HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1997, 1 - DOWNTOWN ACCESS AND PARKING STUDY - PROGRESS REPORT #2 council g q9
j acenba nepont
C I T Y OP SAN LUIS O 8 1 S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Woricl"�
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
Terry Sanville,Principal TransportationPlanner
Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
SUBJECT: Downtown Access and Parking Study-Progress Report#2
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Consider the findings, strategies, and recommendations of the progress report; 2) give staff
direction for completion of a final Downtown Access and Parking Plan to return to Council for
final consideration and adoption of the Plan
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On February 2 and 9, 1996, a 19-member ad hoc committee of community members and staff
convened to develop a work scope for a comprehensive downtown access and parking study. On
April 2, 1996,the City Council approved the parking study work scope developed by the ad hoc
committee and authorized the preparation of a downtown access and parking study. In July 1996,
the City awarded a contract to the firm of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. to perform those
services and prepare the study. The firm performed a number of surveys,interviewed a number of
constituents,met with a Steering Committee comprised of members of the BIA(2 representatives),
and alterative transportation community (2 representatives), and staff (4 representatives), and
prepared a progress report#1 detailing the findings of the surveys and field inventories for parking
space utilization and alterative transportation options. Tonight, for Council consideration, is
progress report#2 which is in essence a near final report. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to
give the consultant direction on which programs and policies should receive emphasis in the
preparation of the final report for final Council consideration sometime in September 1997.
The report includes an executive summary(Attachment A) and includes a number of key findings
and includes a recommended parking plan consisting of three parts: a) a Transportation Demand
Management(TDM)component;b) a Parking Management Actions component;and c) a Parking
Expansion component. The report confirms previous Council action regarding the Marsh Street
Garage Expansion component,but does not support previous actions to acquire the Wells Fargo
Parking Lot. The report discusses in only general terms scenarios for financing of the various TDM
and parking expansion programs. Staff and the consultant expect that significant discussion on this
issue will take place at tonight's meeting and that with direction from Council the consultant will
incorporate that direction into the final report and the Council may choose to have the consultant
prepare the final report based upon one or a combination of any of those scenarios.
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Council Actions
On November 7h, 1995,the City Council,in a joint study session with the BIA,directed that staff
pursue four items: a) the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion;b) the Wells Fargo Parking lot
acquisition; c) amend current policy (Circulation Element) towards structure expansion; and d)
work with the BIA to format a possible study of alternative forms of transportation. The Council
met again on January 16th, 1996 and took three actions: a) directed staff to work with
representatives of the BIA and the alternative transportation community to develop a scope of work
for a downtown access and parking study; b) allocated funding for the initial stages of the Marsh
Street Parking Garage Expansion (environmental review, appraisals, negotiations, and concept
plans); and c) set April 2, 1996 for the Council to consider formal changes to the Circulation
Element and review the scope of work for the access study.
Finally on April 2, 1996 the Council met and decided to: a)not amend the Circulation Element and
determined that the expansion of the Marsh Street Structure and purchase of the Wells Fargo lot are
consistent with Program 12.7; b) again directed staff to proceed with Phase Two of the Marsh
Street Garage Expansion and the Wells Fargo lot acquisition;and c)approved the scope of work for
and authorized the distribution of the request for proposals for the Downtown Access and Parking
Study. The Council directed that the study assume that the Marsh Street Garage expansion was
implemented(i.e.,the study would include the newly created spaces),but that should the expansion
fail for some reason (biological,archeological,etc.) the study would recognize that potential loss
(i.e.,parking supply would not include those spaces).
Policy Direction
The initial input for policy direction to be considered in the study was determined by a 19-member
ad hoc committee (Exhibit B) prior to the start of the study. The goal was to develop policy
direction from both the parking and TDM perspective that was to be included in the consultants
parking study work scope. The outline of the policy direction is the following:
• status quo (no parking expansion beyond the Marsh Street expansion project)
• funding constrained (expansion beyond Marsh limited to current revenue stream)
• maximum TDM (alternativet uiuTortationprogram to reduce existing parking demand)
• expand within downtown (only expand parking within downtown core)
• partial implementation of Downtown Concept Plan (parking expansion to meet growth)
• combined actions (parking expansion tied to level of TDM measures)
Consultant Selection
On May 31, 1996 the City received five proposals from consulting firms: Omni-Means
Engineering& Planning,Wilbur Smith Associates,Robert Kahn& John Kain Associates,Meyer,
Mohaddes Associates, and Barton-Ashman Associates. On June 21• an interview panel was
selected and the firm of Meyer,Mohaddes Associates was chosen as the finalist. On July 3, 1996
the CAO approved the contract with Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc.
2
/'�
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 3
Consultants'Plan of Work
The Consultant proposed to perform the work by preparing the following items:
Progress Report#1 -Include results of surveys;show extent of possibilities and needs
Progress Report #2 - Evaluate possibilities; make recommendations based on parking space
numbers with and without the Marsh expansion;receive direction from Council
Final Report-Final Council consideration for adopting a Parking Plan
Steering Committee Membership
As part of the overall process,a Steering Committee comprised of business members, alternative
transportation advocates,and staff was created to monitor the process and workscope of the parking
study. The membership was comprised of the following people: BIA (Mike Spangler, Chairman
BIA Parking Committee and Deborah Holley, BIA Administrator), Alternative Transportation
(Tom Fulks, Rideshare Coordinator and Craig Anderson, Siena Club Representative),City Staff
(Al Cablay, Public Works Manager, Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner, Glen
Matteson,Associate Planner,and Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager).
Progress Report#1
Progress Report #1 was completed on February 24 , 1997 and was reviewed by the Steering
Committee and stat. The report provided data for the parking and alternative transportation
inventory and utilization to determine the current supply and demand characteristics, which
included the results of the intercept surveys. The first report also addressed the issue of future
access and narking demand based on"historical indicators"of parking revenues and sales tax. This
methodology was used as the primary basis for forecasting the potential changes in access and
parking demand in downtown areas. The intensity of demand looked at three scenarios for growth
per year over the next 10 to 15 years:
1. No growth
2. Low growth(1%)
3. High growth(51/6)
The initial estimates of meeting access and parking needs until 2010 under scenario 3 project that
an additional 2,646 spaces beyond the "existing" 2,700 parking space demand may be needed
(Table 26 page 47). Furthermore,the type and "mix" of development(e.g., retail vs. office) and
location (which quadrant of downtown) were also identified as key factors that could make a
substantial difference in planning and evaluating the alternatives for increasing downtown access
and parking.
3
/-3
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 4
The 1 st Progress Report findings relative to parking and alternative transportation are summarized
as follows:
Parking
• Weekday parking in the core of the downtown Study Area (Exhibit B ) is heavily
utilized throughout the day. Utilization is 70% overall in study area and over 80% in
the core area surrounding the Downtown Center.
• Employee parking demand predominates in the Palm Street garage. Almost half are
long-term varkers and there is over 80%utilization between 10:00am and 4:OOpm.
• Retail, restaurant and theater parking demand is a significant influence on parking
demand in the Marsh Street garage. Nearly 57% utilization before 10:00am and over
90%at 4:30pm and 60%after 8:00om.
• Long term parkers,predominately downtown employees,are estimated to occupy about
38% of all downtown spaces. Weekdays 3,180 employees occupy 1800 spaces in
study area and account for 500-700 vehicles in surrounding residential areas.
• People want to have convenient parking near their destination and are sensitive to
parking costs. Over 44% of survey respondents indicated they chose their parking
based on vroximity to their destinations and over 70%indicated they would park finther
away if it was less expensive.
• There is a clear perception that insufficient parking is provided in the downtown area
Over 26%had considered not coming to downtown based on parking availability.
• Weekday duration is similar for both public and private parking lots during the
weekdays,but varies longer in the public garages on weekends. Duration is noticeably
longer in the Marsh Street garageg the week and on weekends.
• In general,parking utilization is higher in the public lots than in the private lots in the
study area.
The above findings are supported by Figures B-1 through B-9 Appendix B of the l' Progress
report Note: Footnote, Page 9.indicates 180 metered on-street spaces are located outside of the
study area and were not inventoried. In addition, it should be noted that the parking space
inventories for the garages do not include the expanded Marsh Street garage spaces projected at 300
additional spaces.
Alternative Transportation
• The private automobile is the predominant mode of access into downtown area.
Between 70%and 80%arrived by private auto.
4
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parldng
Page 5
• A wide variety of alterative transportation services and programs are available to the
community.
• Substantial unused capacity potentially exists in all areas of alterative transportation
services which could serve the Study Area. There has been considerable investment in
bicycle storage and bike lane installation and Transportation Management activities
(carpool-vanvool,Ride-On.transit improvements,etc.).
• Bicycle and pedestrian access are important modes of access into the downtown area.
Up to 20%of all employees and visitors use these modes of travel.
• Transit services on a community-wide basis are generally underutilized.Only 3%of all
visitors to downtown travel by bus.
• Financial incentives (e.g., free bus passes) may be effective in shifting the mode of
access to the Study Area. Nearly 11%of survey respondents indicated that some form
of financial incentive would make them consider coming to downtown without their
car.
The above information is found in Appendix C (Intercept Survey Methodology)and Appendix D
(Cordon Count results)of Progress Report#1.
Progress Report#2
Progress Report#2 was completed on June 18', 1997 and was reviewed by the Steering Committee
and staff. The second progress report utilized the data described in the first report along with input
provided by the Steering Committee, who together with staff helped the consultant formulate
strategies for addressing access and parking needs in the downtown.
Because of the above important considerations and the uncertainty in predicting the number of
parking spaces to be needed in the coming years,the report considered a range of potential future
needs:low(1%),moderate(2.5%),and high(5016)growth scenarios.The no growth alterative was
not included because it was considered unrealistic and gave no basis for consideration by the
Council. Based on the three scenarios,the report looked at what would be needed for parking space
inventory and access demand, along with potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures that could help reduce the parking demand.
In order to arrive at a recommended strategy for future implementation,the report first looks at a
series of "key findings". These set the stage for various possible actions for implementation
components of an ultimate plan. The action items are then refined into a series of alternatives for
consideration which in turn leads to a recommended plan of action. The first in this series of steps
are the key findings in the areas of: a) impacts on neighborhoods; b) transportation demand
management mechanisms;and c)land use. they are as follows:
5
/Lr
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parldng
Page 6
KEY FINDINGS
I. Impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods
A. 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 expansions in
available parking.
B. Satisfying future demand and reducing the existing impact to residential
neighborhood through parking expansion alone, will require increasing the size of
identified structures or identification of additional downtown parking sites.
H. Use of Transportation Demand Management mechanisms
A. Use of parking revenues to support TDM activities will directly reduce the number
of spaces that can be created in the downtown with existing finding.
B. If successful, TDM measures will produce more available parking spaces, per
capital dollar spent,than construction of new spaces.
C. Producing downtown spaces through reduction in parking demand (TDM)
introduces uncertainty regarding the long term number of new spaces that should be
constructed
D. The effectiveness of TDM measures must be measured and reevaluated and if TDM
is pursued as part of the plan,its potential impact should be maximized.
E. The creation of both new spaces (garage construction)and spaces made available
through TDM requires considerable lead time and can take years to show the
benefits.
F. Given probable funding constraints,each expenditure on TDM will either delay or
preclude property acquisition or constructionproject.
G. It is estimated that the recommended level of TDM measures 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.
H. Annual operating costs of the recommended 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,once the spaces are created,will be similar if the growth in downtown parking
is high. However, if the growth in downtown parking demand is slow, ongoing
operation of TDM programs may be twice as expensive as operating spaces in new
parking structures.
6
/-6
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 7
M. Land Use
A. If advantage is not taken of opportunities to purchase property for future parking
expansion,the land may not be available in the future. Therefore,it is prudent to
purchase land for future use when available and avoid the potential extra expenses
caused by the use of eminent domain. However such purchases should be
considered very closely,as money spent on land delays the City's ability to either
expand parking supply or fund TDM measures.
The second part of achieving a recommendedprogram looked at potential action items which could
be used in whole or in part or in combination with others. They were developed in three areas: a)
TDM measures;b) parking management measures;and c) parking expansion measures. They are
as follows:
POTENTIAL ACTION MEASURES
I. TDM Measures. TDM measures were found to be a very cost effective approach to
meeting a portion of the future downtown parking demand. The report cautions that these
measures include an element of risk because they rely on changes to travel behavior in order
for them to be completely effective.
A. Traveler Information
1. enhance local"web"pages to allow residents to shop or conduct business
2. communicate via high profile marketing regarding choices of travel mode
B. Facilities/PhysicalImprovements
1. designate passenger pick up/discharge zones throughout downtown
2. install interactive transportation information displays at walk-up locations
3. expand bike lanes
C. Transportation Services
1. enhance existing shuttle services
D. Non-Parking Financial Measure
1. provide downtown employees with annual transportationpasses
2. lower vanpool fares
3. provide employees with f riancial incentives for using alternative
transportation
�• 7
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 8
E. Land Use Policies
1. enhance local.codes to permit working at home
2. adopt TDM facilities requirements for new development
F. Other
1. adopt telecommuting from home and/or at facilities outside downtown
2. adopt compressed work weeks for City and county employees
H. Parking Management Measures. The more desirable parking spaces near the retail core
could be made available for short-term use through parking management strategies that
encourage the use of underutilized spaces. The parking supply can be enhanced through
both parking management and parking expansion (multi-level facilities) options. The
parking management program includes the following six-measures as part of a six-step
action plan:
A. Reduction in the 90 minute free parking
1. Reducing the amount of free time to 60 minutes for short-term parkers and
no free time for long-term parking
B. Elimination of maximum daily charge
1. Under existing rates and no free time for long-term parkers daily parking
would increase from$3.00 to$4.50 for 9 hours of parking
C. Increase the number of 10-hour meters in the periphery of the Study Area
1. Enhance underutilized areas east of Santa Rosa and west of Broad Street by
converting existing 2-hour meters to 10-hour meters
D. Reduce the number of free parking passes issued
1. Reduce free parking in garages by relocating employees from key structures
to induce AVR(Average Vehicle Ridership)goals for City employees
E. Consider a Residential Parking Management Plan in the neighborhood impact
area south of the Study Area
1. A permit district would only be considered in this area if other strategies
created increased parking demand in this area and sufficient parking
expansion was made available either through garage construction and/or
TDM measures. The follow-up to the residential impact areas indicated that
there isnot strong support for this type of program.
8
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 9
F. Provide preferential parking location and pricing for carpools and vanpools
1. Convenient parking spaces should be made available for carpools and
vanpools by designating reserved spaces
III. Parking Expansion Measures. Depending on growth scenarios chosen, the projected
parking demand for new spaces over the next 15 years will be 430 to 2300 additional
spaces, and up to 2980 more spaces if residential permit districts are implemented in the
impact areas. The third measure reviewed the potential to meet a portion of this demand via
the construction of new parking structures. Depending upon which strategy the Council
chooses,this component could provide 300 to 2300 of the projected parking spaces needed
by the year 2010(see Table 9,page 35 of 2nd Progress report).
A. Marsh Street Garage
1. The Marsh Street Garage expansion, as per Council direction, was to be
assumed in the growth scenarios. The consultant did not incorporate the
expanded inventory in the projected number of spaces however and chose to
use the garage expansion as one way meet the projected needs. Thus, the
300 net spaces for the full expansion of the Marsh Street garage should be
decreased from the above projections.
B. Siting of New Garages
1. The report suggests that new parking structures should be located within the
Study Area and within one block of the retail core bounded by Broad,
Pacific,Osos,and Monterey streets(Figures 3 &4,pgs.31 and 32). The
report does not recommend the Wells Fargo lot as an immediate need for a
future parking structure.
C. Other
1. The report suggests that land acquisition policy should consider
public/private development,the sale of existing surface lots within the
retail core for commercial development to help fund new parking garage
construction,and as well as alternative sites that could be purchased
without the use of eminent domain actions.
Alternative Programs
The consultant then reviewed each of the above findings and possible action measures and
formulated the six alternative possible programs listed below. The TDM measures(including the
parking management actions)were grouped by their success quotient which included effectiveness,
risk, and acceptability,along with the number of parking spaces that could be potentially created
9
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 10
through their implementation. Based on these factors, it was estimated that TDM measures could
"create" up to 800 spaces from a fully functional and highly successful program. (Tables 2,3,4,5
progress report 2 and Appendix B—Candidate TDM Measures),Appendix C—TDM Relationships
and Combined Effects). The six possible programs are as follows:
1. Limited Parking Expansion----creates 335 spaces through Marsh Street Structure (MSS)
expansion and Nipomo/Palm lot expansion and no changes to current TDM programs.
2. Limited Parking Expansion and Implement TDM--creates 735 spaces through MSS,
Nipomo/Palm(335)and 400 spaces TDM enhancements.
3. Funding Constrained Parking Expansion--creates 535 spaces through MSS,Nipomo/Palm
and 200 spaces from new structure near Fremont Theater area(County garage)with no TDM
changes.
4. Funding Constrained Parking Expansion with TDM----creates 945 spaces through MSS,
Nipomo/Palm,new garage near Fremont Theater,and 400 spaces from TDM actions.
5. Full Parking Expansion--creates 2300 spaces through MSS (3 10)new garage near Fremont
(200), Palm II (250), garage on lot 2 (Broad/Marsh)or Wells Fargo site (250), structure on
Nipomo/Palm (250) and additional structures on currently unidentified sites meeting siting
criteria(1090)and no TDM actions.
6. Full Parking Expansion with TDM----creates 2300, same as # 5 but reduces number of
spaces, from unidentified garage sites to 290 spaces and creates 800 spaces from maximum
TDM program.
Recommended Parking Plan
Finally the consultant reviewed each of the six possible programs and,using the information from
surveys, feedback from the Steering Committee and knowledge of what has been successful in
other communities,blended parts of the programs about into a recommended program tailored to
meet the conditions of San Luis Obispo.
Progress Report#2 recommends" ...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." The Consultant's recommended alternative
proposes to accomplish this through an approach of parking management (6 steps previously
mentioned), expanded parking and aggressive TDM measures, the consultant finds the City can
meet its long term parking and access needs. The Consultant further recommends a phased
approach which combines Alternative 4(Funding Constrained Parking expansions with TDM)with
Alternative 6 (Full Parking Expansion with TDM). The recommended plan is proposed to be
implemented in three phases as follows:
10
No
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 11
Phase I
SI # .I.� II „ 4v.v 1 ,I, '•i ul
1: Construct Marsh StieetExpansion{300^spaces) r wl,
h 4 ,
2: Improve the existing Nipomo%Palmlot(35 spaces) b
r. m pus.
3: Aggressivelyimplement maximumTDMmeasures
4: -Implement all recommended Parking Management{strategies',` " 1 u ,, rw +i ' " r
S: Initiate,&cussionwith County foi�oint garageVenture sear Fremont Theater and begin design
_.
(Note the report recommends pursuing�Palm II if ant.agreement Iwith' rythe Countyl,cannotwbe
7
-reached
� L^,
Phase.II
lt' Co3LliY Qun�2jev CJLL 4VLLLlC near FrVlllOnt' IVY II'nlf'rlill llhllilll li I!LIJ iIJ!1:111IIlh 11 il' h Il41,
r 1111 Ir I,
I, J� s 0`'_ J�' qr , ,"q-° d T F. Gr� L'il fl'„ I��jj1:. �''l!I lif ,lil� 11 r 7 I .1 0 1' -N.Jll1r1�111°_
2 JBegm'pIIlann�ngand!design.forpPalm�IIgarage(iftlelllCity/,Co,uunt3'=$Igjul1aragleiliisrinotlpossiblelthe
ieportiecommendsproceedmgto'constructii ll onofthePalmII garage);I!:G1lhlhillh L. i4til�l9lllull; L.II '! ill .l�,l!;�II,I 'I'wl :-
Phase Ell _'`
IC
. dristillct Palnl II 3 I ,I tll11 Ill dl k"" 4l i l•'VIII Iw CI�it;`111!
jl'W' Jr �irI IL '�i1m, Iyli4 l �L
I J JIY fi u r P
I I 4 � r;, 1 L r I I �• JI
2: Identify�otheisiteslaad begin"'plamm�g of subsequentp�arkmg structuresjll,u ll til d W;k�t;,r�!ni a pFrN ^
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Implementing any program involves knowing: a) what to do first, second, third, etc.; b)when to
implement the various steps; and c) how to pay for each of the measures in the plan. The various
phases have already been identified above so the next key issue is when to implement phases 2 and
3 assuming that phase 1 is implemented. The report identifies the use of cordon counts,parking
utilization studies and employee surveys as mechanisms which can be used'as "triggers" to
implement the next phase. The report also recognizes that all of the program can be affected by
outside circumstances by using the example that a lack of interest by the County on the Fremont
theater site could delay implementationof Phase 2.
The issue of funding of various aspects of the recommended plan is discussed in the section Fiscal
Impact
11
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parlung
Page 12
Key Concerns
During the preparation of both progress reports there was concern expressed by both advocates
of the BIA and alternative transportation regarding what will happen if a Plan was adopted and
implemented. The following summarizes the concerns and the Consultant's response to the
major issues.
ISSUES RESPONSE
How might the adoption of a Downtown The Consultant recommends that the
Access and Parking Plan effect City efforts to purchase of the Wells Fargo site be
buy the Wells Fargo site and build a third deferred and that higher-priority parking
garage? projects be pursued.
How might the Plan affect the timing of the The Consultant recommends that expansion
Marsh Street garage expansion? Will of the Marsh Street garage proceed and that
spending money on TDM measures delay existing Parking Fund revenues NOT be
this project's construction? used for TDM measures.
Will funding of TDM measures use Parking The Consultant identifies this concern and
Fund revenues and will this limit the recommends against using existing Parking
construction of new parking spaces? Fund revenues for TDM measures.
How will the Plan's implementation schedule The Consultant presents a three-phase
sort out the timing and funding of a mixture program on pages 41 and 42 of Progress
of parking and TDM activities? Report#2. Additional details are to be
provided within the Downtown Access and
Parking Plan.
How are we going to pay for any of this and The Consultant discusses financing options
what might be the fiscal impacts on the in various parts of Progress Report #2.
general citizenry, BIA members, or Additional details will be provided in the
downtown patrons? Downtown Access and Parking Plan itself.
Building parking structures involve large up- The estimated costs for parking and TDM
front capital costs but modest operating costs. components are compared on Table 10,
In comparison, TDM programs have lower page 40 in Progress Report #2. Average
up-front capital costs but significant on-going capital and operating costs for TDM
costs. measures are shown in Table 6, page 20.
Costs of constructed parking spaces is
discussed on pages 33 and 34 of the 2"
report.
12
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 13
CONCURRENCES
Through the collective process of meeting and discussing the issues (i.e., expanded parking and
enhanced alternative transportation), there has been little agreement or consensus of
recommendations,conclusions,or findings. From the original ad hoc committee to the steering
committee two philosophies have been put forth and little common ground reached. The differing
viewpoints can be described as follows:
BIA
• A parking shortage exists with a high demand in the downtown core
• Expand parking inventory as quickly as possible including the Marsh
garage expansion and the siting of a third structure
• Use parking fund exclusively for parking projects and maintenance
• TDM measures are worthwhile,but DO NOT use parking monies to fund
them
Alternative Transportation
• There is no parking shortage,but rather a surplus of underutilized spaces
• No new garages are needed and the Marsh expansion may not be necessary
• TDM should be partially funded through the use of parking monies
• Unless financially supported,TDM measures will be unsuccessful
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated costs for parking and TDM components are compared on Table 10, page 40 of the
2od progress report The average capital and operating costs for TDM measures are shown in Table
6,page 20,and costs of constructing parking is discussed in more detail on pages 33 and 34 of the
report. As shown on Table 10, the six alternatives have increasingly higher capital and operating
costs as you expand the "inventory " of spaces. The "Recommended Plan" would require $8.8
million to implement. Meeting long-term parking needs in the downtown would require an
investment of over$24 million(in 1997 dollars)if high growth in parking demand is experienced
in the downtown area.
The key to how much funding is needed to implement a long-term program (both parking
expansion and TDM measures)will clearly depend upon what action plan the Council decides the
City should embark upon. This action will be the driving force for future finance planning to meet
anticipated parking and access needs. This could be accomplished through higher rates, fees, and
fines for garages, meters and citations, along with assessment districts. The Consultant
recommends using current and planned increases in parking revenues exclusively for parking
expansion. The consultant recommends that TDM measures be funded through some portion of
new revenues generated as a result of enactment of recommended parking management strategies.
13
!-!3
Council Agenda Report-Downtown Access and Parking
Page 14
The primary source for creating"new' money would be through the reduction of free time in the
garages. A 30-minute reduction in the amount of free time could produce between$150,000 and
$170,000 annually based on current levels of use in the garages.
In any fimding scenario discussed, the difference between one-time capital expenditures and
ongoing annual costs should be kept in mind. The purchase price of property,or a parking structure
is a one-time cost that is eventually completely paid off. However, the cost of operating the
structure and maintaining a successful TDM program are ongoing.
As noted in most of the areas described in the section"Key Concerns' the issue of how to finance
Transportation Demand Management actions has become the heart of the entire progress report#2.
It is anticipated that a great deal of the public testimony will deal with this issue and the consultant
will be available to provide information on this issue from"what other communities are doing"to
new ideas or other ways of providing funding. Likewise, from this testimony and subsequent
council direction it is anticipated that the final report will have an expanded and specific financing
program for TDM measures for final council review.
ALTERNATIVES
The goal of tonight's meeting,after hearing public testimony,is for the City Council to determine
which strategy(or set of strategies)is the best course of action for the Consultant to pursue. With
this decided, a final Plan will be prepared for subsequent consideration by the City Council,
probably in September. The choices before the City Council are:
1. Accept consultant'sthree-phaserecommendationas proposed and develop a plan
2. Accept a portion of the consultant's recommendation with modifications and develop a plan
3. Propose anew recommendationfor final considerationand develop a plan
4. Reject all recommendations and take no fiather action
The Council will receive the final document,probably in September,where a number of the same
issues will most likely be discussed again. At that time, the Council will consider the study, in
accordance with the requirements of the Circulation Element Program 12.9. At that time the
options to the Council will be:
1. Adopt study and schedule implementation
2. Adopt study in concept
3. Accept the study
Each of these actions will also be in compliance with CirculationElement Program 12.9.
Attachments ExhibitA—EzecutiveSmnmary
Exhibit B—Ad Hoc committee membership
Exhibit C—Study Area Map
Council Reading File—ProgressReports#1 and#2
Taylor Telephone Survey Results I council agenda reporWalt arms bia study
14
' KBIT A
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 tens)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
WV9&064VrZAo Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc.
June 20,1997 1
IDowntown Access&Parking Study Progress Report#2
I 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
fThe 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
t changes in personal travel behavior to reduce the demand for parking. The recommended package of
TDM measures are:
► 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
► Designate passenger pick-up/discharge areas
• Expand bike lanes
► 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
► 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.
' Also a recommended parking management action
Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc.
June 20, 1997 Il
Downtown Access&Parking Study Progress Report 92
' 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 I: Reduce free parking from 90 minutes to 60 minutes=
IPMAction 2: Eliminate the maximum daily charge'
PMAction 3: Increase the number of 10 hour meters in the periphery of the Study Areal
PMAction 4: Reduce the number of free parking passes issued'
' PMAction S: 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 vanpoobs'
IParking 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
Ielements:
P. Construct the Alarsh Street Expansion
' ► Construct a new parking structure that will serve the northeast 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 H
► 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.
IIdentify 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
IArea between Marsh and Higuera Streets are not feasible.
The recommended Plan will require an initial investment of approximately$8.8 milli;.::'. Meeting long
I term parking needs in the downtown will require an investment of over$24 million' if high growth in
parking demand it experienced in downtown San Luis Obispo.
I2 Consistent with n:commended TDM measures
3 In 1997 dollars
lap�96.464ean, Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc.
' June 20,1997 111
i
IDowntown Access&Parking Study Progress Report#1
IFinancing 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
I new spaces by 2010. Joint City/County and public/private funding of new parking structures is essential
to expand parking beyond this level.
I 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
I 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.
ILimit 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);
I 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
I 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
ITo 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
�ynae.�a.e Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc.
June 20,1997 IV
EM IT B
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
(Parking Study Work Scope)
Don Maruska, Facilitator Novaquest
Mike McCluskey SLO Staff
Keith Opalewsld SLO Staff
Terry Sanville SLO Staff
Craig Anderson Sierra Club
Eugene Jud Sierra Club
Geof Land ECOSLO
John Ewan Transportation Management Authority
Larry Allen Air Pollution Control Board
Mark Shaffer Ride-on Transportation
Pat Veesart Sierra Club
Pete Rogers SLOCOG
Randy LaVack Air Pollution Control Board
Tom Fulks SLO Regional Rideshare
Ray Nordquist Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
Tom Copeland BIA
Deborah Holley BIA
Mike Spangler BIA
Rick Porter BIA
Pierre Rademaker BIA
KBIT C
fV H
N L
a
V u
!' LLI
PEPPER sT. H C.
4
g
N sox 0 AvE. :.:.
JOHNSON LVE
a'tow loo,
• �. CC W V
= �xOEI
iP�O 0 ..
•::
CST
Q
6 •' 0 w
TORO SL S . ` •�� Z�
>R••aLu�' 7
Y(L
N as
t " � � �w
z W v
YHT. ROSE N W
%bVRAROSAST Z 7
Ow
2
¢ 0 0
a
Z € asos sT.
0:5 CD
Z O ,''•. ' •�,. Luwy
2 YOR0.0 ST. :2 H El + +� Ix
MOR0.0 ST. 7 W F
C 0
��
Q ::s i:; Z
'i Qs .- I
0 •^ '
V, 'P •
2I Ll 0 0
::• L,>CHORRO Si
El
4ibSimbev.Woir4{
" :} •j
y � 'a •r 6M08N ST
.wwn 'zeSltc
KnwROae&eB
o sL
e•ao ST. eRo.o ST.
"
s W
6 a
RWOYO ST. .Powo sL \ m �
�a Za ` Er
h v cn
Z
C
P.
a ^ C.�
ZRYEL fT " C O
2 c V
ClCQ
Z Z
® Q ARCJ�ER SL F cn O
0
l��
MEETING AGENDA
DATE-Z ITEM
council memoizanbum
July 8, 1997
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY
In response to a request from Council Member Williams, attached are the following supporting
documents regarding the funding of the downtown study:
■ Excerpt from April 2, 1996 Council minutes appropriating $48,000 from the Parking
Fund and$48,000 from the General Fund for this study.
■ Excerpt from the Preliminary 1997-99 Financial Plan showing the transfer of $48,000
from the General Fund to the Parking Fund in 1995-96.
■ Copies of internal documents (budget amendment request and journal entries)
establishing the $96,000 budget for this study and transferring $48,000 into the Parking
Fund for the General Fund's share of costs.
In short, the Council authorized $96,000 for this study, with the costs to be shared equally
between the General Fund and the Parking Fund($48,000 each). This is what has occurred.
If you have any questions concerning the attached information,please feel free to contact us.
cc Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
H:ParldngStudyFund ng
16 FCAO
❑ CDD DIR .
O FIN DIR
CI FIRE CHIEF
�W DIR
❑ POLICE CHF
❑ REC DIR❑ UTIL DIR❑ PERS DIR
A
T_
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday,April 2, 1996 -7:00 p.m.
property located at 860 Pismo, the current Parks and Recreation Department, due to its unique
architecture, and also emphasized the need for more on-street parking spaces for the
handicapped.
Mary Mitchell-Leitcher. San Luis Obispo, supported the expansion of the Marsh Street parking
structure.
Deborah Holley, BIA Administrator, said a large constituency was counting on Council's support
of the Marsh Street expansion to keep the downtown viable and healthy, and recommended that
monies from the Parking Fund be allocated to parking, not alternative transportation.
Mike Spangler said the parking committee supports all kinds of access to the downtown, but the
parking crisis is a priority, especially due to a decline in retail sales figures.
Craig Anderson, San Luis Obispo, felt that before any additional resources are committed to a
greater supply of parking, the impact of providing free or very cheap parking to people working
in the downtown must be addressed.
Pat Veesart, City resident, favored more parking in the downtown, but not through building more
parking structures and, as Chair of the Sierra Club, urged Council to complete a parking study
before building any more parking structures.
John Ewan, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the Council to implement other way of getting people
downtown.
Mike Colety, a student in Transportation Engineering at Cal Poly, said he had conducted a survey
of 365 people in the downtown that revealed a majority of those had no difficulty parking.
David Braun, San Luis Obispo, thought the lack of parking might in fact cause people to stay
downtown longer and walk by more shops.
John Linn, business owner, supported the Marsh Street garage expansion.
Geoff Land, City resident, urged Council to incorporate the Marsh Street structure in the
downtown parking and access study, and to protect, and not amend,the Circulation Element.
Amy Shore, San Luis Obispo, asked that staff be directed to do the study, follow the adopted
Circulation Element, and said alternative transportation methods should be implemented so
parking garages can be put on the back burner.
Ken Schwartz, former Mayor of San Luis Obispo, said that too much downtown surface land was
devoted to small, inefficient parking lots and spaces which could be eliminated by parking
structures, and encouraged proceeding with the Marsh Street facility expansion.
Mayor Settle closed the public hearing.
After discussion, moved by Settle/Romero to: 1) General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7
retained, and determination made that the processing of the phase two expansion of the Marsh
Street Facility, and the Wells Fargo surface lot acquisition are consistent with Program 12.7
because Program 12.7 is permissive and is intended to apply to new, free-standing parking
structures; 2) staff directed to proceed on phase two of the Marsh Street Parking Facility and
acquisition of the Wells Fargo lot, with property negotiations, remaining design work, EIR
update, and a project manager. Authorized appropriation of $720,000 from the Parking Fund to
purchase San Luis Medical Clinic parking lot and the rear portion of the Post Office property or'
acquire air rights ($450,000); Final Architectural designs ($40,000); and ($225,000) for plans and
specifications, and Project Manager($5,000); and, 3) Scope of Work approved and authorized the
distribution of Request for Proposals for a Downtown Parking and Access Study,which includes .
�Ianalysis of utilization of existing parking, alternative transportation options, and downtown
access. Authorized appropriation of$48,000 from the Parking Fund and$48,000 from the General
Fund to pay for study, and CAO authorized to award a contract to the most responsible proposer
within the estimate; motion carried (3-1-1, Council Member Roalman voting no, Council Member
Smith not participating).
9:30 p.m. Mayor Settle declared a recess.
'CHANGES IN FINANf L POSITION
PARKING FUNDS
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 350,800 364,800 382,500 414,400
Streets 605,000 640,200 651,000 709,000.:'
Parking Structure Collections 331,600 272,500 275,000 275,000 ti
Long-Term Parking Revenues 56,700 135,900 135,900 135,900
Lease Revenues 123,100 111,900 111,900 111,900
Parking In-Lieu Fees 90,000 107,900 107,900 107,900
Other Service Charges 20,200 29,900 29,900 29,900
Total Service Charges 1,577,400 1,663,100 1,694,100 1,784,000
Other Revenue-PERS Refund 8,600 15,900
Investment and Property Revenues 218,800 167,000 167,600 167,600
Fines and Forfeitures 480,500 460,000 506,000 506,000
Total Revenues 2,285,300 2,306,000 2,367,700 2,457,600
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 653,700 691,300 727,900 719,800
General Government 210,300 216,600 223,100 229,800
Total Operating Programs 864,000 907,900 951,000 949,600
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 1,057,100 1,148,700 5,923,100 83,000
Debt Service 665,700 651,000 649,500 1,118,800
Total Expenditures 2,586,800 2,707,600 7,523,600 2,151,400
Other Sources(Uses)
Proceeds om Debt Financing 5,400,000
E ui Transfer
Potential MOA Adjustments (6.600)
Total Other Sources(Uses) 48,000 5,400,000 (6,600)
Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (253,500) (401,600) 244,100 299,600
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 3,316,600 3,063,100 2,661,500 2,905,600
Working Capital,End of Year
Reserved for Debt Service 651,900 651,900 651,900 1,114,800
Unreserved 2,411,200 2,009,600 2.253,700 2,090,400
Total Working Capital $3,063,100 $2,661,500 $2,905,600 $3,205,200
G-20 �J
d1iilil::jl� ,iVljl�l�l Clty Of SATI LUIS OBISpO NUMBER
Ui���II:��IIII
BuacCt amenoment QEquest
REGUESTING DEPARTMENT T FUND AMENDED FUNO NO.
PA 12424 N rte, J d
REVENUES
NTD RIPTION DEPT. OBJ. SUB—OBJ. CURBl GET PROPOSED AMENBUDDED
l
1.4 Ill
/ _2 t42V C/
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
ACCOUNT OESCRIPTION DEPT. OBJ. SUB—OBJ. CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDED
BUDGET ENOMENTS_ BUDGET
IANAPPap rr-9 8
E- IIJ N aft rr
MA rL n r 2 & All sai 5s a -7o ,
J J
0 F 1
M n Y2 — E 7 5AB4. z SS 6 3 50 pZti Z�
J J
PC4 52. 1 s -
---------------------
TOTAL
PURPOSE
i D `r
OEPAR M NT HEAD OTE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE
4/N-f-� ;
dt
C ADMI ST TEE OFFICER O ENTERED BY DATE
w�w�w�w• •��w��_ uti�_. r_____
------ ------C....--- 0;-L-- M--- rnlrlCnmrl• nCnCrtmCni.FIC r,,, Sfl-.RR
$ .
o
D
c 2
.I O
0
E 2 \
\ % -0 / / 3
; � 2 2 2 G
w 0 0 0 0 \ -
,
2
kƒ \ \ \ \ \
ƒ / [
2 \ i 7 m mCCT
/ / \
LLJp t
I m n r ƒ f
w
ƒ o ƒ $ �
/ 0 0
0 § 0 0
X 0 0 0 0
§ / /
CL w
CL _
$ 0
Mn
O \ s
G
\ 0 0
J w _/ _/
L cn k w
O R c I
/
U �
�
�
§
Cl)
/ § \ S
. / / / 0 j ' 2
c o o �! -
\
z d d d a !
o u 2
e 31 � ± G G G G ,
!
�3
Z
O CD 00
U) (L (Y) 0)
Q ZEO O O O
U T T O O
VJ O O w
W W
LL
Z
OOto U) O
U W W W W
Z w
co
Q (O (O (D �
;'>°: 0
T T T T ^ii:Ni).
w cr
W N N N N "''�. CL
CL cc O O On 0) ; a.
Z 0
W O O p
O O
J O OO O
O
Q II O O O
Z F OD OD
�t
D w
O U
Iii
� J
H
O
OO
O
_ O O O
zII o O O
co WOD
co \
O J
Q CD
C/) i W
J 0 }
Z `0
0
fA —�
u <<n>Y
CO ^ o
LLo W
O
co
U
J
<3 '<II O O O O !„:� cc
m 0 0 0 0 '2iyui: OTC]
0
co ¢s>
0) J
I w
V, rryJn
w o 0 W
Of:
w LLI J ?>
F II
0 0 0 :: Z
0
� 0LLI n>:.
V/ I LL M1:vp'S� LL
6 sFf;::;x::
Ccc) co
D
O (D to +' L
� r
m U LO U) O O
CO T T
Q w O O O
's::2::z;>
w ALw ❑ O O O O u
z r-
<
Z
cry
Ln Ln Ln Ln
m m m mk: Q ¢
W`
y:y /
LL
LLJ W N N N N "}'' CL
CL Ir O O O O 'v`; CL
:E
W 00 00 ».o:
J O O O O
Q II O O O
Z ~ N (Y)
❑
D W
cr
O U
I w
J
H
N
a
O O O
Z CC
CO F- T O O 0
O O O
m w II ao co
O J H c! O
�
W
D
J r
Z c°
<:: v: W
Ir
II N 00 O n v Q
LL M Ln N Ln CO #iv'�:; CL
O O n a) n 0) :z^v: w
<:; ir
0 0 0
N
II
O O O O
LLIWiz:<<:>
❑ O ❑
W w NINE.J
U
U Q o 0 0 0 0 Z
0 I I £'
LL
y.
•EETING AGENDA
DATE�_ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 8, 1997
To: City Council
From: John Dunn, City Administrative cer
Subject: Suggested City Council Acti o Consultant's Report on Downtown
Parking Demand/Altemate Transportation
The question has been posed, after all the dust settles, what might be an appropriate course of action
for the Council on this action.
A suggested approach would be in the following three actions:
1. Based on the consultant's analysis and recommendations, reinforce previous Council action
to proceed expeditiously on the necessary steps leading towards the Marsh/Chorro structure
expansion.
2. Give conceptual endorsement to the consultant's Phase I, II, and III recommendations as
shown on page 1-11 of the staff report.
3. Instruct the consultant to complete the report for subsequent City Council consideration in
October in a form for Council adoption and staff implementation, showing specific action
steps regarding parking supply, management and transportation demand management,
including measurements, timing, funding options and other relevant information (see
suggested matrix format).
OUNCIL 13-COD DIR
®';CAO O FIN DIR
Iff� CAO O SIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
LolCLERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF
O�IGMT.TEAII G RED DIR
Iff O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR
MEETING 97 AGENDA /
DATE ITEM #
Count of San Luis Obispo
County P
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011
July 8, 1997 , ?G
i
"EOUN ❑ CDD DIP
The Honorable Allen Settle �0 ❑ FIN DIPMayor of the City of San Luis Obis o ACAO_ 13 OFFICE OF THE
p RNEY FIRE CHIEF p ADMINISTRATOR
City Hall ❑ CEr�K/ORIG 0 POLDIR
El MGMT E M 11 POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 t7 ❑ REC DIP
_ ❑ UTIL DIP
DOWNTOWN PARKING ACCESS PLA ❑ PERS DIP
Dear Mayor Settle:
I recently became aware of recommendations in the draft Downtown Parking Access Plan your
Council will consider at a public meeting this evening,July 8, 1997. The plan recommends that a 200
space parking garage be jointly developed on County land adjacent to the Fremont Theater. This is
property commonly referred to as the former Datsun dealership, but also contains other parcels
known as Sunshine Donuts and the former County Bank Building.
While the County can appreciate the continuing demand for parking in the City of San Luis Obispo,
your Council may not be aware of the potential long range plans the County has to expand the
Government Center in San Luis Obispo. Such expansion could take place on the subject property
which would provide a natural connection with the existing Government Center. It was the intent of
the County Board of Supervisors to reserve their long term expansion opportunities when they made
the purchase of these properties.
These properties along with the former Kimball dealership the County owns on Monterey Street,
afford the opportunity for long term Government Center expansion in San Luis Obispo. Without
them, the County would be forced to look at other alternatives outside the downtown San Luis
Obispo area.
On behalf of the County of San Luis Obispo, I respectfully request that you not consider this site for
a joint venture parking garage.
Sincerely,
�R
ROBERT E. HENDRIX
County Administrator
RECEIVED
c - City Council Members ,I I;L 0 R 1997
John Dunn, City Administrator
Board of Supervisors SLO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
CAL PHOTO DATET ITEM #�.
958 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 541-0772
July 7, 1997
Dear Allen Settle:
As a retailer on Higuera Street, I feel strongly that the the number of parking spaces in
the downtown area must be increased. If it is not, the inevitable result will be to drive
even more people into shopping at more convenient locations. Consider:
• Several large outlying retail areas already exist, with several more being developed
within easy driving distance. Wal-Mart is only the most noticeable of these.
• The SLO City population is expanding . Since the average adult in California owns a
car, this already means that the downtown parking situation is worsening.
• The upcoming Higuera Bridge renovation project will result in further loss of parking
places for a extended period of time.
• Two of the core weekday customer groups are women with small children and
retirees. Existing parking hassles are already driving away this business.
• Carpooling is NOT a cheap or easy remedy. LA area companies have elaborate (i.e.
expensive) programs to encourage ridesharing, backed up by a countywide (i.e.
expensive) computer system to match ride sharing partners. For an employee to even
consider ridesharing requires:
* a co-worker living nearby working the same hours,
* no issue of dropping off children at school or daycare,
* little chance of unexpected overtime,
* no worries about calls from school or family members being sick,
* no during or after work commitments for appointments, classes etc.
The city and the county, as the only large downtown employers, would have to bear
significant on-going expenses to run such programs.
To repeat: downtown businesses are already losing customers due to parking hassles,
and this problem will only get worse unless there is a significant increase in spaces.
Sincerely, COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
ICAO ❑-O E3 FIN DIR
RECEI �ATAORNEYw D RFIRE HIEF
PdCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
David K. Kastner •� L R 1ggR ❑ G T-TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Owner, CAL PHOTO SLO CITY COUNCIL ❑ PERS DIR
ME?, IG AGENDA
DATL 21ellal ITEM #
OUNCIL n,01�DIR
MEEMORANDUM M<AO ❑ FIN DIR
To: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works D-k9AO ❑ FIR CHIEF
❑C--ORNEY CDIR
MLEURKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
From: Al Cablay, Public Works Manager ❑ Mri!��M ❑ REC DIR
❑ LITIL DIR
❑ ❑ PIERS DIR
CC. City Administrative Officer I ae ikEr
SUBJECT: Suggested implementation Strategies for the Downtown Parking and Access Study
In order to achieve a document which can be adopted and successfully implemented Progress Report#2
will need additional information included and recommended:
• An implementation plan
• A financing plan
The implementation plan would be of sufficient detail to allow staff to implement in an orderly way
each of the three action areas identified: a) Transportation Demand Management; b) Parking
Management; and c) Parking Supply Expansion. Each of the three areas would be summarized in a
matrix similar to the one attached as a proposed example of TDM issues. Timing issues would be
spelled out such that a schedule for implementation would be known. Impacts on staff resources and
ways to measure success would also be key issues. Because the most successful program possible
would be the goal, the implementation plan must provide guidelines for declaring various measures
failures and success and thus allow the transfer of funds from unsuccessful measures to the successful
ones.
The financing plan should be coordinated with the implementation plan. Recommendations should be
included on strategies such as "pay as you go" (i.e. wait until funding for programs has accumulated)
to simultaneously implementing financing and TDM measures (i.e. assume the new revenue will
accumulate fast enough to pay for the new measures). It should also reflect the options to financing the
implementation plan such as: a) use the parking fund; b) use the parking fund for everything except
TDM and fund TDM with alternate sources (which would be identified with their own implementation
plan); or c) a combination of the first two.
With a good implementation plan and options for successfully funding that plan, the City Council will
have in October the ability to choose which financing option to pursue and then adopt a program which
can be successfully implemented.
Attachment/ everyone:ParldngMemo 3 study RECEIVED
J U L 0 8 1449
SLO 01711 COUNCIL
@ 9 0 o p o N<
n ry .�N TSn O O ie ip m
wppN
3 c w^
2 a
N N N N
�m �m �3 �3 �9 �'_• u � �� �E 'gym '°. 0q
O'
e� O
� S F
m� d
p� O1
' e q
� n
e G
.m.
� na
1 p'
6 �F
a °
Z cn
d
a a
vi d G °3
do
a
m C
mi Y e c
° ° o
m
d.
- 1
,[I-COUNCIL Emuo Din
EKAO 0 FIN DIR
CWkCAO 0 FIRE CHIEF 9EETING AGENDA
a*ffORNEY 0 PW DIR
a-eMK ORIG 0 POLICE CHF GATE ITEM #�.
0 I�Q�IT 0 REC DIR
. CIP
o urn DM
O
o
Of
/t amino jo e�•���e-�J �-v •b�B�e�v bio
Z2
O .
. &2, ' AAG fl
MELI ING AGENDA
ALZ EIMER'S' UTE1I6�17' ITEM #
ASSOCIATION
Someone to Stand by You
June 27, 1997
Liz Radvansky ouNCIL DD DIR
The Village at San Luis Obispo AD O FIN DIR
CAO O FIRE CHIEF
55 Broad Street �iIORNEY C3 PW DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93105 131
GET TEAM O RECD CHF
Dear Liz:
C3 O IR
PERSIL
DD R
Please forward this letter of support regarding the proposed assisted living
facility to be built as part of the independent apartment community - The Village at San
Luis Obispo.
For the last twelve years I have been a senior specialist and advocate. My
vocational and volunteer experience in the senior field has made me well aware that
there is a continual need for residential housing choices for seniors in San Luis
Obispo County.
Seniors In our country are living longer and healthier than ever before. But as
we age, some do become frail and some will be unable to carry out activities of daily
living such as dressing bathing, personal care, cleaning, cooking and housekeeping
without assistance. While it would be preferred for all to remain in their own homes to
receive this assistance, it is not always possible.
Communities must provide many types of housing choices for seniors including
assisted residential care living facilities which are specifically licensed to provide a
safe, nurturing and vital environment for frail seniors. The need for such facilities will
only increase into the next century. The Village is doing the community a favor by
acting now to develop an assisted living facility. It is a natural extension of The
Village's support for its own senior residents to offer a higher level of care on the same
grounds so that no Village residents who may find that at some point they need
ongoing assistance do not have to move away.
I hope that the surrounding neighborhood will realize that a residential assisted
living facility will be great addition and will also lend its support to your efforts.
Sincerely,
Dianne Timmerman RECEIVED
Special Projects Coordinator
Work/Home Phone (805) 237-8298 J U I.. U 7 iggF
SLO CITY COUNCIL
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION OF SANTA BARBARA. INC.
2024 De La VVina Samr,Sana Barbara,CA 93105-3814 (805) 563-0020/FAX(805)682-1811
Serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties
MEETING AGENDAOUNCIL O CDD DIR
ITE # / !` AO p❑ R DIR
ul� pa� C�n Un V
facts
OC
T OR
0"PW DIRHIEF
PALERKIORIG O POLICE CHF
GMT TEAM O REC DIR
7777M7"7Z
Er 0 PERS DIR
Why do we have a parking fund? r. uv1�
&//(.40VAX4�/
The purpose of the City's parking fund is to account for the resources allocated to implementing the Parking
Management Plan. The Plan establishes a wide range of vehicle parking policies and programs that apply
throughout the City; however, its primary focus is on creating and managing parking spaces in the commercial
core.
What activities are paid for through the parking fund?
For over 40 years,the parking fund has financed a broad range of operating,maintenance, improvement and debt
service costs related to the management of parking in the City, including: 13 parking lots in the downtown and at
Railroad Square, two parking garages, four residential parking permit districts (Alta Vista,Monterey Heights, Park
View, and Tassajara) and about 1,600 parking meters in parking lots,on streets in the downtown retail core, and on
streets in neighborhoods at the periphery of downtown. Day-to-day operations include:
■ Enforcement Patrolling streets,parking lots,parking garages and permit districts; issuing citations;towing
the vehicles of habitual parking offenders; installing regulatory signs and curb markings.
■ Revenue management. Collecting fines, parking meter revenue, and parking fees and leases; selling
parking permits;recommending parking fee and fine adjustments;modifying meters for rate adjustments.
■ Maintenance Maintaining and repairing parking meters and meter posts; performing janitorial
maintenance in the parking facilities;maintaining parking lots and garages.
■ Garage operations. Collecting parking garage fees and providing security.
What policies govern the use of parking fund revenues?
There are two major policy documents governing the use of parking revenues: the Parking Management Plan and
Financial Plan Budget & Fiscal Policies. In essence, both of these documents say that parking funds should be
used solely for parking purposes.
E Parking Management Plan (Policy 6.1). The City's parking program will be self-supporting. Parking
program income will be used to maintain and expand parking operations and repay bonds that financed
the construction of the parking structures.
■ 1997-99 Financial Plan (Section B,page B-9). The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully
cover the total direct and indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the
following enterprise programs: water, sewer and parking.
In short,the City's general fund does not subsidize the parking fund, and the parking fund does not subsidize the
general fund. (The one notable exception to this has been the acquisition of land; until 1988, all of the City's
parking sites were purchased with General Fund resources.) Within these general policy guidelines, specific
funding decisions regarding the use of parking fund revenues are made by the Council as part of the budget
process.
Where do parking fund resources come from and where do they go?
On the reverse side is a brief overview of parking fund finances based on the 1997-99 Financial Plan.
pAizkinc, funb finances
Where Parking Fund Resources Come From
1997-98 1998-99 �Aflnl m rim
Parking Meters(on streets and in lots) $1,033,500 $1,123,400 46%
Fines 506,000 506,000 20%
Parking Garages&Long Term Parking 410,900 410,900 17%
Interest Earnings 167,600 167,600 7%
Leases 111,900 111,900 5%
Parking In-Lieu Fees 107,900 107,900 4%
Other 29,900 29,900 1%
Total Revenues 7 $2,367,700 $2 457 600 100%
■ Revenues from the meters are the most important source of parking fund resources, accounting for about half of
total revenues.
■ The top 3 revenues—parking meters,fines and garage collections—account for over 80%of total revenues.
Where Parking Revenues Go
Operations and Maintenance $951,000 1 $956,200 44%
Debt Service 649,500 1,118,800 52%
Capital Imrovements 5,923,100 83,000 4%
Total Revenues $7 523 600 $291589000 100%
Ca ital Im rovement Plan Pro'ects for 1997-99
1997-98 1998-99
Marsh Street Garage Expansion $3,937,000
Wells Fargo Lot Acquisition 1,500,000
Garage Renovations&Repairs 75,800 65,700
Parking Meter Replacements 370,000
Vehicle Replacements and Technology Impry 40 300 17,300
Total Revenues $5 92391 00 $83000
How the Financial Position of the Parking Fund Will Change Over the Next Two Years
Changes in Parking Fund Working Capital: 1997-
Revenues $2,367,700 $2,457,600
Expenditures 7,523,600 2,158,000
Proceeds from Bonds 5,400,000
Sources Over(Under) Uses 244,100 299,600
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 2,009,600 2,253,700
Working Capital,End of Year $2 2539700 $2 553 00
C9-MNCIL p r .
MEE,...N AGENDA 0-00 D : ...
DATE 97 ITEM # / 13 AAO ❑ FI
O ATTORNEY 9>4v D;i
Duly 5, 1997 O-etERK/ORIG ❑ PGLI E CHF
O MG T�FAM ❑ HEC L:rl
O--� ❑ UTIL DIR
To: San Luis Obispo Mayor and City Council O ❑ PERS DIR
From: Diane Hull, San Luis Obispo Resident ( ( tiC
`�"' /
I am writing this letter to express my thoughts and concern and the
parking situation in San Luis Obispo. From a financial management perspective,
the parking structures should be bringing in more revenue.
..................................:.::.:.:.,::..:::::.:,................................ :..:::.:.........................................................>.
Marh_Sree �' lm Street Tata[.
.<
Spaces Z52 X17 669
...
Less average dail
V
fre'e.3uror space ( 80}
.'
Less average daily free
ate emplpyee space ( 24} N�O .) . <"<:
..
.. _.
.. .
Adjusted ava�lalle
spaces 252: 317 < 569
19:97 projected:
revenue ;. $2?5DOQ
:.:
......... ...... .... ..
...:
:,:
keen ue GaUeced. ..:....
per space $!+ 3q » >;
..:
> , , ..:
:,::>.:
<}
Revenue. per sprats
pear day '(using 355 days) . $Y 32/day ,
.::..:.
...... ...
.. ....:.
*estimate
FACT: The parking structures provide the only free parking in the downtown
core (first 90 minutes). The installation of parking meters has not deterred
shoppers, in fact, on-street parking spaces are filled before the garages.
FACT: Parking structures are a more efficient use of land.
RECEIVED
J U L 0 7 V99
SLO CITY COUNCIL
.Diane Hull
July 5, 1997
Comparison of<Im�ned[ate l?ark�ngAft ernattves [n QowntotWn Gyre
Parking Meter Parking Structure;
.
t:
Time Parked 90 er[[n.. ., ` 2;hours'. 90 rrri;ri. .2 hours
Cost t 20 $2;,40Free $ SO
:. ;: ...
(assumes hopper has
exact change[)
Noes ' ' Tlrrte llm�ted to.Z hours For $3,OO, n.o t[m[t
RECOMMENDATION: The parking fees in the structures could be
increased without reducing the number of shoppers in the
downtown, and may likely increase the number of shoppers.
The daily revenue collected per space suggests a high number of shoppers are in
the structures for less than 90 minutes. Therefore, I'd recommend charging for
the first 90 minutes, then a higher rate per-hour which reaches the maximum
faster than 7 112 hours under the current pricing system.
I've heard concerns that downtown employees are utilizing the parking structures
and not leaving enough spaces for the shoppers. If you want to discourage
employee parking and encourage shoppers we could learn from the Stockton-
Sutter Parking Garage in San Francisco. Based upon my experience in the 1980's,
the garage charged a minimal amount per hour up to 3 hours (or something) and
after that initial period, the rate per half hour was $ .75 up to a daily maximum
of $10 (I think), which would be reached within 5 hours. The idea is to charge
the commuter more than the average shopper, under the theory that a
financial disincentive exists for the commuter and an incentive exists for the
shopper. One parking space would be utilized by more than one shopper
during the day and the commuter would pay a premium for monopolizing
the space.
If the parking structures charged the first 90 minutes the equivalent to the
parking meters (which also carry enforcement costs), each space could
theoretically bring in $ .88 more per day ($2.40 - 1.32 average collected now) for
a maximum additional of $500 per day (569 available spaces X $ .88). You could
increase the revenue in the structures by $177,500 per year by making this one
simple change.
Diane Hull
July 5, 1997
Finally, I'd like to point out errors in the Progress Report #2 by Meyer, Mohaddes
Associates.Inc. The following schedule illustrates the problems.
....vl...... ......... I `
.......... ....................... ..........
...........
................. V
P 0 SUN nV: ,:M---g::N-�U Revised.............
... F.er::, P.4
P
... .........
..............
............ .. .....
..........
........................ ................
................
Number of U
. ......... ............ ... .......
.. ..... .....
. ...........
...................
..........
....................................
............... ........
..........
.................
les .......
.................. . ............ .
. .......................
...........
........... ... .......
.......... ..........
..............
....
...........
..........
...................Padan ...... .............
X-1��W ma 11
.. eftWt
..
......................
.................
. ...................... ......
............ ...
............................. ..............
tDebf
................
K 97.2 $9.7-2
ax
................ ..........
............
....................... ............... . ... ....... . ......
........................
$65. kt�6:69)
........... � ..:. I ...
.......................
.............
...... .......
Cost p...e........K..........k.....e.......nsable. ............ �
................. .
.......................... ... ..
......... .........
%
......
.....................................
........................................
............
.............................. .
............
..........
.. .......... . .... .. .......................
....................
. ...............
..........
Parking
.... :.'.. ; Structure'.....'.".,.........
......
...'..R....................... .....................................
.. ... .. .. .. .....................
.........
$ 75,000
. .
................
............h...........e..."...
...............�.........................................
..................
.........
.............................................
.......:::..:.:.:
:....
..........
...:.....-....:.:.'..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.X....................................
.................................................................................................................................................
..............
...................
...
....
.:,.
.........................................
........W..............
.............
. ...1..............7.............
t............
.....
......
..
..
.......................
..:....................
....
...
pI pdsRLz Revenue . . . 00
LessDdbtfM
.
Cb tsPer Space: 660 -55 00
.....
.
.................................
........................... ---- --
- -------W...............................-----
..................... .................................................. ...... ........................................
............... ......
.............. .......
...........
.. . ..... ....... ... .. ....................... ... . ....... ................... ... . .....
"SA:
t: CSJS&.000):
Net,P.r6fi
s):..... ...............
3........... ...........
..................:...... ................................
........... ..... ........... ........
..................... ................. ...... .............
............... ...................
............................................. ..........................
............... ..................
................
..........................
.......... .......... ...
.............................
....... ............. . .............................................
...........
..............
.....I.,....... .........
2-78.
........... . ...................
Annual per ..
............ ...............
........................... -
:........................... .................
............. .............................. .........
........... .........................
................................................................................
as
. . .............. ..........
.............._X.X laX.."...
... .............
........... .......
...................X
............. ................ ...................... .......... .... ...
............ .....................
a M; ..............................
P
....................... .........
.......... :NIX:;�
............ .... . ..................................
........................
:1M.1:1111:1
............
jpy.
_nmeter-A,
:rKI q first i: . ve W
.. ................... ..................
Final Points:
The above accounting does not truly reflect the actual economic performance of
the parking structures. The Parking Enterprise Fund is required to use the same
accounting principles as a for-profit business. The debt service is not an expense,
instead depreciation over the anticipated life of the structure is subtracted.
It is not appropriate to include the costs of the spaces provided free in the total
costs attributable to the business enterprise. The lost opportunity to generate
revenue is a policy decision and the cost of those spaces should be born by the
general fund.
a "X
719. d
Charging N
................................................................. . ... ...
................
.......................
...........................
....0-. a
A ...........
V
"4:structuresDiane Hull
July 5, 1997
Bikepath Funding Alternatives and Other Comments About Alternative
Transportation and Automobiles
It is frequently stated that development should pay for itself and that the costs
of needed roadway improvements should be paid by the people who benefit
from the improvements. Bike paths can be viewed as a road improvement. The
question is then, who benefits? If auto users switch to riding bikes, the public
at large benefits from a decrease in air pollution and traffic congestion.
However, studies show that only 3% of commuters choose the bicycle, and the
distance is not likely to be greater than 5 miles. Therefore, the decrease in air
pollution and traffic congestion is hardly measurable.
Efforts in the Bay Area to develop businesses near housing in hopes for
reducing commuter traffic were unsuccessful. The human factor is too
unpredictable. Career choices force job changes, families prefer living near
better schools, two workers in the household in different careers, personal
choice regarding living environment, etc..
Lets Get Real, Folks...
Most shoppers and "errand-runners" must use automobiles for transporting
groceries and items purchased. Parents who must bring children and babies
have to drive. Most of San Luis Obispo's senior citizen population cannot ride
a bike. It is more likely that our senior citizens will use alternative forms of
transportation such as buses and vans, and most can afford to pay for the
service.
We are an auto-centric society. The automobile is here to stay. It is too
ingrained into the fabric of American lives. People will continue to use their
automobiles unless they are inconvenienced by impacted roadways and high
parking costs. Alternative modes of transportation are successful primarily in
metropolitan areas. Quite simply, commuters will choose whatever saves them
time and money. Even still, there are some individuals who spend hours each
week commuting by car because "Its the only time that I am alone."
Detroit has heard the environmental message. The automobile has evolved
into a more environmentally-friendly vehicle. Emissions are down, incentive
programs to retire polluting vehicles are in place and cars using alternative fuel
sources are just beginning to hit the mass market. The automobile is hereto
stay.
S Lo rt> v,,-� PJtju� U-%4e�
ftpi� a l cl 9-7
Why should taxpayers heavily subsidize alternative forms of transportation
that are used by so few? Convenient and user-friendly mass transit is not
economically feasible in small markets like SLO County. Only those individuals
who have extra time and those without automobiles will use the bus, unless the
schedule is convenient (such as every 10 to 20 minutes). But that would
require more buses, and more tax dollars. San Luis Obispo County is not at
critical mass. For most people, it is faster to drive. of course, there is a small
minority who choose mass transportation based upon their belief system. For
the rest of us, I urge people to "plan your route and bunch your trips".
The primary use of bike lanes is by recreational bikers. How can the users
pay for bike lanes? Here are a few ideas.
Racers
Collect a fee from all county bike racing events, including biathlons and
triathlons.
Tourist Bikers
Allocate a percentage of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue towards bike
paths.
Recreational
(in order of practical assessment)
1. Form a non-profit organization for bike users to contribute tax deductible
funding for bike lane construction and maintenance.
2. Collect a tax for each new bicycle purchased.
3. Collect a bicycle registration fee under mandatory state licensing program.
Students
College students and high school students use bike lanes in a specific
geographical location. Collect a fee per student at the institution to recover
cost of building and maintaining these bike lanes.
Why should the taxpayers subsidize bike lanes which are primarily used for
recreational purposes and that commuters simply do not use? What other
services are worth giving up? We have to start making choices.
Review of Todd 1_4.,ian's article, "Whose Roaab?"
Diane Hull
Whose roads and whose taxes?
The circulation system in the United States was established in response to the
population's need to travel from one part to another, and has gotten more
extensive as the population expanded and spread out over the continent. Road
construction and maintenance has always been one of the primary
responsibilities of government, along with fire and police protection. The
general public has always paid taxes for these services. I would estimate that
99% of the population at large (including children and pets) ride in
automobiles. A true subsidy exists when the taxpayers-at-large pay for a special
service utilized by a small group.
Roads are used by virtually everybody, and if some portion of the general fund
pays for road maintenance, does that really matter? Roads are used for the
general protection of the society through emergency vehicles, such as police,
fire and ambulances. Vehicle license fees and gasoline taxes were imposed when
the general fund did not have enough to pay for all the services the general
public desired, such as adding libraries and recreation programs. Whether the
general population pays for road maintenance through direct taxing or indirect
taxing is irrelevant if 99% of the general public uses the roads. If 1°!0 of the
population ( and I may be estimating high) chooses not to ride in an
automobile, their pro-rata share of the general fund contribution can be viewed
as assurance that emergency vehicles will be able to respond to them, or
provide an option to use a van-pool or a bus.
Francis Footpower
In Mr. Litman's example, Francis Footpower rides a bike 3000 miles peryear
and walks 1000 miles per year. Lets review the facts: Assume she works 250
days each year, and like most bicycle commuters, lives 5 miles from her job. of
that 3000 miles biked, 2,500 represents commute mileage. That leaves 500
miles each year for all other bike use, including recreational and shopping.
(Perhaps Francis lives next door to the grocery store). Mr. Litman skews his
results by using an unrealistic example. Most people just cannot give up their
car due to geographical issues (work is too far), physical ability limitations
(can't bike 25 miles), family issues (have babies or grandparents), etc. How
many people do you know like Francis Footpower? How many people do you
know could become Francis Footpower with any amount of incentive?
Over-generalized cost allocation.
Mr. Litman uses an over-generalized approach to his cost allocation.
National averages do not reflect the true local financial picture. California has
one of the highest DMV licensing taxes and a state gasoline tax in addition to
the federal tax, and the state sales tax is levied -on the Lotal cost, including gas
taxes. Therefore, Mr. Litmans' estimated user charges collected per mile is
distorted. Ditto for general fund contributions.
Each state is different. The annual road use costs are also clearly a localized
issue. Each state, county and city determines their own relative priority in
budgeting for road maintenance.
Do we really have tax-funded parking subsidies?
The parking structures and meters in the city of SLO are profitable. The
surpluses from the parking enterprise fund are used to subsidize bike lanes and
alternative transportation. Who is subsidizing who?
What's the big deal about air pollution, especially in San Luis Obispo?
Autos using alternate fuels, including the electric car, are going to become a big
part of localized travel within the next 10 or 20 years, reducing the amount of
air pollution. Automobile manufacturers have successfully engineered cars with
reduced emissions, and continue to improve upon the technology.
All forms of transportation imposes costs to society.
Mr. Litman cites driving imposes other costs to society such as congestion,
traffic law enforcement, emergency services and the opportunity cost of
roadway land. These issues are present regardless of the mode of
transportation. It is the actual number of people using the roads that cause
these things. If we no longer had cars, the law enforcement would simply
monitor bicyclists and emergency services would be required for bicycle
accidents. You will have congestion with 100 bikes on a small road. What other
opportunity for roadway land would provide bikes with a route?
Also contributing to the cost of road maintenance is the impact of the
environment on the road systems. Sunlight damages the road surface and
floods can rip roads away.
What about the costs of a Bus System?
To be completely accurate, Mr. Litman needs to include the trips Francis makes
in a friend's car or on a bus. For individuals who use buses as an alternative to
the automobile, we need to include the costs to the taxpayer for operating that
system. How much per mile does it cost to operate a bus? Those costs are not
included in Mr. Litman's analysis. It is a known fact that bus transportation is
heavily subsidized.
The 1996-1997 operating budget for the City of SLO's Transit Enterprise Fund,
which operates the bus system, totaled $1,186,900. The annual fixed route
miles is 311,700. That results in a total cost per mile of $3.80. The annual
number of passengers estimated to use the bus service is 875,000, which is
about 2.8 passengers ptrr mile. The per passenger cosi per mile for bus
service is $1.35. This does not include capital investments in new buses, bus
maintenance building construction, exterior bus washing facility, or the bus
stop improvements, which were budgeted at $853,000 in the 1995 to 1997
budget.
Bus fares, including approximately $200,000 from Cal Poly, are budgeted at
$332,000 annually, or 24% of the total operating budget.
If we assume that Francis. Footpower supplements her biking and walking with
occasional bus trips for approximately 1000 miles per year, we need to add
$1,026 ($1.35 X 1000 miles X 76%) to the total annual taxpayer cost for
Francis Footpower.
I Like Bicycles!
Contrary to what Mr. Veesart may believe, I do not hate bicycles. Everyone in
my family rides bicycles and like many others, a 10 speed was my main mode of
transportation before I owned a car. I was a proud user of the mass transit
when I worked in San Francisco, where alternative transportation provided a
quicker ride to the city. Here in San Luis Obispo, it is not "time-efficient" to
use alternative transportation. We are not at critical mass.
I am not opposed to subsidies that benefit a portion of society that we agree
as policy to assist, such as handicapped access, medical treatment, homeless
prevention, abused women and children, handicapped training and
rehabilitation, drug rehabilitation etc...
I am not opposed to adding bikelanes as part of regular. ongoing
maintenance on roads that are used regularly by bicyclists. If we are
building a new road that is likely to be used heavily by bicyclists, lets do it right
the first time and include the proper width for a bike lane, or even better,
construct a separate bike path. But, I would suggest that for extraordinary
expenditures, such a bike path separate-from a lane, lets find a way for those
primary recreational users to contribute to the cost.
The loss of parking spaces and added time to auto travelers if a traffic lane is
removed is a hard cost to quantify. How can those people be compensated and
how do they benefit from restricted access to roadways? As long as 99% of the
public chooses to drive automobiles, and the primary user of bike lanes is the
recreational user, the taxpayer is subsidizing a special interest group. The
general public does not realize a benefit equal to the cost
G,uB CF,1'a
z SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER
a
.s ^ P.O.Box 15755 • San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93406
Phone: (805) 544-1777 • Fax: (805) 544-1871
Dianne Hull http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/santalucia
952 Mill Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
10 April, 1997
Dear Dianne,
I recently read your diatribe against bicycles in the SLO Property Owners
newsletter and would like to respond. I ordinarily would write a rebuttal and
submit it to the editor, but in this case, I'm certain that the SLO Property Owners
would not print it. If you feel that the enclosed article should be printed, by all
means, bring it to their board's attention.
Enclosed is an article that details how bicyclists are actually subsidizing motorists,
not the other way around as you claim in your article.
Dianne, I'm not sure exactly why anyone would be so against bicycles or the
pittance of public funding that goes to support them, but you are entitled to your
opinion. You are not entitled, however, to spread falsehoods. If someone spreads
false information through ignorance, they are merely misinformed, but if they
spread falsehoods knowingly, they are liars. I don't think you are a liar, so I'm
passing along some facts so you won't be misinformed.
The numbers in the enclosed report are similar to ones I have seen directly from
Caltrans. Caltrans sets the annual subsidy to automobiles at about $2500 per
automobile in California. There are 33 million people in California and probably
as many automobiles, so you do the math. If you really want to work on an
equitable cause, I'd suggest promoting higher fuel taxes to close the gap on the
subsidy and create more money for road repair and maybe even better
alternative transp at' n. Your children will thank you, and so will I.
Pat eesart, Chairm n
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
...To explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources...
Whose Roads?
Defining Bicyclists' Right to Use Public Roadways
by Todd Litman
The following is a condensed version of the 11 page report, Whose Roads. The
full report is available from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute for $12 U.S. or
$16 Canadian, plus CST. You are welcome to publish this summanyin
newsletters and journals. Contact the Victoria Transport Policy Institute if you
have questions or cornments.
Have you ever been accused as a bicyclist of not contributing a fair share of road
taxes? Has anybody suggested that bicyclists have less right to the roadway, or that
investments in bicycle facilities are unfair to non-bicycling taxpayers, because
bicyclists don't pay fuel taxes and registration fees? These arguments are wrong,
and here is why.
Although fuel taxes fund most highway expenses, local roads are primarily funded
through local taxes that everybody pays regardless of how they travel. Of the $31
billion dollars spent on local roads in the U.S., only $10.4 originates from motor Cato11
vehicle user charges (FHWA, 1994). When divided by an estimated 1 trillion �0
miles driven on local roads this equals about 10 per vehicle mile. The rest of local 60&,L-
road funding comes from general funds and special assessments. Residents pays
these taxes whether they drive an automobile or ride a bicycle.
Ute°
There is no indication that bicyclists pay less local tax on average than drivers as a ^_', (D
class. Only a small portion (probably less than 5%) of bicycling takes place on state 6P
and federal highways, many of which bicyclists are prohibited from riding on. 011�(, 0��
Certainly, automobiles impose greater costs on local roads than bicycles impose r 4
on fuel-tax funded highways. �`^J
Driving imposes much higher costs on society than bicycling. Table 1 shows p,�L.
estimated roadway construction and maintenance costs based on the California a6I
Department of Transportation cost allocation formula, indicating that
automobiles impose costs of about 3.1¢ per mile driven. 0
v.o ado
Table 1. - Roadway Cost Allocation
Average Cost Per Mile
---------------------
Automobiles 3.1¢
Motorcycles 1.7¢
Pickups and vans 4.0¢ Ca.��001�5
Buses 5.6¢ �I1I UZ4v(40 —
Trucks 17.5¢ P(woLaa 5 - e� C,,, Lov
Vehicle user charges (fuel taxes and vehicle fees) average about 2.3¢ per miler
These figures indicate that motor vehicle use is subsidized at about 1¢ per mile d0 S
when averaged over all automobile travel, and more than 2¢ per mile when
averaged over local road travel only. g� ,n�'��
These estimates only cover direct road ay costs. Vehicle use ii oses otherv" akL
government financed costs including raffic law enforcement and emergency
UW47 serviceKax funded parking subsidies, and the opportunity cost 57 roadway land. v
Together these represent an additional government subsidy of driving averaging � �
kq4% 14'l 3.4¢ per vehicle mile, for a total cost of 6.5¢ per mile. Bicycling is estimated to
pyo impose roadway costs of only 0.2¢ per mile.
0140A. , h0.�f�w� Gtr Si G�.t�ct.UcJ'
Driving irpposes other costs to society, including congestion, off street parking dooI '��,,,,�
�. facilities, uncompensated accident damag?sand environmental impacts. Several _(Q,�
major studies estimate that these externalities average 10 to 40¢ per automobile egr pY
Wo mile (Apogee, 1994; Office of Technology Assessment, 1994; Litman, 1995).
Bicycling, walking and other non-automotive modes impose much lower costs.
(aUL MA-4.-ho1-1PaClh c-1-C 0P 4W C4*7�
These costs per mile (or kilometer) figures understate automobile user subsidies
since drivers tend to travel by roadway much more than non-drivers in a given
period. On average an automobile drivervets on public roads about 15,000
miles per year, while non driving bicyclistsnd transit users average a quarter or
less of this distance. On a per capita basis, bicyclists pay far more in taxes per mile
of roadway travel than drivers.
Q - l4401-� -
Example: a- OUc 1 __ � D 10` k� -
l ��ic. fircvnstfi;
Two neighbors have similar incomes and pay equal property and sales taxes. Mike rpt
the Motorist drives 15,000 miles a year. Francis Footpower bicycles 3,000 miles
Ott
and walks 1,000 miles each year on public roads. Table 2 summarizes their road
costs and tax contributions. 1 M44U
"
Table 2. - Road System Cost Distribution 4vao- -LAN A. A,�3'
CO.A7 or-
Mike Francis b 7
---- -------
General taxes used for roadway services. $400 $400
User charges (fuel taxes and vehicle fees). $300 $0
Total road system contribution. $700 $400
Tax payment per mile of travel 4.7¢ 10.0¢
Total annual road .use costs* $975 $7
Annual financial gain or loss +$275 -$393
Payment to cost ratio 0.72 50 6VEA4�A-5
* (assuming automobile costs = 6.5¢ per mile, bicycle = 0.2¢ per mile))L _
Mike pays only $0.72 in taxes for each dollar of costs imposed by his vehi- cTeuse `
resulting in $275 per year in road system subsidies. Francis pays $50 for each dollar
jw
of cost imposed by her bicycling and walking, resulting in a net annual tax e.&m 4td •
overpayment of $393. �6p,/(�P�i� ��
In addition to these direct government funded expenses, driving imposes d" dyPisp
thousands of dollars per vehicle annually in other externalities. Some such as
accident risk, pollution and the barrier effect are imposed most on non-drivers.
M 0.5l b><'e� s-�3 r
Of course, many people use both automobiles and non-motorized modes, so
their overall gains and losses are somewhere between these estimates. However, 0/0 d
this example illustrates that households which drive more than average are W
subsidized overall by households that drive less than average. This is unfair, I 'p;j► pop'
particularly since lower income households tend to drive significantly less than
those with higher incomes. It is also economically inefficient because it removes
the incentive for individuals to use the most efficient mode for each trip and
reduce their travel needs.
Summary: (/J (,�,$�,«,�(,, $jA, Cil_
t� �t4A put AZ v4-L J--
bLA(J/L LArU 1 +IpS `l
ATE MEETING
� q� AGENDA
July 7, 1997 / ITEM #
Mayor Settle and Members of the Council:
This Tuesday, with the discussion focused on parking in the downtown, can be a defining
moment in shaping the future of the Downtown of San Luis Obispo. If the debate is
allowed to devolve into a battle between the downtown business interests and the
environmental community, a great opportunity will be missed. Several years ago the City
completed the update of the General Plan. That process resulted in community agreement
that we were in favor of"Compact Urban Form",that we wanted a concentrated City
surrounded by open space and that in order to achieve this goal, the City would accept
trade- offs of development rights outside the urban reserve line and intensification of
development in the downtown core.
The Plan also recognized that San Luis Obispo is a regional center and that its historic role
has resulted in a concentration of regional institutions, economic and governmental units,
cultural facilities and social services. Irrespective of the personal feelings of some locally
based individuals, custom and tradition has established San Luis Obispo's place as a
regional center.
Joan and I have lived full time in the area for five years. When we moved here, we did so
because of the usual reasons others state,but also because of the downtown. We were
excited by what we saw and we were inspired by what we though would come (Downtown
Master Plan). Because of this we have made major investments in the downtown. We
wanted to be a part of the continuing and exciting evolution of this "jewel.
When the question is asked, "Do we have a parking problem in downtown", the answer
can be either"yes" or"no". It depends on the individual persons perspective. Having
lived in and around San Francisco, Joan and I, being used to big city parking rates and
parking sacristy, would usually answer, No. Thus when we built the Forum, we though
parking wasn't a problem. We had our own on site parking, street parking, adjacent city
parking lots and the Marsh street garage. But for people who have lived in this area for
some time and are accustomed to being able to find parking adjacent to a business,parking
is problem.
Can I quantify it. Yes. Following every event, we send out a questionnaire asking our
clients to rate The Forum on a number of points. One of those items is parking. We
receive a very high return rate. In nearly every response,particularly from clients not
located in the downtown, parking even eclipses price as a concern. We have gotten very
creative in responding,providing detailed maps on local parking, information on bus
transportation. We use ride-on and have joined forces with the Monterey Street hotels, led
by Apple Farm to offer a conference package to groups outside our area. Buses or vans
connect our locations.
At the same time we could answer"yes". In San Francisco we had convenient and
effective alternatives that don't exist here and cannot economically be made available.
Every Thursday nite, and every weekend,those of us who have on-site parking, including
First Bank, and Great Western, find our parking used by the public. We bear the added
expense of guarding, maintaining and accepting liability for these uninvited guests and at
times we have to fight for our own p ❑ C]DIR
RECEIVED
❑� ❑ F -0 7 1446
❑ kMMEY C9-P
D-nERKIORIG ❑ P
❑ MGMT ❑ RSLO CIi Y COUNCIL
❑ U❑ P
In the consultants report, credit is given for parking spaces that will not be required because
of the implementation of TDM measures. But the report does not calculate how many
public parking spaces are not required to be provided, because the public already uses our
spaces. Yet no one from the community would think in terms of offering us financial
compensation for the benefit we provide. If we and similar owners choose to permanently
deny the public access to our spaces, how will this impact public parking. An added cost to
the Forum is the loss of revenue because The Forum is forced to close on Thursday nites
and for both the Christmas and Mardi Gras parade. No amount of experimentation can
convince a client to rent our space on these nights.
I do not want you to think that this is sour grapes, this is one of the additional costs that we
pay, in locating in the downtown. But it is important that you understand that with the
good that comes from a downtown location,that there are also negative economic impacts,
that make it much more expensive to operate a business and are not borne by our
competitors. Each new restriction, or fee is a cost that is added to the total. Our costs
exceed what our clients are willing to pay and allow us to make a profit and we go out of
business. This applies to all downtown business, not just The Forum.
Joan and I took a big risk in opening The Forum. New idea, downtown, limited parking.
Now after three years it is just starting to make money. This is a very difficult area in
which to do business. Since most people who live here either are students, work for
government, for other not for profit organizations, or are retired, and had no way of
understanding how hard it is to make a living as a business person in this area. I will tell
you that in all of our experience this is the hardest area we have encountered in which to do
business. Just breaking even can be a struggle.
The usual rule of thumb is that it takes three years to establish a business and get it to
sustained profitability. In this area it can take up to 5 years. If doing business here has
been a challenge for us with our experience and resources, think what a challenge it is for
those in business in the downtown who do not have our advantages.
You read the newspaper and believe that an economic boom is on and those in business are
raking in the dollars. But for most downtown business, things are just beginning to
recover, after many years of a depressed economy. Downtown is in a fragile period, with
many business people having depleted their resources,just to hold on. This is why
downtown business reacts so strongly to "sidewalk ordinance" and "parking issues." SLO
and its downtown have become associated with to many negatives. Business people are
looking for some positives.
Business has a difficult time explaining its situation, since such a large portion of the
population is not dependent on the private sector for its support. It is very hard to
communicate, when the target audience has no understanding of your situation and cannot
see an immediate impact on their lives. Yet the recent recession taught even those in the
public sector that downturns in the private sector eventually effect the public sector, even in
San Luis Obispo.
I am concerned that those who do not derive their incomes from the private sector and have
no understanding of the risks and the very limited financial return that these risk takers
receive, are cavalier in expecting business to bear all of the risk from their"social
engineering" experiments.This tendency is magnified due to the location of Cal Poly. It is
also a temptation for some to advocate their personal preferences as the basis for
community wide policy.At times the rhetoric distorts the fact that this community has
established a pretty good balance between the car and other alternative transit modes.
I have learned from experience, if you want people to change a behavior, you are
successful if you do it from the basis of example. When it came to encouraging the public
to recycle, ECOSLO led the way.We've talked about TDM type measures for several
years. Why hasn't the City taken the lead and required its employees to test alternative
means? Why must it always be the general population or the private sector that is targeted?
Will the public willingly pay effectively higher parking fees if they knew the funds would
be used to subsidize parking for public employees?Especially when public employees
receive salaries and benefits substantially better than the general population.
Having lived most of our lives in a major urban area, we are very much aware of the
problems that come from concentrated urban growth. At the same time, we are amazed by
the fixation that some people have about our area becoming another Southern California. It
seems they see a constant threat,yet in fact, a recent report states that the Central Valley is
at far greater risk than the Central Coast. The growth spurt of the eighties was a wake up
call, and nearly everyone living here, long time residents as well as us transplants, will not
permit a repeat.
It is important to keep things in perspective. The growth control regulations, and most
importantly the attitudes of local residents, are a strong deterrent. Those most focused on
the threat, are pressured by their fears. Their concerns are a reflex action and they urge you
to make policy decisions that can be excessive and not proportional to the need. Their
solutions are usually restrictive or punitive in nature [negatives] and not ideas that will fit
well with the community [positives].
What is needed are policies that are creative and reinforce the downtown, instead of
constricting it. Some of the TDM measures can actually achieve results that are the opposite
of the City's General Plan Goals. A developer who wishes to invest in the downtown,
perhaps using density transfer credits, is impacted by a significant increase in costs for
parking in lieu fees. Add these new fees with other higher costs associated with downtown
development and the developer goes elsewhere,perhaps outside the City limits, where
costs for land, improvement and fees are much less. Thus City policy to reduce parking
and traffic serves to encourage"urban sprawl." If this fee was in place six or seven years
ago, would the downtown have a Downtown Center or even a Forum? Probably not!
The consultant states that 37% of parking demand is created by employees. Many of those
employed in downtown business work part time. Many of these are students. Many of the
working students walk, bike or use public transit. What percent of the 37% is comprised
of people working in the public sector for the City or the County. What percentage of the
Palm street garage is used by city or county employees or those who are called for jury
duty.
In addition to measures proposed by the consultant, what about asking the county to build
its own parking structure,freeing up city provided parking. What about having the City
open up its private City staff parking, to be used for peak demand. What about spinning
off parking to a non-profit private corporation, run by both the City and the private sector.
Other communities have converted underutilized land in their downtown's, some used for
street level parking, to build new housing and office space,by leasing air rights over
parking lots for these developments. Thus new residents, seniors, or young singles or
newly married couples,experience the convenience and fun of living in the center of an
energized downtown.
46
Our downtown master plan envisions expanded hours of use. This can be accomplished,
by increasing residential use in the downtown, thus expanding the hours of use. The
ground level parking is used by customers during the daytime and residents in the night
time. More residents increase pedestrian use and expanded shopping hours, increased
sales tax revenues, people friendly environments, reduced crime and vandalism. The
benefit is a far more vibrant and exciting downtown. Developers receive incentives in the
form of reduced fees, to compensate for higher construction costs.
Government establishes policies in an active and not static environment. Many times
policies go wrong because those who craft the policy believe that the public will react in a
given manner. From the federal to local government,politicians and bureaucrats have
learned the hard way that people always have choices. Perhaps more so now than ever.
You have an opportunity to make a balanced decision that strengthens the downtown,
supports the efforts of the private sector in offering goods and services and creates an
environment conducive of public social interaction. I hope that beyond dealing just with
parking, that you optimize this period and begin implementing the Downtown Plan. The
Downtown is far to important to the health and enjoyment of those who live in our area, to
allow it not to realize its full potential. The Downtown Plan is that opportunity. But in the
end, at least follow the advise given to new physicians, "Try to do good, but in the least do
no harm."
Yours truly
1 � �G✓1
Jim Sargen
MEF ; AGENDA
HOWARD CARROLL DATE '$---`ITEM # /
Post Office Box 1025 (805) 541-0178
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Fax (805) 541-0178
Mayor Allen Settle and July 7, 1997
Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Parking
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
I will be unable to attend the Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July
8 due to vacation plans, but felt it was important to address the Council
regarding my feeling on the parking issue.
It is frustrating to continually hear the parking question come up over and
over without progress toward a solution. This has become the most
studied element of our Downtown. The conclusion is obvious: There are
more people who want to drive to the Downtown than there are available
parking spaces.
I'm sure a small percentage of these people would be satisfied with
"alternative transportation", but the vast majority want convenience. The
same convenience offered at other shopping centers, malls and outlet
centers both within and outside our city. Our competition dictates what we
must offer to be successful. The Downtown needs parking!
I'm looking for you to not only develop a plan, but also a timeline to meet
the parking needs of the majority of shoppers. After a successful
implementation of the plan, focus your efforts upon the "alternative
transportation" solutions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rf EMU
0 CDD DIR
Since y 0 FIN DIR
0 FIRE CHIEF
2"DIR
0 POLICE CHF
Howard Carroll 0 REC DIR
0 UTI$ DIR
D PERS DIR
�r �/DiGLE
REC VED
JUL U 7 iw
SLO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
DATE Z ITEM #% Z
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
+� 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 934013278 EMUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 @'CAO ❑ FIN DIR
e-mail slo-chamber@slonet.org slonet.org CACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
David E. Garth, President/CEO ❑-ArIORNEY 13 {- ' IR
❑-CLERKIORi:j ❑ POLICE CHI
❑ MGM .T 6. 13REC DIR
O _ 13UTIL DIR
July 7, 1997 ❑ PERS DIR
Via Hand Hand Delivery
Mayor Allen Settle
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Downtown Access &Parking Study
Dear Mayor Settle:
As you are aware, on Tuesday,July 8, the City Council is holding a public workshop
on, Progress Report#2, Strategy Evaluation &Recommendations of the Downtown Access &
Parking Study (the `Report"). Two of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce's
committees have examined the report in detail. As a result, the Chamber has taken
several positions on this matter. We found that the complexity of the subject matter
combined with the divergent opinions held by the many groups interested in it,
mandated several positions.
The Chamber's present policies on the Report are as follows:
1. The Chamber supports the construction of additional parking
structures and the implementation of TDM (transportation demand
management)measures as means to meeting the downtown's parking
needs.
2. The Chamber strongly urges the City Council to consider alternateTEN YEARS
sources of funding TDM measures, other than the parking fund.
RECEIVED
ACCREDITED
.11111 0 7 196E1
OF COYMEKE
SLO CITY COUNCIL
3. The Chamber requests the opportunity to have questions about the
Report answered. More specifically, additional information about how
the costs contained in the Report were arrived at, for instance tables on
break even points for existing and future parking structures, costs for
different TDM scenarios, etc., are sorely needed. (We would be happy to
provide the Council or your Consultants with a detailed list of questions
upon request.)
4. ' The Downtown Concept Plan must be reflected in the final report.
The Downtown Concept Plan addresses a variety of planning issues
which seem to have been forgotten in the present draft of the Report such
as circulation and zoning.
We hope that this statement of Chamber's policies on the Report prove helpful to the
Council in crafting your directions to the Consultants. Quite obviously there is a
balanced approach which can be taken to this matter. However,before achieving this
balance, and before preparing the final Downtown Access &Parking Plan, there are
many details which must be addressed and studied more closely. Thank you for your
consideration of the Chamber's concerns.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Griffin
Chairman of the Board
cc: Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Kathy Smith
Dodie Williams
Mike McCluskey
MLLIING AGENDA
DATE 1- -` 7 ITEM #
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
July 3, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Dunn,City Administrative Offi .
FROM: Bonnie Ga qty Clerk
SUBJECT: July 8, 1997 City Council Meeting
Following is staff's suggested format and time frame for presentations at next Tuesday's meeting
which will address the Downtown Access and Parking Study.
1. Opening of meeting by Mayor
2. Introduction of item by Staff (10 min.)
3. Presentation by Meyer,Mohaddes Associates(30 min.)
4. Council questions for consultant&staff
5. Open the floor for public comment:
• Alternative Transportation Spokespersons(30 min.)
• BIA Spokespersons(30 min.)
• Input from individuals with additional information,not already presented(3 min. each)
6. Return discussion to the City Council
7. Council gives specific direction to consultant and staff
We have arranged this format to give speakers on both sides of the issue an improved opportunity
to organize their ideas into a coordinated presentation for the Council. (Representatives of both
have expressed appreciation).
FO1U E3 CDD DIR
AO ❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ F RE CHIEF
ST _ W DIR
CYCLERK 0 IG iORNEY DOLICE CHF
❑ M MT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
CK, ZA ❑ UTIL DIR
IY ❑ PERS DIR
?Ifa ewls A f
Ann's
Contemporary
Clothing
J
Jl , -
'f MEETING AGENDA
Jl t Mo tare DATE �_ITEM #=,.
f Street, y [CAO
NCIL 0 CDD DIR
San Luis O FIN DIR
ObispoCalifornia O O SIRE CHIEF
93401 RNEY a PN DIR
RKf0RIG O POLICE CHF
805-543-8250 T TEAM 0 REC DIR
O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR
�/s4!oAoc�casK/
✓T �$aArvacE
06-27-97
Dear Mayor Settle,
I am writing this letter to you in regards to the downtown parking structure
W=- I had hoped to attend the town meeting next Tuesday evening, but
cannot due to other business obligations.
I've owned and operated Ann's downtown for 25 years now. I guess you
could say, I'm almost a permanent fixture around here! Through the years, I
have to say, probably the most repeated complamt/concem that I have with my
customers is the hgk of parking downtown and or the cost of the meters. The
structure built at Marsh St. definitely did help, however, we still have an
extreme shortage of parking. Downtown San Luis Obispo is probably one of
the most viable downtowns in the state of California. We need to keep it that
way.
I understand that alternative transportation advocates are pushing for more bike
lanes and some kind of a transit system downtown. I think that we need to look
at this realistically. My customers, (and many of them are avid bike riders), are
not going to transport their purchases back home on a bike! It just isn't
realistic. Time has become a crucial element m all of our lives and using
alternative transportation takes more time. People are going to use their can to
get their errands and shopping done. It's a fact.
I hope you will agree that we are in desperate need of additional parlang for the
downtown area and will vote to support the construction of additional parking
structures or for the expansion of the ones we already have.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
J U L 0 11 1997
Ann Reeves
AR/ac SLO CITY COUNCIL