W H I z ILO dode S1 H I Ei I � T r•1 c'1 W O C a a1a1 •rl ' a 101 ,.) 1z1 ra I I U) N 0\0 10 0\0 n 0M N W I Ei I rn n \D r-4 n n G ' 1I n ra o I a In u zw z I 1 0 o as n da m � � f'0 zE Q1 � 1n � n � N � ta E �S 3 Lx 1 1 A t w o I a 1 -T C\3 GO N0\P oaP z E+ i E I rr-I f-I r Ol N0 r-4 to w O I E I b W O 1 I ri Ix ] I m I cn co op r•1 oM O 0\P A W 0 k. Ew N I N � � ram E+ z I E+ D O E-1E-+ 1 4 .-1 n N ' >4 rZ4 w O tn H I W H VD TJ r- G ' OI O O N 0 •• W b �+ a ' N $4 41 r-1 a n m > 00 ri .r4 U RC to $4 r+ ' E4 x 3 a w I I In 111 dP 0\ dP 0\ dP CO dP v dP . I x l In rn r-4 In r-I to In r- I E I cn cn al of I A7 1 W I I E I Z I E 1 %0 I- dP co o\o l0 dP 1- dP tp o\e W 1 N >+ I \0 r-I N N ri v ri N ' p 1 1 a 1 r-I v N ri ri N I W O 1 W 1 O 1 a I a 1 t0 �1 dP to dP to dP M dP N o\o ' W I E >+ 1 .-+ tD r-I r-I 0\ M (Yr I (A a 1 r1 en r•I r-4 w l I Z 1 x 1 z o 1 310 I ' I 1 to N dP 00 dP N dP 0\ dP v o\o I x I v V' r•1 O r-I t, 0 0\ I E+ 1 v N N 1 0 1 I kr 1 E I N tD dP r-I ow O oW r•1 dP v 0\e 0 0 1 CA I t0 O N v N N r4 00 \o P4 1 1 r4 rh r•1 (� ' H I � CA z 1 O E I C7 I 1 CL v dP t0 dP %00 l0 op t0 oW W U I x I v c0 r-I m r4 m M O\ ' H t0.1 1 64 1 th m ri T-4 � a 101 41 I z I a ' I I 0\ 0\ ow 0O o\e to dP t0 do O o\o N V] 1 E 1 co O N ri N 0\ ri tb r•1 r-t (; z I z I ri N N ri r•1 O 3 U1 I 1 U E U I I O ' W z I 1 O tD dP W dP O dP 1490 v o\o r-I W W I 1 t0 O N C'1 N n t- t` ?t op z p I O I ra v F W I I >1 ' PG 1A a I t, to dP t0 dP v dP O dP N o\o z (7 1 E I r-I r-I Mv O M N r-4 C) a 1 In I O\ N dw c0 dP O CAP CIO dP ri dP A W LL E-t p EO 1 N N m N r 1 E ' W Z O D w 1 (xx 3o E `° z E E G4 \0 a I v \O CAP N dP t0 N \0 0 v dP ' 0 O E I rI ri 0\ O N V-1 co p O I >+ E W W 'p >+ N W � � p C ~ .-t w r ' 013 O0 N N N >a W y rI 0 F z a m z ' i dP O ow C1 dP N CPP U) ew U) %0NN P4 'iN rlN H E-4 i i I R1 I ' U] 1 E I z I E I H to ow U1 ow to ew N ow O ow W I m >4 1 10 O H Ul rl O rl O H ko ❑ I 1 a l r1 N en N rl ' W I O O I ai 1 CY. I t'1 N dA N ota 111 dP N ow N ow W I E >4 1 r1 111 U) c0 LL1 U1 aI mal H ' W i z 0 1 p 1 1 1 N C14 0\0 dP co ow c'1 dP U1 ow 1 x I C U) H c"1 01 H rl N I c'1 rl m rl I OW I I E I Ul %D ow U1 dP 00 ow N da 0 p 1 ul I Ln rt H rf c'1 H N t` rl N N1 N Ul H m H I Z I O I p EI ❑ dP M da O ew N rl O rl C 1 �O fr a 1 P4 1 Nm N r-4 a IzI I I r1 T ew O ow c aP O ew O ow 01 U1 I E 1 co rl N d' N o\ N v r1 N C I Z I rl N N N HU I midi �4 0 .. w 1 1 0 Er to U I 3Z ❑ 7. I I d d oW rl oW C dP I. eW CO 0\0 rI w W I S I 111 n N rl N Hr-1 Lnb O z 1 O E W 1 1 Q .a W z i a 1 r c'1 dB N ew co da r dP 0\0 z ( E 1 rl rl o% v H m co N O ri N b c'1 N N rl i H i ,_i° z .I m dP 111 da U1 da rt dP N ew 11 W co Hv~ivWi i N N-I � a H � H x E-4 in l E EE4 a 1 01 to cw %o aP a da %0 dP co do 1 Ut rl O\ v Ol V' c0 c1 t'1 rl O Q Q I H N N N W q H I a> N p 0 ❑ U3 a 4LJ N a3 •• y N � � N In O$ N LlN iJ •rl W 0 ca 4-) � > a z F4 z U) t z E rl aP w aP to dP N OP v aP I E I to N Ln H NLn (A a1 OI I mI m 1 I EI Z 1 E 1 r1 L% dP %a dP m aP -W aW kD dP W 1 A >a 1 N n N H n 'i W co � 11 4 1 In H N mIw01 w 1 0 1 al 1-4 OW IT 0\0 oaP rlaP 1-4 0\0 W I E >c 1 rl H lit V' O %o ko xwim41 iO N 3 i o 1 ' 1 1 o O aP n dP Ln aP .-I ow rl aP [AI E 1 Ln n0 rI N O N N a 1 U)i 1 GW I E 1 00 in aP ao dP %0 dP d' dA Ln dP O O 1 In I Ln N n H rl O P4 I 04 1 c n H 1y ' C H O 1 I 1 O ca W H I z 1 I4 0 Z 0:4 1 1 %D O dP 01 OW Ln dP N dP O oW H z O 1 E 1 O 1.4 `4 1 O 1 41 I z I ,� a 1 I n N CAP 0 d0 rf ar v oW W aP M ' W I z I O, Ln Ln N N rl rNl d' �D O v11a1 z y4 z i I Ln Ln aP t` av n 0\00\0 r-4P dP W a ° oI ' 0 E A I 1 nLLn rlN ❑ H H 1 0 1 [� H CA I I ' a H Wa i a 1 ui aP n aP Ln dP r- aP N ap z A I og 1 Ln 00 ar n v r1 O v rI co TJ I E 1 r1 Ln N rl N t W N I E 1 r�1 w W ra 1 y I n n oW r dP n dP n dP rt dP ,4 >4R,' H W 1 N ra co to r1 rl C l0 W O a cn I 4 to x E A z 1 E W ] I N co do v CAP r- IAP 0 dP n GO 0 0 1 r Ol Ln IV d N H01 ri In Hl- W 3z E I A Ul 1 N aJ C Cl Cl o m to ko N a W 01 >1 {J 0 14 E z nM z