Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/1997, 1 - INITIAL DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN council "° ; _9 OILacEnaa nEpoat "�`°' CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Worl q3l PREPARED BY: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager — Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager Terry Sanville,Principal TransportationPlanner SUBJECT: Initial Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan CAO RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Invite public testimony concerning the contents of the Initial Draft Plan; 2. Consider staff's recommendations and provide specific direction on the Initial Draft Plan;and 3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing on the Final Draft Plan upon completion of the environmental review process(estimated to take ten to twelve months). REPORT-IN-BRIEF On July 8', the City Council reviewed Progress Report #2 prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. At that meeting, various issues were raised by the Council and the public. Since July, the Consultant completed an initial draft of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan (Exhibit A). Provisions of the Plan itself and information included in its appendix address key issues brought up at the July 8' meeting. These key issues are also highlighted in this Agenda Report. Other implementation issues that staff has identified are addressed here with recommendations for Council disposition. These issues include a staff-recommended strategy for funding Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) activities: first use grant funds and then use increases in Parking Fund revenues. The Parking and Downtown Access Plan includes three main components: Parking Management, Parking Expansion, and Parking Demand Management. If access demand to the downtown continues to grow at moderate rates, all activities recommended by the Plan would be carried out during a 15- year period. However, a monitoring program to determine access demand is recommended. The monitoring program will determine if a series of pre-established demand thresholds or "triggers" have been exceeded. These thresholds must be exceeded before construction of new parking garages (exclusive of the expansion of the Marsh Street garage) can be pursued. The Community Development Director has determined that due to the Plan's scope, its implementation may cause significant environmental impacts. The Director has required that a focused EIR be prepared (see Exhibit B). Impacts to be addressed by the EIR include traffic, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources and possibly noise. It will take ten to twelve months to complete the environmental review process. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Council accept public testimony, consider staff recommendations and provide direction on the initial draft Plan, and defer adoption of a plan until the environmental review process is complete. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 2 Once the EIR is prepared and reviewed by the public, it is the intent of staff that the Council consider adopting a Parking and Downtown Access Plan. Because this Plan contains significant additions and deletions affecting the existing Parking Management Plan (1995), it will replace that plan. The Council should note that provisions retained from the adopted 1995 document are underlined for easy reference. DISCUSSION 1. Status of Plan The process that lead to the publication of the initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan is presented in Figure #1 on the following page. After publication of two progress reports and input from an ad hoc Steering Committee and the City Council, the firm of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates prepared the initial draft of the Plan. This document was distributed to Council members and interested individuals and groups on September 29'x. On October 6'b, an informal "Coffee Klatch" was held at the City-County Library to allow people to ask questions of the Consultant. The attendance sheet for this informal meeting is attached as Exhibit C. The Community Development Department evaluated the initial draft of the plan, found that its implementation may have a significant effect on the environment, and determined that a focused EIR should be prepared. Therefore, the City Council may not adopt a Plan until the requisite EIR has been prepared and circulated and a final EIR is certified. 2. Key Issues At the Council's July 8`h study session, Council members and the public identified problems with the completeness of Progress Report 42 and the methodologies used by the Consultant to establish recommendations. These concerns include: • Basis and use of growth scenarios • Timing of Plan implementation • Impact of Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) measures on the timing of garage construction • Monitoring and implementation triggers • Clarification/refinement of costs and funding sources (both PDR and parking construction) • Effect of compressed work week schedules and telecommuting on Downtown businesses • The role of transit service as a PDR measure recommended by the Plan The City Council directed the Consultant to review and refine the report based on the comments received at the study session. This direction for "fine tuning" the strategies and recommendations has been incorporated into the initial draft of the Plan; the Consultant's response to these issues is summarized in Figure#2. `;ouncil Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan 'age 3 FIGURE#1: Synopsis of the Process to Date (October 1997) ACTIVITY COMMENT Progress Report #1: Completed in February, 1997, this report presents Consultant completes report; information about downtown parking and alternative report reviewed by the transportation, employee population, and choice of travel Steering Committee. modes by commercial core employees, patrons, and residents. rogress Report #2• Completed in June, 1997, this report presents parking supply Consultant completes report and management options, PDR options, evaluates various d it is distributed to policy alternatives, and presents a recommended parking and Steering Committee and access strategy. Council. City Council Study Session: At the Study Session on July S', the public and the City Consultant presents Report Council raised various issues. These issues are addressed 2 to Council, the public within the body of the Initial Draft Plan with a synopsis provides testimony, and provided within this Council Agenda Report. Funding PDR Council identifies various measures and cost and growth assumptions were the most areas of concern significant issues raised at that time. 1 Initiate Environmental On August 27', the rough draft was sent to CDD to begin Review: Rough Draft of Plan the CEQA compliance process. Only basic policies and as sent to the Community activities were identified with graphics outlining potential Development Department to parking garage sites/areas still under consideration. A 95% initiate environmental review. complete draft was transmitted for review on September 12'". Initial Draft Plan Released: On September 29' the Initial Draft Plan was distributed Consultant completes Plan along with a cover memo that invited interested and Staff distributes it to individuals and groups to attend a Coffee Klatch at the Council and interested City-County Library. The purpose of this informal individuals and groups. gathering was to allow people to ask questions of the Consultant and City transportation staff. 1_ 3 Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 4 Figure#2: Summary of Key Issues and Consultant Response Issues Consultant Response.(With Plan Appendix Citations) The 5%per year The Consultant used a high growth rate (which is based on short-term historical growth rate assumption data from 1991 forward) with the understanding this high level would not be was considered too sustainable over a 15 year period. It was used to describe the "upper limit" of high and could parking demand. This level of growth would not necessarily dictate more parking prematurely accelerate garage construction(Appendix E) parking garage expansion How will this plan be Implementation of the plan is described in a 15-year time frame. However, each implemented over the plan component is linked to measurable performance thresholds or "triggers" that next 15 years? define when they should be undertaken. With the use of these triggers, the construction of new parking garages will be undertaken in response to measurable increases in access demand and is not tied to a specific time frame. (Appendix A) How will the impact of The Plan recommends that a PDR program be undertaken immediately, carried out PDR delay the for three years,tested for its effectiveness and modified to improve performance as construction of new needed. To the extent that this program can reduce access demand by"freeing up" parking spaces? existing parking, additional growth can occur without triggering the need for new parking structures(Appendix B) What will "trigger"the PDR and Parking Management activities would be immediately implemented, various phases of the monitored for their performance, and revised as needed. For the construction of recommended plan? new parking garages, access demand would be monitored through direct measurements at two-year intervals. Specific action to pursue constructing a new parking garage would take place when pre-established demand thresholds (referenced as"triggers")have been reached. (Appendix A) The cost calculations The Consultant reconsidered the cost calculations and met with staff and financial for garage construction community members to prepare more "realistic" cost projections. The Consultant and PDR were skewed determined that a pro forma method for comparing construction costs and PDR and other funding costs was more appropriate( see Appendix D,pg. 9). In addition to Parking Funds, options need to be the Consultant also identified General Fund and grants from state and federal available agencies as possible funding sources for PDR activities. Recommendations for funding PDR activities is presented elsewhere in this Agenda Report. (Appendix D) Use of compressed The Consultant recognized these options as demonstration programs with a target work weeks and of 3% of city and county employees (27 total) for telecommuting and 400 telecommuting will employees for compressed work weeks. The Consultant also acknowledged that have a compressed work weeks keep people in town longer and sets up potential to counterproductive patronize more businesses. Also, telecommuting is typically undertaken on a part- effect on downtown time basis; its impact on retail activity would be minimal. businesses How does transit fit The Consultant assumed that transit service would be maintained at levels called into the overall Plan? for in the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and that transit service has sufficient capacity to handle additional downtown patronage. The Plan does not present additional activities that enhance downtown transit service beyond those already identified in the SRTP and the Circulation Element. -7 Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan 'age 5 3. PrimaKy Components of the Plan. The initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan includes three primary components: Parking Management, Parking Expansion, and Parking Demand Reduction (PDR). In the following sections, the goal for eachnp •mary component is summarized, implementation issues associated with each component are identified, and a staff response and recommendations provided. A. Parking Management: increase the use of underutilized peripheral parking spaces and reduce long-term employee parking in the commercial core through application of parking pricing and time limit adjustments to give optimum usage and increased parking revenues. Action Plan. The Consultant has recommended that the following strategies be employed: • Increasing the number of long-term(10-Hour) metered spaces in the periphery of the downtown. • Raise the current maximum daily parking structure charge from $3.00 to $5.00. • Reduce the amount of free time in the garages from 90 to 60 minutes. • Consider Residential Parking Management Programs to address neighborhood issues. • Increase meter and parking structure rates and parking fines. • Increase in-lieu fees applicable to downtown development. • Increase contributions from downtown property owners and businesses. • Revise time limits for on- and off-street parking spaces. • Consider adding a full-time enforcement person. Implementation Issue Staff Response Implementation of the activities listed Careful monitoring is required after each action is implemented to above may not change parking determine its immediate impact. New strategies can replace those patterns for long-term parkers — found to be ineffective. Adding another full-time enforcement person primarily downtown employees. should ensure compliance with parking regulations and produce additional revenue. Long-term metered parking spaces An extensive education and marketing program is needed. BIA may not be used to the fullest extent assistance in carrying out these activities is important and is called for possible. by the Plan. As with other plan components, monitoring and modifications to recommended strategies will be pursued. Encouraging employees to park at the If conflicts occur, the City could establish "shared use" parking areas. periphery of the downtown could Under this option, time limits would be established for curb parking increase conflicts in adjoining (e.g. 2 hour limits) but residents would be given permits that exempt residential areas. them from these limits. Other management options are available and would be explored if conflicts develop. /- 5 Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 6 B. Parking Expansion (increased supply): Provide ample short-term parking in the downtown for visitors and shoppers by building parking structures strategically placed along the periphery of the commercial core. Site acquisition, design and construction activities would be undertaken when measurements of access and parking demand exceed pre-established thresholds or"triggers." Action Plan. The Consultant recommends that the following strategies be employed: • Construct parking structures as guided by the implementation and monitoring program proposed by the Plan. • Initiate property acquisition (as needed), design and environmental review of the Palm H parking structure. • Evaluate the potential for new parking sites and acquire two new sites: one in the Fremont Theater quadrant, and the other in the Wells Fargo quadrant. Implementation Issue Staff Response The Plan sets priorities Staff feels that the parking expansion strategy should be flexible enough to allow for the purchasing the Council to consider alternatives and plan for the future. For example properties property and building often "come" on the market that are situated in locations of future structures (an new parking structures. "opportunity buy") or unwilling sellers make other targeted sites more difficult to However desired sites obtain. Examples might include: may not be available. The City may be faced • The first priority site (Palm II) is partially owned by the City which should with "unwilling sellers" facilitate project implementation. However, if the non-City owned segments and may be unwilling or cannot be easily acquired, the scale of the project may need to be changed from unable to employ its that presented by the Downtown Concept Plan. powers of eminent domain to purchase the • The willingness of the owner of the Wells Fargo site to sell the property is desired sites. unknown. This site would produce little new parking and is recommended for purchase at a later time. • The City could purchase two adjacent residences and expand the Palm-Nipomo site to include a third parking structure. However, demand in this quadrant of the downtown is presently lower than in other areas. The City will need to balance "opportunities" for purchasing land for parking structures against priorities set by actual increases in demand in the downtown's various quadrants. Purchasing land from willing sellers to build parking in low- demand areas could delay construction of structures in parts of the downtown where access demand is high. The Consultant Staff recommends that the methodology for measuring parking demand be identical recommends that to the one employed by the Consultant as described in Progress Report #1. Staff parking demand be believes that directly measuring parking space utilization during the same time monitored based on frame originally used by the Consultant will provide a more accurate estimate of changes in parking changes in parking demand. This strategy will allow a comparison with the results meter revenues. of the Consultant's original work completed in 1996. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 7 Parking Demand Reduction. Reduce the need for constructing additional parking by carrying out a comprehensive program that creates additional parking spaces for visitor usage by a combination of fostering the use of alternative modes of travel and reducing downtown trips to work. Both actions are designed to decrease the use of single-occupant vehicles. This program is primarily directed at reducing access demand created by downtown employees. (Note: in previous documents PDR measures were referred to as"Transportation Demand Management(TDM)"measures. The consultant and staff felt that the PDR terminology provided a better descriptor for use in this Plan.) Action Plan.The Consultant recommends that the following strategies be employed • Market existing and proposed PDR programs. • Implement vanpool and carpool programs • Pursue a plan or guideline for improving pedestrian access. • Pursue improving access for bicycles (with minimum impact on parking and circulation). • Initiate trial programs for telecommuting and compressed work schedules. Implementation Issue Staff Response Selecting a funding The Consultant recommends that increased Parking Fund revenues be used to pay source(s) for the PDR for PDR activities --reference Policy 5.1,page 18 of the draft Plan. Alternatives program. to this policy are shown on page 19 of the draft plan and include the following: • Use grant funds to pay for PDR activities and augment these funds with City General Funds as needed. • Use grant funds and General Funds to pay for PDR activities for three years. If the PDR program is successful, consider shifting permanent funding responsibilities to the Parking Fund. • Use any Parking Fund revenues to fund all components of the PDR program. Staff has carefully considered the various options including consideration of likely grant funding and the impact of using General Funds to pay for ongoing PDR activities. In general, grant funds are not a secure long-term funding source while reliance on General Funds could postpone or eliminate other approved City programs or projects. Staff recommends that the following "combination strategy"be incorporated into the Plan as Policy 5.1: 5.1 Funding PDR Activities • First priority: to the greatest extent ,possible, pursue grant funding to support the ongoing costs of PDR projects and activities. • Second Priority: ffgrant funds are not sufficient to fully support the PDR program, use increased Parking Fund revenues generated through implementation of this Plan. Use of Parking Fund revenues would be limited to the amount of new Parking Fund revenues generated by implementation of the Plan. To insure that these revenues become reality and that parking management objectives are met, the draft plan recommends that the Council consider the addition of a parking enforcement officer in 1999 (reference page A-11, third row of Table 2). To insure PDR activities are pursued, implemented and measured, the Plan recommends a new half-time PDR Coordinator position be created. � -7 Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 8 Implementation issue Staff Response How will PDR provisions The draft Plan suggests that compressed work week schedules and telecommuting for telecommuting and be implemented in Summer, 1998 (reference page B-3). The City already has compressed work extensive working knowledge of one form of a compressed work week—the 9/80 schedules impact City and schedule. Neither agency has experience with telecommuting. County work force management? In May, 1997, the City Council approved a Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for the City's work force as an 18-month "trial program" which could include both elements. Program guidelines are being produced and should be ready for Council consideration during Fall, 1997. In light of concerns for workforce management, staff recommends that the implementation section of the draft Plan (page B-3) be amended to delete the bulleted items under"Summer 1998"relative to these two PDR activities and add the following items to"Winter 1998": linter 1997198 • Initiate the City's Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for a 18- months trial period, monitor its performance, and amend the program as needed • Provide a copy of the City's TRIP guidelines to the County and request that it consider similar programs for its downtown workforce. Enlist the help of Ride-On Transportation, as needed, to facilitate PDR activities with the County. Note: Since an EIR is required prior to adoption of the Plan, "no-cost" PDR activities may be independently initiated and tested during the time that the E1R is being prepared. This initial test may help to frame the final provisions of the Plan. l-0V Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 9 UBLIC INPUT ON THE INITIAL DRAFT PLAN Throughout the process of developing the Plan, there have been numerous opportunities for individuals and groups to comment. A synopsis of major comments is provided below. In cases where an individual acted as the `recognized representative' for their respective organizations,the table identifies both the individual and the group they represent. Figure#3:Summary of Comments and Staff Response BIA PARIONG CONEM T'TEE Issue Staff Response Parking Fund revenues should not This is certainly one of the "key issues" for resolution. Staff has be used for anything other than the recommended a middle road position which first looks to grant funding for parking operations and parking PDR activities and only secondly recommends use of the Parking Fund. capital facilities. However, all three components (Management, Expansion, PDR) of the Plan, in one way or another, increase parking supply and are therefore justified for funding by the Parking Fund. Do not require the downtown The Plan suggests that if the measures are to be successful,BIA support is business community to pursue PDR important. The trial period for PDR activities is proposed to last three measures(otherwise known as years. In staffs estimation, it can be shortened to two years with "non- TDM Measures). cost" items being initiated and tested during the EIR preparation period. Critics of the BIA unfairly maintain The BIA may support alternative transportation strategies, however, they that the downtown business may be reluctantto declare this support until the funding of PDR measures community is not sensitive to the is resolved. The BIA does not consider the funding of the PDR as a need for alternative transportation legitimate use of the Parking Fund. Staff believes that use of Parking as a viable option for providing revenues for PDR measures is analogous to how Water Utility revenues are access to the commercial core. used to support the city's Water Conservation program,i.e.a parking space saved is a parking space created. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION- Eugene Jud(Jud Consultants) Issue StaffResponse How can the Marsh Street Parking At past public meetings,the City Council made it abundantly clear that this Structure expansion project be a project is authorized to move forward independent of the Council's "given" at this point without the consideration of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan. The EIR for EIR being certified? expanding the Marsh Street Parking Garage will have been considered for certification at the October 21' Council meeting. Should the project fail sufficient data exists in the Plan to allow altemativesto be pursued. The cumulative impact of an The scope of this study and hence the Plan was to determine the demands increased "car-oriented" plan on and supply for access to the downtown and means to address those issues. pedestrians should be studied. A study of the impacts of cultural"car-orientation" is a separate issue. — cI Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page10 Issue Staff Response The City should "freeze" the total The notion of establishing a future parking threshold is one that, in stars number of parking spaces needed at opinion, is easy to comprehend but very difficult to quantify or the projected YR 2010 level, substantiate. This dramatic change in parking management would be a promote Park n'Ride facilities, and significant shift from past, present and recommended parking management introduce a different approach to practices and was not a part of the scope of this project. The Plan is parking management culture similar demand driven and responsive to that demand. The Plan allows for changes to that employed in Aspen, and should the City wish to pursue the Aspen approach in the future the Colorado (i.e. eliminate single Plan could be so amended. parking meters and use parking guidance systems.) The City should conduct public The preparation of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan was a City workshops to introduce alternatives Council initiated activity which took almost two years to complete. Its to the Downtown Concept Plan, preparation involved a "design team" and a representative"review team" which has proven to have undue that interacted throughout the process. The Plan was subject to an intense influence on the Parking and public review process which included public hearings before the Planning Downtown Access Plan. Both the Commission and Council and was given conceptual approval by the Downtown Concept Plan and the Council. It is primarily used as a guide for evaluating private and public Parking and Downtown Access development proposals. Plan are heavily car-oriented. Staff believes that the Downtown Concept Plan is a valued and valid guide. We also believe that the initial draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan has made a significant attempt to "balance" the needs of pedestrians, motorists,bicyclists and transit riders. RIDE-ON TRANSPORTATI ON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION(TMA) Issue Staff Response The Plan fails to take advantage of Staff believes that Ride-On Transportation Management Association the many Ride-On/TMA services (TMA) will play a significant role in both the acceptance AND available: sustainability of the PDR program proposed by this Plan. In Appendix B, • Vanpool Services, Ride-On is a major contributor to the success of three of the seven major • Guaranteed/Emergency Ride PDR activities. Home Service, • Airport/Amtrak/Greyhound Service, • Lunch time Shuttle, • Medical Shuttle, • The HOP, • Business Outreach. CHAMBER OF COMMERSE Issue Staff Response 1. The Parking Enterprise Fund Certain elements which contribute to the Parking Fund are restricted to the should will only be used to fund construction of new parking spaces. The rest of the Parking Fund is used to measures resulting in the administerthe program and provide for constructionor creation construction and maintenance of of new parking spaces and the maintenance of those spaces. Since the parking spaces. purpose of PDR measures is to create additional parking spaces by freeing up the use of existing spaces,use of the Parking Fund for their creation via a PDR program is viewed as legitimate. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan "'agell Issue StaffResponse 1. Regarding PDR Measures the The Plan recommends the creation of a half-time position to implement and Plan should reflect that: administer the PDR program. Staff does not feel that this will create anew • No new bureaucracies should bureaucracy and is needed if the program is to be successful. This position be created to enact these is discussed elsewhere under Fiscal Impact. programs; • Funding for these programs The Parking Fund is currently used to support all Parking Programs. All (both short and long) should components of the Plan are parking programs including the PDR program. come from the General Fund. Thus far the General Fund has not subsidized the Parking Fund and vice- versa. The City's General Fund is more than fully committed and cannot be used without taking money from other approved programs. Long range projections do not show substantially increasing revenues for the General Fund,and if Diablo Canyon closes,the challenge could be major. 3. The Plan should include the With City Council approval, parking for the 27 employees at 955 Morro following Parking Management Street was reassigned to the Palm I Garage. The Kozak structure(which Strategies: was paid for by the General Fund) where employees used to park was • No free city employee parking, renovated into a new public parking lot. Progress Report#2 identified that • Identified neighborhood areas Palm I was a preferable location for employee parking and Palm II was a become permit zones with 2 hr preferred location for customer and visitor parking. zones for non-residents, • Simplify present permit process The Plan has provisions for addressing neighborhood concerns that are for van and carpools, somewhat different from what is suggested but will still address the issue. • Explore "valet.parking" to use Staff has reviewed the criteria for van permitting and believes it can initiate under-utilized parking lots, a simpler process. Ride-On services could be contacted for valet service on • Charge for parking seven days behalf of businesses desiring such as a part of the PDR program. a week, • Look at contracting out the The BIA parking committee can begin discussions of a seven day a week parking operation. parking program and make a recommendation to the full BIA Board for their recommendation to the City Council. The staff would support charging for Sunday parking. Given the mix of currently contracted services that the Parking Program already employs,it is doubtful that an operator would bid for what's left of the program. However, the Public Works Department does assess such opportunities and will research such a program when it is timely and opportune to do so. FISCAL IMPACTS 1. Cost of Parking Expansion and Parking Demand Management One of the more central points of"debate" has been comparing the cost of creating a parking space "through construction" versus "through PDR activities." The Consultant has use a pro forma method (net annual cost per space less average annual revenue per space)to estimate parking construction costs and the combined capital and operating costs of spaces created through PDR activities. The results of this analysis are shown in the following Figure #4 which shows that costs will vary depending on the rate of growth of access demand. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page12 Figure#4: Comparison of Annual Cost Per Space Created Growth Scenario Cost per Space through PDR Net Cost per New Structure Space Low Growth $1,022 — $1,237 $1,100 -- $1,370 Moderate Growth $971 -- $1,176 $1,100 - $1,370 High Growth $511 — $619 $1,100 - $1,370 Source: Table C-1,Page C-1,Initial Draft of Parking and Downtown Access Plan As shown above, in the low to moderate growth environment, the cost of constructed spaces versus the cost of PDR-created spaces are comparable. In the high growth environment, construction costs stay the same but PDR costs drop because of higher capital costs associated with building more facilities. However, after the 30 years the bond debt for parking garages is retired and net revenues experience a dramatic increase as compared to the on-going costs for PDR measures. It should be noted that the above figures: • Are only planning estimates for creating parking spaces. The actual costs for creating parking spaces will vary and be influenced by a number of factors such as initial capital outlay, parking demand, costs of funds, grant funding,parking rates, and opportunities for joint development • Do not account for the "external' costs and benefits associated with either,parking strategy. For example,the analysis does not attempt to quantify air quality, traffic management, energy, land use and neighborhood quality benefits or impacts of PDR programs vs. constructed parking. While beyond the scope of this fiscal analysis, these external issues suggest that an approach that balances expanding parking supply through.constructing parking garages and lots and controlling parking demand should be taken. Given the demand-driven aspects of the Plan, evaluation of the most cost effective actions and measures will be essential at each phase of the Plan. 3. Program Income and Implementation Costs Based on current cash reserves and revenue stream in the Parking Fund, the Marsh Street Garage can be expanded, another site can be purchased, and an additional structure could be built through additional debt financing. Any parking expansion beyond this will require additional funding. The draft Plan calls for the identification of a long-term funding plan for parking expansion (beyond the Palm II structure) as a"near term" action (reference Table 2, page A-12). The Consultant estimates that projected parking demand at moderate growth rates could not be funded beyond an expansion rate of 250-300 spaces every five years based on historical pattern of moderate increases to parking meter rates and fines. Since it is difficult to accurately predict what will happen in the next 5-10 years, this supply of spaces may prove to be sufficient. Conversely, the rate of growth and intensification in the downtown may not demand parking expansion at or beyond what can be funded out of current and projected Parking Fund, thus negating the need for any additional construction and subsequent financial contributions. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Pagel3 high growth rates occur, revenue enhancements and additional funding contributions (e.g., assessment districts and/or joint development) will be needed to support higher parking construction levels. New revenue enhancements could include: • Sunday operations (meters, garages, and enforcement). • Joint development, whereby the developer bears a larger portion of the financing. • Assessment districts (property owner participation) • BIA surcharge (merchant participation) • Additional reduction or elimination of"free parking time" in garages. • In-lieu fee increases beyond Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments. A factor that could affect the "revenue stream" is the source of funding for the PDR programs. The consultant's recommendation is to reserve existing Parking Funds for exclusive use of maintenance and expansion, but use the"new funds" from the parking management strategies (reduced free time and higher daily maximum) to fund the PDR program. The ramifications of this policy could affect the expansion component by reducing the required revenue stream to meet future bond payments and/or escalate the need for higher parking rates and contributions from merchants. Previous sections of this Agenda Report have addressed the PDR funding issue with staff s recommendations differing somewhat from what is recommended by the Consultant in the draft Plan. 3. Cost of Implementing the Plan's Three Primary Components These costs are detailed in Exhibit C and summarized in the following table. Figure#5: Annual Implementation Cost Estimates Plan Component Program Costs Parking Management $50,000 start-up, but would generate approximately $170,000 from the reduction in free time in the garages and a higher daily maximum charge. Parking Expansion $370,000 to $570,000 for the first years (2003) if growth rates are moderate and $700,000 to $950,000 in later years (2008) for additional construction in a high growth rate scenario. Parking Demand Reduction $125,000 for the first two years and $60,000 a year for long-term operating costs. The above costs are "illustrative" and represent what may be needed to implement the Plan if parking and access demand continues to increase over next 10-15 years. An on-going cost analysis will be needed as part of the implementation plan. 4. Program Staffing To meet the workload required to implement, monitor, and administer all three components, the consultant-recommended Plan recommends 2 %z positions of additional staffing as follows: Done full- time position for the parking management and expansion component; 2) one full-time enforcement Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page14 person to ensure the parking strategies are successful; and 3) one half-time position for the PDR coordination component. None of the positions are considered in the overall costs of implementing the Plan. Full implementation of these positions could range from $100,000 to $120,000 depending on the classification for the parking management component. However, staff feels that all components of the Plan could be accomplished with 1 '/z new positions with the following actions: • The parking management and monitoring and expansion requirement could be met by using existing staff augmented by contract services when large-scale projects are being considered. (This would be done with the understanding that"other"duties as normally performed will be deferred or not be done.) • Interns and temporary help could be used to conduct field work associated with parking management and monitoring. • A new enforcement position would require additional funding from the Parking Fund. However, the cost of this position would be more than offset by the revenue produced from additional citations being written and is critical to achieving the objectives of the Plan. • The half-time position for PDR management could be created from an existing half-time transportation technician vacancy in the Transportation Division. ALTERNATIVES 1. Stop the Planning Process. The City Council may decide not to adopt a Parking and Downtown Access Plan. Evaluation: The current Parking Management Plan (1995) would continue to be the policy document for parking management and expansion in the commercial core. This document does not include a method for gauging parking expansion needs nor does it commit the City to constructing additional parking structures. It is likely that parking expansion and management would be pursued on an incremental basis. The current plan also does not include parking demand reduction measures. Stopping the planning process would eliminate the need for preparing a focused EIR. However, future actions to construct additional parking or significantly change the management of existing parking resources may trigger the need to evaluate "cumulative" impacts. Parking demand reduction measures could be independently pursued and they are frequently considered environmental mitigation measures. However, their physical impact would also have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Because of the reasons stated and the need to look forward to maintain a vital downtown area, this alternative is not recommended. 2. Modify the Initial Draft of the Plan. The City Council may decide to modify the initial draft plan. There are a variety of changes that the Council may consider including: • Eliminating parking expansion provisions. Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page15 Eliminating parking demand reduction (PDR)measures. • Modifying policies that deal with program funding. • Modifying the phasing of various implementing activities. • Changing the "triggers" (parking demand thresholds) for parking expansion projects. Evaluation: Staff'and the Consultant will be prepared to discuss alternative provisions that are of interest to the City Council at the October 28" meeting. Of the options listed above, only selection of the first one might limit the need for preparing an EIR. However,parking expansion is one of the three key components of the Plan. Its elimination would require further reliance on parking demand reduction (PDR) measures -- which may not be sufficient to meet the increasing access demands of an expanding downtown economy. Conversely, eliminating or significantly reducing the scope of PDR measures could further increase the potential environmental consequences of pursuing a parking expansion strategy. Staff will be prepared to comment on the likely environmental status of the project based on desired Council modifications to the initial draft of the Plan. The Community Development Department may need additional time to critique the resultant Plan document and provide a formal revised environmental determination. However, given the public controversy surrounding the content of the plan and its environmental consequences,justification for preparing a focused EIR is likely to remain. NEXT STEPS The recommended process for proceeding with adoption of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan is presented in Figure #6. Staff estimates that it will take about one year to complete the environmental process and adopt a Plan. This is about the same length of time that it has taken to complete the environmental review process for the Marsh Street parking garage expansion. As shown in Figure #6, staff has provided for public input at the beginning of the EIR process (holding an EIR scoping meeting) and at the end of the process (setting a 60-day public review period). This level of public involvement adds time to the overall schedule. Given the public controversy associated with this project, staff does not recommend limiting the scope of public input. After public input, the scope will be developed and Staff will return to Council with a recommendation to approve the scope of work and solicit firms to perform the work. FIGURE #6: Suggested Plan Adoption Process ACTIVITY COMMENT Council Reviews Initial At its October 28ih meeting, the Council will be asked to Draft Plan: the result of this allow public input, modify the initial draft of the Plan as meeting will influence the appropriate, and direct staff to schedule a public hearing to subsequent plan adoption consider adoption of a Parking and Downtown Access Plan process. after completion of the EIR process. Given the array of public opinion of this project, staff Staff Sponsors a Public EIR recommends that a public meeting be scheduled to allow Scoping Meeting: target for individuals and groups to comment on the proposed scope of the third week in November, the focused EIR. Public input would help frame the scope 1997 before the Thanksgiving of the impact analysis for purposes of preparing the requisite break. Request for Proposals(RFP). Council Agenda Report—Parking and Downtown Access Plan Page 16 FIGURE #6: Suggested Plan Adoption Process (Continued) Council Approves RFP for Council will be asked to approve the work scope for the EIR Preparation of EIR: target and authorize the Staff and CAO to: for the second Council meeting in December or the *Distribute Request for Proposals(RFPs); Council meeting of January, 6 *Approve a contract with a Consultant to prepare the EIR; 1998. •Allocate Parking Fund revenues to pay for the EIR. EIR Consultant Begins The advent of the upcoming Holiday season will impede Work: with consultant consultant completion of proposals. Staff does not proposals due by late January, anticipate returning to the Council for approval of the early February, 1998, target Consultant's contract and requests that this authorization consultant to begin work by be provided to the CAO (see preceding step). If Council March 1, 1998. wishes to review and approve the Consultant contract, add one month to the process. Publish Draft EIR and Set This schedule provides for three months to complete the Public Review Period: analysis and prepare administrative and public drafts of target June 1. 1998 for the the EIR. Collection of data and resolution of methods of publication and circulation of analysis could extend this process. As suggested, it is an the Draft EIR for public optimistic production schedule. Although CEQA allows a review. 30-day review period, given the public attention to this project, a 60 day public review period is recommended. It is possible that more time may be needed,however. Council Meeting to Take This study session would be scheduled during the EIR's Public Input on Draft EIR: public review period(see previous step). It enables the target study session for the council and public to provide comments on the second Council meeting on accuracy and completeness of the EIR that will be July 21, 1998 or set a special responded to in writing by the consultant team and study session date. become part of the final EIR. This is an optional but a recommended step. Within this time frame, the Consultant will be required Complete Final EIR and to provide written responses to all comments received Hold First Public Hearing: during the public review period and include them in the target Council consideration "Final EIR." About 2-3 weeks are allocated for this of Final EIR and Plan for task. Additional time may be needed depending on the September 15, 1998. number and complexity of comments received. The Council must certify the Final EIR and review and consider its contents prior to approving the Final Draft of the Plan. A0 Iouncil Agenda Report: Parldng and Downtown Access Plan age 17 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Initial Draft of Parking and Downtown Access Plan (previously distributed under separate cover. Exhibit B: Letter from Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director concerning the environmental status of the draft Plan. Exhibit C: Attendance sheet fora the October 6, 1997 Coffee Klatch held at the City- County Library. Exhibit D: Implementation Cost Summary Table Exhibit E: Correspondence from individuals and organizations (available in Council Reading File) Exhibit F: Copy of Progress Report#1 and#2 (available in Council Reading File) �IIIIIIIIIIII���� �Ill � City of San Luis Obispo CommunityDevelopmentDepartment M .:..-_� ....._ �_ .__ MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O DATE: 10/17/97 RE: Environmental review for Parking and Downtown Access Plan After considering the alternative approaches for environmental review of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan, I have concluded that an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared. The Council would consider the EIR before adopting the plan. State law requires the City Council to make an environmental determination before acting on a project which could affect the environment. A plan such as the Parking and Downtown Access Plan qualifies as a "project" in this case. The need for an EIR, and an EIR's scope, are usually determined through preparation of an "initial study." However, the City may in certain cases determine that an EIR is necessary without an initial study. It will still be useful to prepare an initial study as part of the process of deciding the scope for the EIR. This task can be done by the consultant selected to do the work. The determination that an EIR is the appropriate environmental review process for the plan is based on the several factors, including a need to analyze potential impacts, the need to analyze cumulative impact, providing the best possible process for public review and comment, and providing the Council with the ability to make findings of overriding consideration should any impacts be identified that cannot be fully mitigated (as was the case with the adoption of the Circulation Element). I anticipate that the scope of the EIR for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan will be much like that for the Marsh Street Garage expansion, focusing on traffic, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, and perhaps noise. While an EIR on the plan can be no more specific than the plan's proposals for additional parking structures, it can and should examine the cumulative impacts of multiple structures (along with proposed changes to parking management). While the Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates EIR assessed cumulative downtown build-out, a specific parking strategy was not part of those elements. The "downtown concept plan" which shows parking structures schematically received a negative declaration, with the acknowledgment that the component projects which it illustrated would need further environmental review as they progressed from an urban design concept to specific forms and quantities. As you know there has been some controversy surrounding the subject of parking structures in the downtown. While public controversy alone does not require an EIR, it is a factor that bears consideration. An EIR is the best process for accommodating public review comments. 1_1b, EXHIBIT 'B' .......... D NND OWIITUWN AGES5 PI.�IN ©7 FE L fiC . Oc#ager;S, I47 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER p-i� 'Z -7 Z V e vi y 1 L4✓e,IYA I _33Y�C IR-4�.¢Iyc-4 SL-o 1Fl — `9Y� C 703 Qt / P, Cf- L, io3� cf�oY�a lyl - 26 � b3 Seto � , Nay LgV %'e 15L,01, y � ^� i C 2Q AA ^24p -71 a+ JVrv ^j �{ t! IPA�, 01 JtjL-lA JNF Cf" X14 ClIAt1d /Cbfj#�� � K(YYc-(s -7 l -1Z.4 �,eejL-oo VG kV S-= fir_ 5 -79) -lf 1 S �_ EXHIBIT 'C' �o c po 0 0 o. o 69 r �: 5v 00 0cCD pp n o c d C o 0 aHC7% :00: o E I o 0 0 of o: p c N n Otn N Q M �. 6Y v 6s 6&g:; 3 u cp 00 a+ C pp n p >y p p: •p p p0 O a. CA CDCD b E = o o E Go L G U 0. 6 m F" d¢ v 6N9 :N Q c .�. 69 lu ^ u 3 E V a C c C p OO 0 O.! y L C C p 0 0 o: 0 o p o 0 0 o = r o 0 o e _ F a O� 69 v 469 u r E c . c O O'. •7 d O C O Oti' `a cg c V N :: A W > Y '� vri wl v' Ll �3aa n 2 6s �' r S � V fq O O O y y O O O C. % COG O\; U cTi v d > h O. O N'; u u 'o E fisC c o E u C C n o E •LZ O O Oa W o o c 5 O 0 0 c0 CD =0 11 w`o t= g d CO y 'O 6g bq 6g 69 3 . � n E cc LV 10 c;d Q:. y C :y y y c C > CID bo ca 0 c x y _:c.<. .6 to.; o-E 2 . 1 .Q... cU co•O .i to OD K h•�=_ E M y ..:..1. E E F Cl -ZU EXHIBIT 'D' / MEETING AGENDA f 10-2227 ITEM # ,. San Luis Obispo Mayor and City Council 10-28-97 1 Ref; Parking I strongly support more parking space. People need to use their vehicles to get to SLO. It is the ONLY appropriate transportation. Pollution and congestion are not the result of people using their vehicles, so much as not having adequate parking. Sincerely P. Grimaud 1545 Wild Rye Way Arroyo Grande CA. F ❑ CDD DIP ❑ FIN DIR ❑ F� CHIEF MVPW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REG DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL nr.t..;)P, q? i?:;).g AnnRF RFAITY TR RM5549GNEETING AGENDA NTE /0 ITEM # OBE REAL 994 C o"Steel 9 Sm-,Lub 0(dwa Cdh build 034171 a rxi.149-00,sq 10/20/97 Mayor Allen Settle Dear Mayor Settle, Tonight the council willke d: look at the new parking plan for the downtown. As I understand it, a partinq s:tructure is being Proposed again for ]31ocK 14, a(;z-uss from he exiat q ing Palm Street garage. When the Block 14 atria( ture wasinitially PrOP030d we opposed it, alony wi' Lh other v.oter, . 1he design at that tima nearly abutted our property, leaving a f- Niz. of walkway, hardly an e5iLheLic or safe design.' Later, a redesign moved the structure away 30 uL 40 feet and allowed for ground floor ShUpb al ng a :!pleasant pedoetrian mall . At- that point we withdrew our objection5 to Ule Plan- , We Would ag-hin oppose any He-c;ign that is not sensitive to our property er;-Adams*Adobe; and the 'numerous historic Properties on the 014 AaU block, among them, the Sau r Bakery (Pier one) 994 Chorro, (origi4nally the Swiss American Aczrcci tion Acostume Capers, the Blackstone :and now and, on Palm, the Shanghai Hotel bu' ldlnql: 894 Mull_erey. (n. . :ow Kinko' s) Low building (now Pali idrcmes) -. I hope that in meeting out need; for parking, you will also keep in mind tho historic and stqijAr ;considerations, as well as C0mll1ULU1dl - p . a .QUNCIL 0 CDD DIR Yours, UICAO 13 FIN DIR PAT�f1 0 0 FIDE CHIEF 6RNEY 13-6f DIR , ,6LEERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF Alex 60 MGMT TEAM 0 REC DIR The Sauer-Adams Adobe E3 0 UTIL DIR U PERS DIR RECEIVED 0 C T 2 8 1997 1 SLO CITY COUNCIL PrCOUNCIL 0 CDD DI C'CAO 0 FIN DI CXCAO 0 FORE C 0jaI�TTORNEY p!'F+yy DI • Obispo GYCLERYJORIG D POLIC❑MG TEAM 0 REC D • • • '6 011 MDp 0 PERS MEETING AGENDA Memo DATE /0-Jap-97 ITEM # TO: John Dunn From: Mike McCluskey CC: City Council,City Attorney Date: October 28, 1997 Re: Specific recommendations for modifications tot he Parking and Downtown Access Plan I have taken the liberty to take portions of the Staff report regarding changes to the Plan that Staff felt necessary in order to make it a better document and have summarized those on the attachment. I have also included one action that is independent of the Plan but would be helpful in getting the Plan off to a good start once it is adopted. 0 Page 1 N Staff recommendations for modifications to the Draft Parking and Dow..Aown Access Plan: . Amend Action 2.2-2 as follows: The City will evaluate... ... ....and a site in the southerly portion of the downtown (possibly the Wells Fargo, Palm-Nipomo sites unless a more desirable site can be identified). Add a new policy to section 2 as follows: Policy 2.4 To meet the need for future parking structures and to avoid the use of eminent domain, the City should consider the purchase of property for those structures when they become available. Amend Policy 5.1 to read as follows: Policy 5.1 Existing Parking Fund revenues will be used exclusively to maintain and expand parking operations and repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. To the extent possible, the City will pursue grant funding to support the ongoing costs of PDR projects and activities. If grant funds are not sufficient to fully support the PDR program, then to the extent additional revenues are generated through implementation of this Plan, the added revenues may be used to fund any component of this Plan including PDR. Amend Appendix A - Section "On Street Parking Utilization" to require actual utilization surveys of curb parking rather than using tracking meter revenues generated by zone. Amend Appendix B -Section "Implementation Actions" - As follows: Replace specific time frames (i.e. Winter 1997/98) with specific time references (i.e. 1 st quarter). This allows the Plan, when adopted, to be implemented immediately. Delete bulleted items four and five from existing Summer 1998 actions and move to become bulleted items four and five in existing Winter 1997/8. Direct staff to implement the following actions during the period that the Draft Plan is undergoing environmental review: Initiate the City's Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for an 18 month trial period, monitor its performance, and amend the program as needed. Provide a copy of the City's TRIP guidelines to the County and request that it consider similar programs for its downtown work force. Enlist the help of Ride-On Transportation, as needed, to facilitate PDR activities with the County ;7i�CTING AGENDA .E of `3.97 ITEM #�� October 27 , 1997 l UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR [1P33 C��O0 ❑ FIN DIR San Luis Obispo City Council I�CAO ❑ F HIEF 990 Palm Street A}.�ORNEY W DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 nLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF hIGMT TE M ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR Dear City Council Members , ❑ PERS DIA The charm and tourist appeal of the city of San Luis Obispo will certainly not benefit from the addition of large parking structures . In fact, the downtown area would improve, both economically and aesthetically, if traffic was seriously reduced, not further encouraged. City Council Members should not be seduced by the false promise of "enhanced traffic flow" which the parking proponents insist will be the consequence of parking lot construction. On the contrary, what will result is the unpalatable state of affairs demonstrated by the "paradox of complex systems, " a theory first applied to bacteria. Numerous traffic studies have proved the validity of the theory in assessing ways of reducing congestion. To accommodate the car by providing the "temporary" solution of more parking is to encourage more traffic as the "permanent" situation. And along with increased traffic comes the inevitable decrease in air quality. According to the Oct. 25th issue of the Telegram-Tribune, the ozone level in San Luis Obispo County is as bad, or worse, than most areas of Los Angeles County. My recollection of past readings would indicate that the air pollution in some of our areas has increased by a factor of 3 in the past year! Nor does the Air Pollution Control District present the public with levels of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrate. Of course, ignorance is bliss and knowledge of the ozone level is bad enough. The effect of excessive amounts of carbon dioxide on the human system has not been given much study, but there is evidence to suggest that it-' s implicated in the 72% increase in childhood asthma. Decisions about traffic, about the future of a beautiful area that is already being ruined by excessive driving, should be very carefully made. City planners would be wise to incorporate into their present plans the mandated necessities of the future and to adhere to one of the main tenets of the Hippocratic Code, "First, do no harm. " Sincerely, M. Power Giacoletti 266 Santa Ynez Avenue R CEIVED Ios Osos , CA 93402 1�C0 ( 805 ) 528-4223 OCT 2 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL .-SAN FRANCISCO c ichitect Daniel Solomon;N.-id in San Francisco, is a leading exponent of 'Liquid vs. Gas the"New Urbanism"=a philosophy that has begun to change the sr f Models for Traffic. the American landscape in projects stretching from Florida to Californ. 11 informal but passionately driven association of architects; planners and ■ Thanks for Atheorists, the New Urbanists a'r'e united by their belief in the value of your article on traditional patterns of development and are seeking to restore or recreate the kind of reversible lanes (Street Smart, human-scaled,,pedestrian-oriented coMyngiiities that flourished in the United States in May 9). However, you should be the years before World War H aware engineers are shiftingtheir : ''' While sharply critical of postwar`patterns of growth-the..ubiquitous.tract suburbs, thinking toward traffic. Formerly, office parks and"edge citips"that.are.pi_edicafed entirely on the.arteiial highway=the the model for traffic was a"liquid," New Urbanists do'not advocate (nor ilink possible) the abolitioh of the automobile. where adding capacity relieved Instead,they seek to balance the impact of the car with other mean's.of'transportation, congestion. Now engineers are from mass transit to walking=imderstandin'g all the while,as Solomon writes,"that the starting to see traffic.as a "gas," adual diminishment.of our.. utter de endence on automobiles demands- that town where traffic volume expands to fill . P the capacity. planners understand cars.the.tt�a .lion tamer .iindeist nd lions"a " , yr " ,{ ' �- Researchers at the University of EffM a California Institute for Transports- The t.. ..,,,. tion Studies recently published the Fes.!p�]s� � i:'("err., results of their stud to fathoms'_ e' eambleSi'ty r'pf•'. .. on capacity system is re le:for ing.para"'m TratlsR optlotls. expansion projects in many Cali- doxi� e•"Traffic gridlock looms fornia cities. They found that Y..l.. ova- within one year, 60% of the new ti r �+ ;roads.;cause':rmoie'v R amid apathy, 'cutbacks," capacity was consumed with new, traffleco. on;aofles's:'Antibi�. Jan. '14:'The article overlooked or longer, trips. Within five ears °fly lead` - more+ tet dis= '. bicycling completely. This de- 90%of the capacity was consumed. e��' `"" P P ° '.:?i; t'`,;= ..•tr''i ' 1 site the fact that more trips Evidence from capacity reduc- are made by bicycle than transit tions verifies this thinking— in Sacramento County. Cycling removing capacity reduces traffic. tl AFTER A C C-(�Tflt�1 QOIA t relieves traffic congestion, cuts Collapse of the Nimitz Freeway in air pollution.and reduces road. Oakland caused 45,000 trips a day toTHE DISEGOfIpPIl1E5 gSSO�[R-tED wear and tear - all concerns disappear. After the Northridge mentioned in the voter survey. quake,and the closure of the Santa W rrvi C mz USE G iL0 k)'ft4 a fl ) While cycling is neither foi• Monica and the Antelope Valley everybody nor for all trips freeways,the air yualitywas great. . I+OtA3-DEfISCN SUBuRBq/i SQRAWI, eminently suitable for And the closure of the Central and 1 commutes and short neighbor- Embarcadero freeways in San FKE ORAtntfl&. ccriES of hood trips, the kind that create Francisco resulted in less traffic. the worst pollution.And cycling PETER JACOBSEN,PE WEALTH COMPFRED To CUNEI does not require the-tremen- Pasadena W ITH rAbRF 5 t Ahcgp T gftNpej5' dous capital and maintenance SySTL`rM5 RAO CESS -315 PERSO costs or rigid scheduling of trips needed by transit. ule gflf 1 1-pl�i t 15"t .�� It10 Ct p We need a balanced transpor-tation system,one that includes Red Cars Dexhise a A., c,. the automobile, transit, bicy- cling and pedestrians. But we ■ Cecilia Rasmussen's Jana 8 article, "70 .need to be clear about which Years Before Sinkholes, L.A. Had a Sub- I modes are the most expensive way," fails to mention the Los Angeles _ and destructive to society. We Railway.Co.'s purchase by National City need to make choices and budg- Lines,a company financed in part by Stan-': et decisions.ac accordingly. dard Oil, General Motors, Phillips.Petro- _ Walt Seifert leum, Firestone Tire & Rtibber and Mack ; :`' h^':`l '°. . `Sacramento Manufacturing. National City.Lines then systematically.dismantled the 1,164 miles .. of track that linked more than 50 Southern .. END California communities, replacing;-.the trains with buses: A lawsuit was filed by Department of Justice antitrust division against those. companies and a'number of their corporate leaders. The companies and individuals were all found guilty. But, in what was perhaps one of the - 4 greatest aberrations of justice and one of the greatest corporate rip-offs of the.cen-' tury, the companies were slapped.on the wrist and ordered to pay$5,000 fines,while the individuals were each fined$1: RENT WEISHAUS -Get, 0 , Los Angeles I. MEETING AGENDA ATE LE?-9 ITEM #= �IIIIIIII 1111111 DUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alice Loh, Chair, Cultural Heritage Committee DATE: October 28, 1997 SUBJECT: Chinatown Preservation and Cultural Heritage Center. At its September 22, 1997 meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council: 1) avoid City actions which would result in the demolition of any remaining historic resources in Chinatown; 2) preserve the historic integrity of Chinatown in developing City-owned property between Palm and Monterey Streets, in keeping with the original purposes of creating the Historic District; 3) recognize the need for a cultural heritage center in San Luis Obispo to commemorate cultural contributions in San Luis Obispo; and 4) consider the possibility of locating a cultural heritage center in the Chinatown Historic District. The discussion of a cultural heritage center was in response to a letter from Alice Loh and Margot McDonald. In the attached letter they explain the purposes of the center, and pledge to work with the City to design the facility. CHC members agree there is a need for a cultural facility which celebrates the City's cultural diversity and the many contributions made by the native Chumash people, and by Chinese, Swiss-Italian, Portuguese, Japanese and other immigrants who settled in San Luis Obispo. They believe Chinatown is an appropriate location for the center and that any future city plans in Chinatown should address this opportunity. Committee members would welcome the opportunity to explain the concept more fully at a Council meeting. cc: Community Development Director Attachment "C!L ❑CDD DIR RECEIVED i c`A ❑FIN R �' "f;0 ❑F CHIEF J� ORNEY WW DIR OCT 2 $ 997 CLERKIORIG ❑POUCE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REG DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL ❑ 0PERS DIR August 25, 1997 — - Cultural & Heritage Committee City of S.L.O.. - ---RE: A Proposal to establish a Culture Heritage Center in the:Historical_Chinatown : District within the Downtown Historical District of the City of San Luis Obispo, - _-Califomia - -_ - -- _ Dear members of CHC. In an effort to preserve local history, the City of San Luis Obispo established a . - - Chinatown Historical District within the Downtown San Luis Obispo Historical District in September 1995. Its purpose is to commemorate the early Chinese immigrants' contribution to the local community starting in the early 1870s; to preserve as much as possible the Chinese presence of the District and to reflect the historical character of . the District. In 1997, a public art project was installed.on the southwestern wall of the Palm Street_' Parking Garage, the site where early Chinese immigrants settled. The mosaic mural designed by Peter Ladochy gives further recognition to the Chinatown Historical District. In the same year, processing began of Chinese.and Mission.era artifacts- found rtifacts_found in the-district-during the excavation for the Palm Street-Patking"Garage;twelve years earlier. Physical evidence of the historical district is limited to several commercial buildings - which illustrate relevant architectural details and a permanent exhibit of archeological artifacts within the Palm Street Parking Garage. Artifacts emerging from the Palm Street Garage excavation and future artifacts from the Kozak site will not remain within the City due to a lack of adequate archival and display facilities. To reinforce the City's cultural history, we believe that a cultural heritage center should be built in the district.. The Palm Street corridor(from Santa Rosa Street in the east to Nipomo Street on the west), if developed with a cultural center, would provide an excellent opportunity for strengthening the City's civic image connecting City Hall, City/County Library, County Government Center and leading to the Mission and County Historical Museum. A proposal for a parking garage along Morro and Monterey Streets should take into consideration development of an urban edge along Palm Street that reinforces this concept.-. If oncept.- If endorsed and approved by the CHC and the City Council, we are willing to work with all the concerned and related public agencies to create a design for the Cultural Heritage Center on the Kozak Parking Lot. _ Respectfully submitted,. M4fboWcDonald,-AIA Al ce C. Loh, At&iddf, Landscape Architect ' . cETING97 AGENDA DATE lf�zS--ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 e-mail: slochamber@slochamberorg David E. Garth, President/CEO October 28, 1997 OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR C ❑ FIN DIR R"aRNEY [3 )RE CHIEFMayor Allen Settle LERKIO IG ❑ POLICE CHF City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR 990 Palm Street ❑ E3 DIR O PIERDIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: Pursuant to our recent conversation regarding the September 29, 1997, Meyer, Mohaddes &Associates, Inc., Public Hearing Draft Parking & Downtown Access Plan (the "Plan") enclosed are specific comments on the Plan. As you are aware, the Chamber had specific concerns regarding the Plan as presently drafted. You requested that we put them in writing. The enclosed comments are in addition to our September 1997 Response to the Downtown Parking and Access Study and our letter to you dated October 16, 1997 and are not intended to supersede the points contained therein. Thank you for this opportunity to share our perspective. Sincerely, sell,, Sam Blakeslee Parking Task Force Chairman TEN YEARS 0 C T 2 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ACCREDITED an m a co• = ......... 11 T.1..I'll I,a., SUGGESTED MODDIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT PARKING & DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN BY THE SAN LUIS OBIPSO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce recommends the following additions and or deletions to the September 29, 1997,Meyer,Mohaddes Associates,Inc., Public Hearing Draft Parking & Downtown Access Plan (the "Plan"). Additions are represented by red-lines and deletions by strike-throughs. Comments are in italicized type. CLARIFICATION OF EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES ACTION 3.1-4 The Chamber has advocated for a seamless regional transit system in which resources are shared and bureaucracies are minimized. The Chambers suggests that the first sentence of this action read as follows: The Ci tY will develoP a bulk discount rate for ti' a1` x '"`cza transit passes without negatively affecting transit funding. USE OF PARKING ENTERPRISE FUNDS & IN-LIEU FEES POLICY 5.1-1 In its September 1997 Position Paper, Response to the Downtown Parking&Access Study, the Chamber supported the policy that the parking enterprise fund would only be used to fund measures resulting in the construction and maintenance of parking spaces. In accordance with this existing policy, the Chamber suggested that Policy 5.1-1 be modified as follows: Existing Parking Fund revenues will be used exclusively to maintain and expand parking operations and repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. To the extertt additional _.._..._____ may be used to fund arty eoA TLpenent of thds Plart including PDR POLICY 5.1-2 Higher in lieu fees make it cost effective for businesses to purchase space outside of the downtown core, on its periphery, and create urban sprawl. The Chamber is a long-time advocate of compact urban form and therefore suggests that Policy 5.1-2 read as follows: Amend the resolution establishing the in-lieu fee program to allow annual adjustments to the fee rate based on CPI changes and updake eurrent rates PROM As presented in the Plan, Policy 5.1-1 contains four possible policy options. The Chamber recommends the adoption of option 1 with the addition of subsection 1c. Which should read as follows: la. Parking Fund revenues will be used exclusively for the physical expansion of the parking supply and shall not be used for parking demand reduction programs. lb. The City will pursue grant funding for the initial implementation and on-going operation of the PDR measures included in this Plan. If grant funding is inadequate, the City will consider committing General Fund or other revenues to ensure the continued viability of the PDR program. 1c T�,e C;ty and Qther affected ageneses(� a r�g� a b�a�s t sy�..eitis) 4v�11 hook kor csppo�tunsttes fo eonsaIxdate exist€ng o�exfappg fraiasptrtatiorsysteiar�s �th the guar ofcreas�ng utzlixtxts ©f �1tBrna�ive trai�.snnortatiort$ stems ltd low2nnQ't�yerall �r-��d.�;co�ts,; avngs from tQnsalydai�an effprts should be used.:tod fuer TT)R esT TIMING FOR PALM II APPENDIX A The Palm II and Court Street projects are critically linked from a planning, land use, circulation and parking optimization perspective (e.g., conversion of Court Street; repair work on the Higuera Street Bridge, traffic on Monterey Street, etc.). They should not be impeded by application of"Implementation Trigger" criteria. The Chamber therefore recommends reclassifying the Palm II project in Table 1 as a "Immediate Action" rather than a "Near Term Action". IMPLEMENTATION TRIGGERS Currently there is a shortage of convenient customer parking in the downtown area. The parking supply implementation triggers, as presently constituted, could prevent improvements to the current parking situation. The parking supply implementation thresholds should be revised as follows: 1) Two of the three Parking Expansion Component Triggers need to be meet before action is initiated rather than all three. 2) The On-Street Parking Revenue Trigger should be at or above 90% of measured levels in 1998 to include adjustments to account for potential reductions in the amount of available metered curb spaces due to additional bike lanes, handicap spaces, etc. 3) The Parking Structure Utilization Trigger should occur when 70% of the total available parking structure spaces are occupied for 4 hours or 90% are occupied for 2 hours. The measurement period for this occupation should not be restricted to the least busy months of the year, but rather should reflect a wide range of utilizations (i.e.,February,June and October). 4) The threshold should be adjusted downward if significant increases occur in parking levels in residential areas which are not included in the Cordon Count Trigger. MEETING AGENDA TE Wzai-27 ITEM #= October 28, 1997 MEMORANDUM OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIA pvo ❑ FIN DIR �;A ❑ FARE CHIEF TO: Council Colleagues �I iORNE'( r5' W DIR i`�y� ®'CLERKIORIG [3 POLICE CHF FROM: Dave Romero ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ E3UTIL DIR 1-2 ❑ PERS DIR SUBJECT: Proposed Changes in Parking Plan a) Pg. 18 Policy 5.1 - Eliminate, and substitute 1 a of pg. 19 Parking fund revenues are needed for expansion of parking structures. b) PSC• 21 Change Parking Demand Monitoring locations to: near Santa Rosa on the NE and near Nipomo on the SW.. Include City Hall and Creamery lots. c) Pg. A-2 Eliminate "Triggers." Let future Council decide when parking structures are needed. d) Pg. A-3 Eliminate "targets." They are artificial. e) Pq. A-6 Eliminate last line of third paragraph. 7:00-9:00 am is not a peak hour for traffic in downtown. f) Pg. A-6 Eliminate exclusions and the specific dates listed in fifth paragraph. Staff should use judgment. g) P-q. A-7 Eliminate exclusions in second paragraph. Staff should use judgment. h) Pg. A-8 Table 1 - Eliminate "triggers." Too restrictive. 1) Pg. A-11 Table 2 - Eliminate "targets." Artificial. Eliminate action for specific purchase of sites after Palm II. There are too many unknowns to determine at this time which will be the priority. I would rather see direction to purchase selected sites if they become available. i) Pa. A-13 Table 3 - Eliminate targets. They are artificial. k) Pg. B-2 Eliminate all references to PDR being financed in any way from the Parking Fund. 1) Pg. B-3 Fall 1998 - First order of work to encourage more bicycle use should be determined where and in what manner bike lanes should be located. m) Pg. B-3 Winter 1998199 - Before we create additional bikeways we should determine that bikeways already installed are effective. DR:ss 14EETING AGENDA ATE /o-z g 9 7 ITEM # NCIL Q ]DIR lC 0 Q �ORNEY C9-CLERK/ORIG ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ October 28, 1997 ❑ Q R ®/ ❑ U ❑ P Dear Council, I've taken a couple of hours to do a quick review of City Staffs "Parking and Downtown Access Plan." Please consider my attached comments and recommendations for any help they can provide. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, 4Rich . erris, Manager Cheap Thrills Records RECEIVED 0 C T 2 9 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL CHEAP THRILLS RECORDS 553 HIGUERA ST.,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93401 (805)544-0686 FAX 543-3938 , ♦ d BIG PROBLEMS with Parking & Downtown Access Plan Problem: Evaluating only the days of lowest parking demand and ignoring the days of peak demand make this plan ridiculous and intentionally deceptive. Saturday is peak retail day and the day Paso Robles, Atascadero, and other outlying working folk shop and 'ui doe S.L.O.'s parking. Recommendations: Saturday must be a day used in both "trigger" elements and in the counting of traffic. (Obviously the staff who wrote this report are either completely out of touch with the realities of downtown and retailing orrthey are intentionally directing us to grid-lock!) Either way, to proceed with"a plan this flawed is not good business. Problem: Physical street spaces and their availability (or lack of availability) during peak time is not considered. It is the visual availability on the street that most influences the perceived parking in S.L.O. Recommendations: 1. Counting and monitoring street availability needs to be included in the triggers for growth in parking. 2. Doubling or tripling the quantity of thirty minute meters in the downtown area could supply needed short term drop-off and pick up. spaces, and also create visually available parking and the accompanying mental view of the easy parking. (Nowhere are more thirty minute meters mentioned in this parking plan.) Problem: PDR efforts are unproved, unreliable, and expensive as methods to remove chronic employee parking. Enforcing overtime parking is the only cost effective way to remove chronic employee parking and "create" more spaces, and, the ONLY proven way to "create" parking without building lots. Recommendations: 1. If we actually put the required effort into the overtime parking enforcement it will likely result in a 10% or better loss in ticket revenue. (Ask Keith Opalewski on this). The figures on all the charts would need to be adjusted to compensate for this. 2. If overtime enforcement is to be effective and a positive force downtown, concern must be shown so that we do not unnecessarily ticket actual customers who have been shopping or dining and feeding their meters appropriately Solution: Chalking tires only between 9:30 and 11:30. Write tickets for meter feeding between 3:00 and 4:30. This way an actual customers would usually not be ticketed and employees who park all day would be., Problem: a'. Most parking y-,ages are at north end of town, yet Ll ie greatest potential for commercial growth is at the Nipomo end of Higuera. Recommendations: 1. The counting area should extend to Nipomo street! 2. The Wells Fargo location (or the better location on existing city lots at Nipomo & Higuera to Nipomo & Monterey) would help S.L.O. grow commercially and be less expensive than the Fremont area. Problem: Bicycles and Bicycle lanes are great but they do not effect in any significant measurable way the parking problem. More bicycle paths without evaluating results (which seem to be near zero) make little sense when other programs require evaluation of the cost effectiveness and must show actual results. (If we want more bike lanes, fine, but don't delude anyone by connecting bike lanes with a parking solution. Bike lanes generally remove parking!) Recommendations: ' Get a real bike plan if you want long term results. Our plan doesn't focus on grades 1-12 and therefore is a plan that misses the only real opportunity for changing the transportation habits of S.L.O. residents. (To make lifestyle changes you must start young. The current bike plan is actually a coke in terms of its potential to make the kind of difference that bikes could make). Our current bike plan will unlikely ever contribute significantly to any of the issues it was promised to address. Solution: Reform the Bike Committee, this time selecting a broad cross-section of the community (teachers, merchants, parents), instead of the previous group of activist, advocates and government employees. Problem: PDR's comparison of actual construction costs to imaginary theoretical results of PDR efforts that have never been obtained by any PDR is silly, insincere and misleading. Recommendations: Require advocates of PDR measures to show actual statistical measured results in other, or better yet in similar cities. (Not Davis, Ca., or Boulder, Co. towns which fundamentally are not at all similar to S.L.O. - superficially all three towns have a university and activist liberal communities. After this, all similarity stops and the fundamental differences make Davis and Boulder totally unsuitable for fair and honest comparisons to S.L.O. Only after results that have been actually achieved are studied and evaluated should additional PDR measures be funded and even then not with the parking fund money. Problem: Parking plan totally fails to evaluate parking on any but the slowest and most insignificant days. Recommendations: 1. Farmers Market Thursdays traffic patterns should make Thursday ineligible for average traffic events and comparisons. 2. Separate sections of the parking study should look at Thursday night as typical of traffic for special events. A special event that happens weekly (Farmers Market),!plus the assorted other special events that happen throughout the year makes S.L.O.'s event parking needs worthy of at least consideration rather than totally being ignored. 3. Farmers Market, Special Events, fifty-two Saturdays, and the twenty peak days of Christmas means the parking demand evaluation will intentionally omit the eighty-five days of the most intense parking needs. (Instead, this plan focuses on the three slowest, lowest and most mundane days of parking demand. Conclusion: This plan is conceptually and factually flawed. Its intentional understated approach cannot possibly accurately reflect or measure S.L.O.'s parking needs. This plan appears to have been dominated by opponents of parking. By cloaking their views in a lengthy document pretending to help the parking problem they have delivered a document that if left unchanged can only result in institutionalizing our chronic parking shortage and seriously hindering all future attempts to solve it. This entire plan essentially puts all power in the hands of the staff who choose when to count, how to interpret counts, and further are charged with them telling the council what it all means. Not a single person who authored this plan seems to posses any knowledge of our downtown and traffic. If they do have the knowledge and expertise they are using it to delay and reduce parking. A plan that considers parking demand on the slowest days rather than the eighty-plus days of peak demand is deliberately trying to keep parking in S.L.O. a big problem! Please get a real plan designed by people who have some knowledge of parking demand. Only the clueless or devious would choose to evaluate parking on the days of lowest demand. To measure demand you.must look to the days of peak demand which must include Saturday. Sincerely, Richard W. Ferris, Manager Cheap Thrills Records James P.Sargen V 805-781-3838 UnIMN @ 11:46 AMEETNIG PQ nE f��l ,ATE a��1 �-9� IITLEM #Ulf r Joan and Jim Sargen 570 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel 781.3838 Fax 544-2742 email jpsgn@aol.com rUA CI! O CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ F Kg CHIEF RNEY �W DIR October 28, 1997 K/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF TEAK ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Mayor Settle and members of the City Council: I have written previous letters regarding our families views on parking and on enhancing the quality of the downtown. We believed enough in the downtown, that upon moving here we made a major investment in property and business in the downtown. Tonight the City Council reviews the study that was conducted as a part of expedited approval of the expansion of the Marsh Street garage. The study is a product of a process that was disconnected from those who have a direct interest in the downtown, merchants, property owners and most particularly the customers who frequent the downtown. Former Mayor Ken Schwartz has provided you with a letter outlining his troughs. On arriving in town in the early nineties, we became acquainted with Ken Schwartz and Pierre Rademacher and found common ground with their concepts on the evolution of our downtown into an exciting center for the community. A downtown that we would be proud to share with our friends and neighbors in adjoining communities and the many visitors who we are fortunate to frequent our community. We are in favor of Ken's points and stress that the need for a Marsh street expansion is crystal clear. The City should also move forward with Palm II, but only if it includes the multiuse features that allow the structure to be used 24 hours a day. The City should immediately commence an EIR on this use. A third parking structure in the Nipomo street area should be constructed as needed. We believe that the purpose of structured parking is to remove cars from circulating on our streets in search of parking. Thus the streets and sidewalks become pedestrian friendly. Gradually, on street parking lots should be converted to commercial or public use and new parking structures built to replace the lost spaces. Downtown then can fulfill its promise. The study indicates that triggers be used to evaluate future need. That's ok as long as the triggers accurately reflect the need. In our many years in developing regional shopping centers and mixed used projects, parking need was based on a formula that dropped the peak twenty days, and then averaged two weekdays and Saturday and Sunday. We think a similar practice would work well here, as it reflects the times that working women, including working moms and tourists would need access to parking. RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL James P.Sargen It 805-781-3838 M10128197 (911:46 AM D314 These are the customers with the least flexibility in determining hours of use and those who would least benefit from or be receptive to transportation alternatives. When it comes to alternatives, our family in its projects in the Bay Area had a strong commitment to offering the public attractive choices. Our experience is that alternatives work best when joined to major employers in the area. In San Luis Obispo the largest employers are mainly government and the two private hospitals. But when the focus is placed on government setting the example, those in power back away from dealing with their own employees. Instead, the experiment is foisted on the very small and increasing pressured private sector. Politics usually result in those who have the least power, being the subject of governments grand experiments. In this instance the merchants in the downtown have little to gain and much to loose if the Council chooses to experiment by restricting new parking and taking parking dollars to fund experiments. Many of these merchants are not wealthy people and many have their entire net worth, outside their home, tied up in their business. These are the people are already taking a risk in operating their own business and although times are better than several years ago, competition with other Centers and Cities is increasing. They do not need to have you increase their.risk. At previous hearings, some speakers extolled the virtue of "behavior modification." Recycling is raised as an example of how people's behavior can be changed through constructive effort. Recycling was not very successful, until recycling was brought to each persons front door step and when people no longer had to segregate their. garbage. Home pickup is extremely expensive. In Europe recycling is focused on neighborhood collection centers. Less is collected, but what is collected, is at a much lower cost. If home collection would be eliminated, how many people would revert back to taking it to recycling centers? If behavior modification works, why do we have an increase in smoking, especially with younger people, who have been the target of years of advertising and education? Yesterday a study was released indicating that in 1993, 57% of the public equated a low fat diet as important for their health. Each year since the number has declined, so that in 1997 43% of the people favor a healthy low fat diet. I am sure if the City would offer a curb to curb alternative, that delivered people to their destination within a 15 minute range of their drive time, a significant percentage would choose the option. But at what cost? What about good old car pooling. Drive 101 at commute time and see how many one person cars are on the road. Where are many of these cars going, to government offices all over the San Luis Obispo metro area. Want to get people to try alternatives, try setting the example yourselves. Others may then follow. Yours truly, Joan and Jim Sargen 18+u nvLIvun SATE io 2-2- 29 ITEM # council memoizanbum S. l October 27, 1997 TO: City Council UNCIL 13 CDD 0 ❑ F 0 ❑ F� FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic�/ ®-C COORN RIG ❑2-fCE ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ R SUBJECT: Parking and Downtown Access Plan-Plan vs. Study ❑ ❑ U ❑ P Of late there has been considerable discussion whether the Parking Plan should be appropriately regarded by the City as a plan or a study. The purpose of this brief memo is to advocate for a plan. What you have when you approve a plan is an action program for moving into the future. What you get when you complete a study is some data collection and suggestions, which are not in the form of a plan and usually not adopted. The stereotype relative to governmental studies is that they often become the classic bookcase dust collector. Over the last two years, we have expended a great amount of effort on the part of many, and a substantial amount of money, to bring this contentious and argument-producing issue into clearer focus, as a basis for decision and action. I'm not arguing whether this particular plan is near perfect or partially flawed. It is the purpose of the hearing before the Council to accept testimony and suggestions for improving the plan, and after City Council consideration, to define a plan which will then be subjected to a focused Environmental Impact Report. What I am arguing for is that we produce a medium-to-longer term plan for the reduction and/or accommodation of automobiles in the downtown so that we are in a position to take meaningful action towards the goals we select. In the days before we had an updated Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Parks and Recreation Element, a Downtown Concept Plan, or an Information Technology Master Plan (just to name a few), we were often paralyzed into a state of inaction and argument without resolution. This is because there was no agreed-upon or approved policy document which told us what we should be doing or in what direction we should be heading. With a study, we have a consultant's collection of data, which without adoption as a plan, will have no repute or authority, which data will quickly become outdated, and in time (if not virtually from the beginning) will have almost no value as a guide to decision making. In the more distant past,we as a City have been down that route. RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL With an adopted plan, the Council will have committed itself, we will have adopted a portion of the policy fabric of the City, and we will have a definite plan of action for the future. We can, therefore, reduce, if not eliminate, the interminable argument at the policy level. We can also avoid forcing the staff to bring every action step, no matter how small, to the City Council for determination before proceeding to the next step. An adopted plan states and proclaims to the community what our public purpose and intent is, and gives the staff definite marching orders and a performance standard to judge for effectiveness. Over the years that I have been with the City, despite changes in membership, the Council has prided itself on having the courage to hammer out policy and then operate from a policy framework. This helps to overcome the emotion of the moment and honors our commitment to others. It reduces the arbitrary and the capricious and embraces the carefully formulated and fully considered. Government is often accused of a lack of credibility, of an inability to act, of obscuring rather than straightforwardly committing. This has not been our style in San Luis Obispo. Consistent with our spirit and tradition, let's make this plan, as we correct its shortcomings, another guide towards our future. Then all parties will know, whether the plan in their perception nearly perfect or partially flawed,what we're about and why we're doing what we're doing. No plan is ever perfect or ever permanent because people and situations are always changing. Any plan must be periodically reviewed and changed to better conform to new circumstances, and to the needs and desires of those who are then in authority. However, experience has shown that it is better to proceed on the basis of an adopted plan, and to modify and improve an existing plan,rather than to start the planning process from ground zero. Obviously, I'm admitting to more than a proclivity, but, on an overall basis, the City has been very well served by the Council's long-standing stated desire to proceed from adopted policy. MEETING AGENDA .TE i o-z T-9? ITEM # October 27, 1997 CQUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR C11 ❑ FIR' HIEF RNEY DIR 0 .0 CERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Mayor Allen Settle ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR City Hall ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle: If city government would get out of downtown and look around the areas close to downtown they would realize there are no on-street spaces that are underutilized. There is day-long parking on every street and this practice is moving closer and closer to more of the residential areas. At times on Buchon Street (770) I an unable to back my car out of my driveway as cars 'have blocked my way - space for 1 car and 2 cars have jammed in. It' s time to implement "Resident Parking Only" on most of the residential streets close to the downtown area. If people can park .- thout feeding parking meters they will do it. Plans for a parking sUructu-re should include s parking district to protect residential neighborhoods. 7%o one is being sensitive to the community needs! Sincerely, �7l Dora L. Harter (I•:rs. 770 Buchon Street - overburdened with other area cars San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 xc : Bill Roalman Dave Romero Kathy Smith Dodie Williams RECEIVED 0 C T 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ATE /0-2-L ITEM # Cf�:AO ❑ CDD DIR f'C9 ❑ FIN DIR fcYA ❑ FIRE CHIEF 6�W DIRCL ❑ POLICE CHF 3346 Barranca Court ❑ M ❑ REC DIRSan Luis Obispo ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR CA 93401 ❑ PERS DIR October 25, 1997 RECEIVED Councilperson Do'die Williams SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL OCT 2 7 1991 City Hall SLO CITY COUNCIL At the EIR hearing earlier this and Craig Anderson and Eugene Jud as being "totally opposed to any parking garage." I ' ll speak for myself in this letter, but note that this misinterprets and mischaracterizes our position on the issue. Just half-hour before you made that statement, I reinterated in my public com- ments that I am NOT opposed to a parking garage on the periphery of the down- town core. As it is very difficult to have meaningful dialogue if people do not understand eachother's ideas and positions, allow me to take this opportunity to clarify: Although I am not persuaded by the consultant' s report that there is a parking "crisis" in the downtown (see the downtown interviews in table 18 of the con- sultant' s early report in which two-thirds of the public saw no off-street parking crisis) , I am willing to plan for the future. I have publicly de- clared in several meetings that I would not oppose the placement of a garage in conformity with the land-use element of the General Plan --as required by law. City-owned property north of the Shell station, Palm II, and the growingly important(but neglected) area near Nipomo and points south are three very accept- able garage locations. One garage at either of these locations would NOT DRAG OR ATTRACT TRAFFIC INTO THE HEART OF THE DOWNTOWN. The Marsh street location, by contrast could not be worse, for it will continue to funnel cars toward a single huge parking target, repeatedly clogging the surrounding streets in ways that cannot possibly be cared: -Bandaids can be attempted but the streets are simply not made for that kind of congestion. I hear much talk about how the neighborhoods are being congested by parkers-7' V.by the same people who tell us that people won' t walk 3-4 blocks if a garage is put on the periphery. Since people are walking from the neighborhoods, they also will be walking from the periphery. People love walking where streets are free and active. If the downtown is spoiled by traffic and smog, there won't be the draw that now propels commercial activity in city center. We have a marvelous downtown, but it won't last if we smother it with added traffic and congestion. The way to solve this dilemma is to spread the traffic so there are several garage targets, rather than concentrating it in one direction. And TDM is very important to accomplish this. But TDM cannot be put in as an afterthought. It needs a head- start, and I ' ll be glad to discuss this at any time. Finally, I .disagree that the new supermarket malls are neighborhood convenience stores." 'An inspection of these giant malls reveals that they are selling hundreds and perhaps thousands of items that compete directly with the downtown. Each new mall just slices the pie .thinner, and the BIA has told me that they agree with me on this point. We can solve a lot of problems if we just listen to eachother and try to. avoid mis- perceptions of differing views. I come to council because I care about the city and I spend a lot of hours thinking about how to make a better future. Respectfully, Ira Winn .u.i MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL IR CD]DIA i E 0r 2s� L ITEM # ; O FI Er AO ❑ F �_ORNEY W CLERKIORIG ❑ PO ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REOctober 23, 1997 ❑ ❑ UT ❑ PE Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members, The council seems to be overlooking the most important aspect of this proposed parking structure! We already have traffic problems caused by the first one--so how are you going to make sure that traffic doesn't end up filtering through our neighborhoods? We already do more than our share of helping the downtown and shouldn't be subjected to more traffic which would just about make our neighborhood a freeway. Enough is enough. You all said you cared about preserving neighborhoods, now prove it. Either show us how cars are going to be prevented from darting through our neighborhood or find another location for the parking garage. Sincerely, v RECEIVED OCT Z 7 1996 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ❑ CDD `TE 10-Zg-`1 ITEM # ❑ FIN D❑ FSE CHIEF �'PW DIR [r!:AO ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR October 23, 1997 ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle, You haue often said that you care about neighborhoods and the quality of life of the residents of this community. Well, the proposed Marsh Street parking structure is going to put my neighborhood ouer the edge. Instead of adding to our problems you should be helping us reduce the amount of driue-through traffic that we already haue. That's what was promised in the circulation element...that you would monitor traffic and take action when traffic leuels got to the limit for our residential streets. Well, here you haue Pacific Street with more cars on it than it should haue. Hnd what does the consultant propose doing? Well, just rename the street and make it a class higher! You used our taK money to haue someone aduise you to just "cop put"? That's like saying to someone who is ouerweight that they don't haue to work on reducing, that you'll just "readjust" the medical guidelines! Changing the name doesn't change the reality. You are consciously shifting the problem onto the Old Town Neighborhood. We need two things. One, show how the cars will not be able to use our neighborhood for driue-through patterns. Don't.just say you are going to put in a stop light, that's simply not good enough. Secondly, we need a parking district so that the downtown employees stop using our homes as their parking lot. Sincerely, 7i y . �- 93 �0/ RECEIVED OCT 2 7 1996 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA [eCAO NCIL ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FINDIR E CHIEF )ATE 'Z1�ZITEM # RNEY PW DIR KIORIG ❑ POLICE CHFT TEAM ❑ REC DIROctober 23, 1997 ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle, You haue often said that you care about neighborhoods and the quality of life of the residents of this community. Well, the proposed Marsh Street parking structure is going to put my neighborhood ouer the edge. Instead of adding to our problems you should be helping us reduce the amount of driue-through traffic that we already haue. That's what was promised in the circulation element...that you would monitor traffic and take action when traffic leuels got to the limit for our residential streets. Well, here you haue Pacific Street with more cars on it than it should haue. Rnd what does the consultant propose doing? Well, just rename the street and make it a class higher! You used our taK money to haue someone aduise you to just "cop out"? That's like saying to someone who is ouerweight that they don't haue to work on reducing, that you'll just "readjust" the medical guidelines! Changing the name doesn't change the reality. You are consciously shifting the problem onto the Old Town Neighborhood. We need two things. One, show how the cars will not be able to use our neighborhood for driue-through patterns. Don't just say you are going to put in a stop light, that's simply not good enough. Secondly, we need a parking district so that the downtown employees stop using our homes as their parking lot. Sincerely, 1 �`f S" v oma► © v , Cly X1.3 q0 l RECEIVED 0 C T 2 7 1996 SLO CITY COUNCIL i�tEETING 2$-9 AGENDA • 0' 'L O CDD DIR 0 FIN DIR DATE I0 7 ITf rE CHIEF ]hof PW DIR D3'ELERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF 0 MGMT TEAM 0 REC DIR 0 ober 17, 1997 0 0 UTIL DIR to: Mayor Allan Settle an ❑ PERS DIR Council from: Ira Winn Subject: Fallacies in thinking about the parking garage situation that cloud issues that otherwise might be more easily resolved. Following are paired statements reflecting logical inconsistencies that I have carefully recorded at city council meetings on the subject of parking and garages: a. We are agreed that we.wish to maintain the pedestrian character of central downtown. We need to build Marsh street so more shoppers can drive downtown. b. People won't park on the downtown periphery because they don't want to walk any distance into the core. People are causing a problem for surrounding neighborhoods by parking way out and walking into town. c Parking garages do NOT attract or cause new traffic. The reason we need new garage space is to attract new customers to the downtown. d. The law requires that the Council be consistent with the General Plan. We can bypass the General Plan guidepost on new parking garages by making a "judgment call" to the effect that the new construction is mostly on the Pacific avenue side rather than the Marsh street entrance side. e. We have to clearly explain to the public how this garage will benefit them. We'll double traffic on Pacific avenue by redesignating it a "collector street." f. The EIR carefully analyses all the likely problems and how to mitigate them. How much idling engines from increased traffic backup will increase air pollu- tion "needs to be studied." g. Parking garages do NOT cause or attract new traffic. We built the Palm Street garage despite warnings it would likely stand empty, but people just were drawn to it. Build the garage, and the public will come. h. The Marsh street garage expansion has been found by our experts to be the best possible site. We haven't taken a comparative look at all the sites because city council told us to go foward and assume Marsh street as a given. i. The Marsh street addition is a "less than significant" esthetic impact on downtown. Joined to the existing garage, it will become the largest building in the downtown and will require a variance because of excessive height. j. The new garage will not greatly increase the traffic burden around the area. 75 percent of the 3475 newly generated trips daily will impact the area adjacent to the (Marsh street) garage. (EIR 5.2.1) k. The city council must be guided by the larger public interest. The parking garage proponents and downtown business interests have put a lot of money into the Marsh street proposal, so we can't let them down now. And a final misperception: The idea that the city can go on building parking gar- ages, while slowly phasing in some TDM (transportation demand management) runs counter to all that is known about behavioral change. People will not tend to break a long established pattern so long as the habitual way is primarily reinforced. (e.g.: You don't stop smoking while stockpiling cigarettes. TDM needs to be given head-start emphasis in the initial phase of transportation planning. It needs to take root, and the public get used to alternative transportation modes. Otherwise TDM will be largely ignored and the critics will. be quick to say that it doesn't work. Let's avoid that kind of self-fulfil.ling prophecy. To avoid that pitfall, the city needs to implement TDM very soon and long before the opening of a new garage. We have the golden 'opportunity.if we act now. Face it: The Downtown Concept Plan is badly flawed and in need of reconstruction. RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1996 -Ira Winn Re: Inconsistencies in the Arguments of Parking Garage Proponents Arising in -- Public Hearings , SLO City Council, October 21, 1997 1) Gara a location within commercial core : Location of the Marsh Street ex- pansion is a direct contradiction of t e Land Use Element of the General Plan, 1994: "Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core." The parking management plan says: "Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commerical core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities." ARGUMENT: The commercial core is defined as stretching from Palm street to Pac.i.fic, west to east. The north-south axis is incorrectly defined as stretching from Osos to Broad. Anyone who knows downtown SLU—knows that very important stores and pedestrian areas are located both south of Broad street and north of Osos, and this matter need correctionby redrawing the core to the correct north-south boundaries. As to Marsh street garage expansion: All the entrances to both new and old garage are on Marsh, well within the commercial "off-limits zone." While most new construc- tion will occur on the Pacific street side, it all connects as one single garage. It is specious argument to conclude that the expansion is outside the pedestrian-com- mercial zone; its placement is intrusive and violates the required legal consistency with the General Plan. Traffic backup will inevitably occur from the enlarged gar- age to feeder streets between Higuera and Marsh, and thus the expansion threatens the ambiance of the downtown. This site should have been ruled out of order two years ago. A bad mistake in letting it get this far should not now be made holy writ. The proper action is to recognize the error and move on. 2) The ob ctive of parking garages in downtown SLO: Garage proponents have long made the case that the downtown economy is moribund because the lack of parking drives people away. New parking garage space, it is argued, will revive the down- town and allow conversion of surface lots to buildings as well as draw people out of parking in surrounding neighborhoods. Arguments: a) Council-members and garage proponents clearly stated at.the meeting that parking garages do not draw in new vehicular traffic. If this is so (and I believe it is not so), then why build any garage? This contradictory argument tells the public that we need more garages to improve the downtown economy, but that no new people will be coming downtown. In other words, the new garages will simply shift people from surface lots and residential streets? That is a very expensive way to keep running in place. Further, if the goal is simply shifting people around, there are much simpler and cheaper ways to accomplish this by park and rides, shuttles, raising fees on Marsh garage during rush hours etc. b) The downtown of SLO is not doing so bad economically, with over six percent growth over last year. Yet, there are vacant stores and it could do better. Why not simply experiment and close 3-4 parking lots to test the theory that commer- cial developers would rush in if only there were spaces to build. Reasonable peo- ple do not first commit $5 million to building a garage on the theory that it will release parking lots to waiting building interests. We need some proof. c) There is great merit in spreading parking rather then concentrating it in a few closely spaced garages. When there are multiple parking target, traffic tends not to get clogged in the same funnel. And one side of downtown does not get flooded with cars, which ruins the pedestrian ambiance. d) People want to park near their destination? If you ask people their preference, of course most will agree. But it depends how the question is raised. "Would you be willing to walk 3-4 blocks in order to help prevent traffic conges- tion and smog in downtown SLO?" --will also bring a heavy affirmative response. Unfortunately, this kind of questioning was never pursued in the Meyer, Mohaddes study. e) Is theYe really a parking crisis in the downtown? Look at Table 18 of the consultant's preliminary report: In random polls downtown, 73 percent said there is sufficient off-street parking weekends (61% weekdays) "always" or "most days"; only 13 percent (29% weekdays) responded seldom or never. Figure B-9 shows an average peak hour garage load at 70 percent (not 90 percent), And close to 1000 empty parking spaces downtown on an average busy day. This is not an argument 2. against having a new garage, but it is a signal to go slow and figure things out in terms of size, eccellent location in keeping within the general plan, and recognizing that demand is elastic, that parking behavior can be made flexible with the right facilities and incentives. That is what traffic demand management is all about. Thus, it is incorrect to say that "we" are against all parking garages. What "we" want is a balanced transportation approach that does not threaten the ambi- ance of our downtown. and does not commit us to over-reliance on a single form. Just pouring cacrete and stacking the downtown with garages is a sure way to cement an inflexible future. For no one really knows what the next 20 years will bring, but we do know we don't want to imitate the patterns of spywl and fast growth that have ruined so many towns. 3. The regional shopping factor: Every community around us is building shopping malls on the same theory: try to "steal" retail sales (and thus sales tax receipts) from its neighbors. We in SLO are playing the same game, and while we tout the downtown on one day, we are building shopping malls at the periphery that cannot help but draw business from the downtown. Contrary to the argument put forth at Council, these new malls (Marigold; Food 4-Less, Albertson's) are not just neigh- borhood convenience stores. These are giant parking lot enterprises with SUPER- markets and stores that do compete with many items in the downtown. Further, with a WalMart headed for Arroyo Grande (their retribution to us), it will soon become impossible to argue that these trends are mainly local SLO convenience. Part of the problem is the horrendous design of these approved malls, with parking lots that work against a pedestrian ambiance, and nothing (e.g.:fountains, gardens, outside seating) on a human scale. This teaches people exactly the wrong lesson, and dehumanizes the city and scatters it. Nothing in the EIR deals with the issues of human scale and humane living. The EIR and the consultant's report are true technocratic approaches to robotized living. They lack wide focus.and.value questions. If we want people to come to San Luis Obispo, to revive their humanity as well as our economic vitality, we have to end our obsessions and rethink the ways to maintain a pedestrian dynamic. With the above shopping center factor operating, and despite huge expenditures of money, no one will gain. The pie will stay the same and the slices will get smaller. 4. Alternative ora a sites: The Environmental Protection Act requires that an alterna ive e s u ie as a way of comparison to an projected project plan.. The alternative site chosen (Union Bank) clearly violates the General Plan admonition against new parking garages within the central business zone. When asked why they chose a comparison project that is clearly in violation, city staff finally came up with the answer that they had studied downtown peripheral sites such as Santa Rosa street, Palm II, and Nipomo area and had concluded that these would not work as they created more problems than Union Bank. This conclusion by the "experts", as a Councilman phrased it, raises an important question: Since Meyer, Mohaddes is recommending Palm II, there is a direct conflict in the two studies. The pro- ducers of the EIR for Marsh Street are telling us that if we don't build a garage within the commercial zone, in violation of the General Plan, we have no real alternative sites. I find this very hard to believe. Choosing the Union Bank site as the comparison project was likely done to make the Marsh Street expansion look comparatively good. But this leaves the public and Council in the dark as to the peripheral sites. We need exact reasons for their rejection. I strongly suggest that a full EIR on Palm II be made a required priority before any further action (other than outright rejection of the Marsh street addition is taken by Council. 5) Traffic congestion: Predictions about the growth of downtown traffic over the next 10-15 years are based on projections by the traffic consultants. These are extrapolations of square footage growth in SLO of approximately one percent per year. Even though this is an accepted method of estimating volume of traffic growth, it presents precarious risks. Obviously it has been used as a measuring stick in cities that have choked with traffic despite the predictions of traffic engineers as well as cities or areas that have toed the estimated mark. The system seems to work well in relatively stable and homogeneous areas such as suburbs or static towns. But towns such as SLO, which are actively seeking development and planning garages to attract and accommodate it present a different problem, especially for the downtown. Obviously square footage-based projections do not take account of spurts in visitor traffic from outside. Tourist volume and at- tracting outside people to our town is an avowed goal. It makes far more sense to project traffic volume and congestion from the number of parking slots available and from visitation trends carefully monitored. Using the latter approach, traffic volume in SLO could rise 5-9 percent per year, creating an untenable situation. We better think about that. d OUNCIL O CDD DIR PO ❑ FIN DIR MNG AGENDA OC ] SAE CHIEF r� /0729-q? ffEM #1 RNEY W DIRRKIORIG ❑ FGL!r : t� M TEAM ❑ Rcr, r:3 100 ❑ UTiL DiR 11 ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, October 19, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle and Councilpersons Bill Roalman, c� Dave Romero,Kathy Smith and Dodie Williams 6n Re: Parking and Access Report Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Martha and I going to be'down under' during your October 28 hearing on this very,very important matter. Here are my thoughts;Pm sorry that they are lengthy. Nothing is simple. I think that most of you know that I have been a student of cities for most all of my adult life and that during my public life on our Planning Commission, City Council, the Downtown Concept Pl=an Design Team, and the BIA Parking Committee, I have attempted to insert the lessons I have learned into the discussions that have given form to our own community. Please allow me to share what I have learned. The fundamental lesson I have learned is that cities rot from the inside out- especially American cities. How to prevent that rot is the question before your Council as you consider this report. The physical form of all cities worldwide center on the initial commercial core. In eur language, we call that core "downtown." When land was plentiful and cheap,there was generally enough "flex" surrounding the downtown to allow expansion outward in a concentric pattern. But as the uses surrounding these downtowns began to fill up and harden(becoming increasingly valuable in terms of the uses that land was put to)the downtown core became locked in. For a growing city, this presented a dilemma. Where could additional area needed for basic commercial expansion be found? In America,the response to that question has taken two primary forms: (1)the New York model in which added space was acquired by building upward producing dense skyscraper city cores; and(2)the Regional Shopping Center model wherein very large shopping centers were built on cheap land on the edge of cities. The newest planning jargon for these outlying centers is"edge cities" in that new communities spring up around these regional shopping centers. Los Angeles is a fairly good example of that model The regional shopping center becomes essentially another city- at least shopping-wise. The historical downtown then begins to unravel and deteriorate. How many people go downtown in Los Angeles? Very,very few percentage-wise.-It is no longer an altogether pleasant place to go albeit there is a tremendous and costly ongoing effort to try to change that image. (Did you know that we in SLO planted street trees before LA did?) But to the issue. San Luis Obispo is now at the point where our downtown is virtually locked in. 11 0 7. Page 2 _T Surrounding land values are expensive. Not a single vacant parcel of land exists within the Pahn, Nipomo,Marsh, Santa Rosa core on which to build a new commercial-retail building. Yet,within this same core area there exists some 54 public and private parking facilities taking up land which could/should be used to provide the additional space need to keep our downtown compact and viable. All but two of these are surface parking lots. At this point in our history we have three choices: (1)We can continue to bitch and fight over this access issue and let the downtown waste away to the competition being exerted by neighboring communities- and it surely will;(2)We can abandon downtown and focus attention to improving Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza and work to tum them into more viable retail shopping areas- economically and otherwise; or(3)We can look at a vastly modified "New York" model and intensify our downtown by using the land presently covered by parking lots and/or raising our building height limits so as to create more commercial-retail floor area. This decision, of course,is yours. The phrase "economically viable"that we kick around is unfortunate. Any downtown could evolve into a restaurant and entertainment center or an office dominated service center and still be "economically viable." But I don't think that is what this community wants. My reading is that we want a diverse and'interactive downtown the parts of which act synergistically so that the sum of the parts exceeds the simple addition of each of the components. We want commercial-retail, office-service, governmental,historical, recreational and cultural components to all act together in a manner that mutually strengthens each other. (Some degree of housing in the downtown also makes sense.) These components need be tied together in ways that make the downtown a pleasurable pedestrian friendly place to be; a place that is made easily accessible by multiple means of transit- automobiles,bicycles,public transit, etc. Downtown must continue to make a profit for those who invest in downtown and for the city which counts on tax revenues from retail sales- and to a lesser extent,from property taxes and business licenses. So we all are stake holders in this process- citizen/visitor users,property owners,business people and the city government as represented by you the Council members. What I have recited is essentially the vision of the Council adopted Downtown Concept Plan. I believe it is the guide that you should use to test all other proposals against- especially this Parking and Access Plan,which in my opinion,has failed to understand the comprehensiveness of the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan is the big picture plan;the Parking and Access Plan has turned out to be a pimple, a pimple that people keep scratching at,making it bleed and fester out of all proportion to maintaining the health of the body-the downtown. J Page 3 The consultant states that parking in the downtown is the most highly managed parking in the city. If highly managed means the parking program is most efficient,then this statement is dead wrong! The city manages parking most efficiently in any other district save the downtown. Why! Because the city by means of its zoning requirements has come to specify the parking required for any land use prior to development taking place. And it has worked! The parking ratios peruse have turned out to be amazingly OK Developers even have to provide for employee parking. Why isn't parking downtown "managed" with the same efficiency? That's a long story,but those objecting to the provision of adequate parking downtown don't seem to understand nor care about the history of CR parking requirements that has brought the downtown district to this impasse. Allow me to try to summarize; 1. More commercial floor space is needed in the downtown core, and in particular,retail commercial to insure a better mix of downtown uses. (If this isn't true,then stop here.) 2. The downtown core must be kept compact geographically if we are to stress pedestrian use. 3. The prime properties for such commercial-retail expansion are presently covered by inefficient surface parking lots- some private, some public. 4. To make those properties available for commercial use requires the removal ofthe parking that currently covers them (The Court Street parking lot is a prime example.) and locating new parking in concentrated form(structures) accessible by perimeter streets. 5. Unless there is definitive proof otherwise,my contention is that alternative forms of transportation can not fulfill the customer loss created within a viable timeframe. 6. The Marsh Street Garage expansion should move ahead post haste. 7. The consultant's suggestion for a parking element in the Fremont Theatre area should be nixed;that is not where growth needs to be encouraged at this time. 8. The recommendation for a Palm II site as number two is correct. However, the diagram shown on page 13 is totally out of keeping with the recommendations of the Downtown Concept Plan which visualizes a multipurpose structure. The site should be brought into conformity with the Concept Plan. A Palm II structure should never be allowed to touch Monterey Street. (Remember the pedestrian friendly goal?) 9. The third parking structure should be located on Nipomo street between Palm and Monterey as per the Concept Plan. A structure at this location is only a block from Higuera Street to serve commercial retail needs. The surface parking lot at Nipomo and Higaeratould be recycled into retail commercial and furthermore,the location of the third structure at this location would also allow parking lots with the Mission Plaza/Historicl Museum to be "lifted" to allow much needed expansions of our cultural facilities located there. This location would also provide some surplus to allow parking to be removed from the Wells Fargo site should Page 4 development in the SW quadrant of downtown so warrant. . .I will close with a snide question. What kind of impact do you think this report has on the public when the top photo on the cover page shows a meter maid writing a parking citation? Is that the message? Don't come downtown with your car or we will nail you? Ride alternative forms of transportation or drive yourcars to shopping centers where there is plenty of free parking! I leave SLO on the 23rd. If you have a chance to read this before then and have questions, give me a call at 543-8592. Sincerely, r I j 1 enneth Schwartz 2 1 Buena Vista San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 c: John Dunn, CAO Debora Holly, BIA Pierre Rademaker, Concept Plan Team MWI 10-21-g7 AGENDA t E_._._ITEM #. __.,_.,e J I I DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION . Parking Committee Response to Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Parking & Downtown Access Plan 21 October 1997 Prepared by Mike Spangler, BIA Parking Committee Chair Deborah Holley, BIA Administrator gr� UNCIL O CDD DIR EMA ❑ FIN DIR M�AO DIRT HIEF NEY CLERKIORIG C3 POLICE CNF n aG T tp REC DlR 0 UTIL DIR p O PERS DIR RE E1VED OCT 2 1 1996 SLO CITY COUNCIL P.O.Box 1402•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406.805/541-0286•Fax 8051781-2647•e-mail:bia®callamercom �N I ISP D 21 October 1997 To: Mayor Allen Settle,City Councilmembers From: Mike Spangler, BIA Parking Committee Chair Re: Parking and Downtown Access Plan The BIA,after reviewing the Parking and Downtown Access Plan respectfully submits the following response: As an advisory body to the City Council on Downtown issues since 1975 and involved since 1987 in the development of the Parking Management Plan, the BIA has long-standing insight, background and understanding of this complex and crucial issue. The past two years have witnessed a flurry of parking-related activity including a study directed by City Council, discussions about the assumptions of the Marsh St. Parking Structure expansion and also an examination of the availability of Parking Enterprise Funds. The BIA participated in the Study steering committee, met with City staff and Council during the last two years regarding the expansion and use of parking funds,and monthly as a parking committee to determine the next feasible location for a parking structure. During these times, the BIA has remained committed to three goals: • Build more parking spaces • Preserve the Parking Enterprise Fund for construction cf those spaces • Maintain Downtown viability balanced with accessibility In pursuit of those goals, the BIA has awaited the results of the mandated Study, now considered a Plan. In reviewing the Public Hearing Draft of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan, the BIA has noted problem areas that, if left in the Plan,could jeopardize the three goals named above. OThe biggest problem with the study is what it doesn't say. The issue of Downtown Economic Viability, which is only lightly touched upon, is a serious matter not only to the businesses but to the entire community. Twenty percent of the city's sales tax revenue is derived from the BIA district. Attached to this dynamic are special needs that cannot be ignored in favor of unproven alternatives. While the BIA supports methods that modify behavior in the long run to reduce traffic congestion, our main focus at this time is to provide short term remedies for immediate needs and keep a close eye on long range economic planning. Moreover,the BIA supports the two types of programs as entirely separate from one another. The Plan infers that behavior modification type programs could ultimately be funded with Parking Enterprise Funds,which brings to a halt any relationship between the two factions and prolongs the process of achieving true economic resolution. Please refer to Ken Schwartz' memo dated 9 July, 1997 for an in-depth discussion of parking as it is related to Downtown viability (attached). i P.O.Bos 1402•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406.805/541-0286•Fax 8051781-2647•e-mail:bia@callamercom #The study also doesn't address the consequences of implementing programs that fail to deliver; such as the loss of seed funding, loss of income while the programs develop,recognizing the point of no return and other very real possibilities. *Another unclarified issue is what authority the Study will assume if adopted. The BIA understood that the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan called for a comprehensive parking and alternative transportation study to be completed before additional structures are built. At one point,it was directed that the Study become a Plan. Clarification is needed on how and why this evolution occurred and if adopted, will it then supersede the existing Parking Management Plan revised in 1995. The BIA believes adopting the Parking and Downtown Access Plan as a document replacing other existing plans may be premature at this time due to the many policies it tries to address. Many of these issues require considerable planning and consensus building which were not required of this study. OThe report is also unclear about availability of Parking Enterprise Funds,indicating that funding was a controversial issue in the development of the Plan. The BIA's position on this has been quite clear for some time. Parking Funds should be used for the construction of new parking spaces. A strong endorsement of this issue from the City Council would allow the BIA to work more closely with alternative transportation advocates rather than sidetrack us from our objectives of providing adequate parking for our customers while creating a more pedestrian-friendly street environment. Based on these concerns, the BIA views the Plan with reservation regarding its long-term implications. However,seeing that the City Council will be reviewing the minutiae of the study to develop a plan based on a variety of options, the BIA then addresses the following areas specifically: Parking Management OThe BIA believes the study was directed for parking and access,not parking management which is already in place after years of consensus. Parking management is not a simple black and white system; customer, employee and resident behavior patterns and feelings are as much a part of the mix as the money those persons put in meters or pay fines with. Management must be accomplished with knowledge, understanding and finesse and in some cities has become privatized to be run as a business and to remove it from the political process. OThe BIA supports further investigation of contracting out parking operations, concurring with the SLO Chamber of Commerce' recommendation. #The BIA does not endorse increased fees or charging for parking on Sundays at this time. The BIA is ultrasensitive to this issue due to input from its members. The balance between remaining competitive (with non-metered shopping areas)and charging to park is delicate; careful examination must be given to any increases and this has been done in the current parking management plan. Further,non parking programs should not become the burden of the parker. OCPI increases for in- ieu fees should not be implemented. In-lieu fees should be the same as an equivalent space created outside the Downtown core. This approach will keep Downtown competitive with other areas being developed. *Downtown should have a square footage/parking requirement ratio established that provides a level playing field with businesses outside the Downtown. The Plan suggests that the "highest level of parking management" occurs in the Downtown. Actually, the reverse of this is true. (Refer to Ken Schwartz' memo, 10/19,page 3) Outlying developments with adequate supplies of parking receive the highest level of management Monitoring and Implementation Triggers OThe measurement of need before action is taken and the methodology used could have a profound effect on future parking development(A-2). The triggers as proposed will delay an already slow process and prevent implementing any long range plans. By encouraging vehicle parking in structures and optimizing PDRs related to structures, the goal is to remove vehicle congestion from the streets. Using the trigger component requirement of on-street parking at 1996 levels,the process is self defeating if the goal is to create more structure spaces to reduce street congestion (A-2). Requiring 80 per cent structure utilization before new structures are planned can have the effect of discouraging parkers to use structures because of the lack of convenient parking, one of the goals of this plan. Eighty per cent usage is considered a near-full structure; considering the length of approval and construction time required to build once the 80 per cent is reached/determined,many new or existing customers could be lost in the meantime (A3). ►Eliminating the noon hour when conducting cordon counts ignores of the busiest times in the Downtown and assumes people don't come into the Downtown during that period. We recommend using the noon hour when making cordon counts (A6). OTaking measurements of need as suggested between January 15 and April 30 would not reflect "normal traffic conditions" (A6). This measurement should be taken during the busiest quarter when the demand is greatest and peak commerce is underway. At the very least, measurements should be taken during both peak and non-peak times and averaged. ►Conducting parking utilization measurements during the slowest time of the year and excluding Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays, Farmers' Market evenings and holidays does not give an accurate picture of parking demand. This trigger needs some serious work to be of any value (A6,A7). PDR Financing OThe BIA recommends against using additional parking revenue to fund PDR programs. Recognizing the need to fund PDR programs, the BIA suggests using methods of generating revenue that are Citywide in scope and not dependent on the Downtown for implementation (B2). Adopting this document as a plan would saddle the City with well-intended PDR programs and no long- term financing component without using parking funds. This will guarantee the"living document" concept due to the many potential areas of conflict if parking funds are used to fund PDR programs and the component of asking Council to amend the plan twice a year if requested to do so. On the other hand, difficulties in achieving triggers could prevent a successful parking program from constructing structures in a timely manner. Parldng Financing ONew funding programs should be considered(p 19) that envelope property and business owners within the core. To encourage this investment they should be given an equity position in the fund and share in the future profits or losses. This approach will keep Downtown competitive with other areas being developed. #Long-term financing scenarios for parking structures were explored by the Chamber of Commerce Parking Task Force and provide valuable figures for determining costs and value of new parking. The BIA finds the Task Force's analysis of actual cost of parking spaces and their revenue producing ability accurate and helpful. The BIA also supports Public-Private partnerships in providing new structures. Conclusion The Plan falls short in the area that needs the most help: bringing two groups together striving toward the same basic goals of quality of life and a healthy Downtown. In addition to the divisiveness and conflict still predominant in parking discussions,it appears the Plan does not offer a base of support to existing alternative transportation programs by defining their scope, participation levels or financing mechanisms. Options are based on speculation. Further, we've noted that among opponents of parking, that group is conflicted over a variety of issues and is not unified in purpose. It seems everyone has been tossed a small bone, but the overall effect is to keep scratching at"the pimple" which is how Ken Schwartz views the Plan (memo October 19, page 2). There is enough good information in the Plan to be used as a Study as originally intended and required by the Circulation Element. As a study,it could be adopted and left to the individual bodies to determine the best programs for their agencies, hopefully in a conciliatory manner. -End- July 9, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle and Councilmembers Bill Roalman, Dave Romero, Kathy Smith and Dodie Williams Re: Downtown Access &Parking Study Dear Mayor and Councihnembers: I thought the Council handled itself in a very commendable manner last.night. It was obvious to me that each of you had done your homework very diligently;your questions and comments were all well considered. Pm sorry that Kathy felt compelled to step down but I hope that your decision to proceed with the Marsh Street Garage expansion and therefor eliminate it from further debate will remove the possible conflict of interest concern and provide sufficient justification for her to return to the table. You are all needed when the final plan is returned. I did leave the meeting feeling that I had failed to make clear a couple ofpoints that I believe are absolutely essential in coming to closure of this issue. Allow me to repeat these points: 1. This debate is not between parking versus alternative forms of transportation/traffic management. IT IS ABOUT DOWNTOWN ! IT IS ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF DOWNTOWN ! This is why I was critical of the charge given to the consultant. 1 believe Pat Vesart used the term "scoping the project." The consultant was only asked to look at access. Access alone is not enough. The question, in my opinion, should have been twofold. (a) "How do we maintain the economic viability of downtown in the face of growing competition from our neighboring communities? (b) "How might access to downtown be improved within the context of that evolving economically viable downtown ?" However, this is like water under the bridge. The charge has been made and the consultants are trying to respond to that charge. I can only hope that you will enlarge your own viewpoints and judge what has to be done in the larger context. 2. To maintain its viability and to more My serve ourpublic, downtown needs to provide for expanded commercial-retail, office service, entertainment, governmental and cultural activities all in an attractive, comfortable, pedestrian friendly environment. BUT THE. FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO VACANT LAND WITHIN THE URBAN CORE TO SUPPORT THESE NEEDS !! The most desirable land for new downtown development is presently covered with inefficient surface parking lots. There are at least 54 public and private parking lots Page 2 within the Palm, Nipomo, Marsh and Santa Rosa core. The City needs to take the actions necessary to free up these lands and make them available for development. We have at least three examples where this has been accomplished in San Luis Obispo with stunning success; these are the Marsh Street Garage, the Downtown Center, and the old Firestone corner-now "1001." Add Mission Plaza as well. 3. The study presently in front of you is silent on the issue of removing current parking lots to make land available for development. This is a very serious oversight. WHERE ARE THE PARKING SPACES REMOVED FROM SURFACE PARKING LOTS TO BE RELOCATED? Existing spaces are too precious to be eliminated without replacement elsewhere. The answer, of course, is to re-supply those lost spaces in strategically located parking structures which: (1) concentrate large numbers of parking slots, (2) are accessible to the circulation system, and(3) will serve the expanding downtown efficiently within reasonable walking distances. 4. Priorities. PRIORITIES MUST BE ARRANGED SO THAT PARKING AND DEVELOPMENT OCCUR IN A INTEGRATED SEQUENTIAL MANNER. The consultant's study is silent on this important matter. The priorities presented need reconsideration. Yes, the Marsh Street Structure should move ahead now. No the County garage should not be considered at all! (Someone should have informed the consultants about the recent struggle to keep the County from establishing a major office space in the Laurel Lane area-a move that would have had disastrous impacts on downtown.) Yes. the Wells Fargo site should be dropped from consideration at this time. (Development should first be encouraged at the northerly end of the core and money should not be spent that would jeopardize the construction of Palm H..) Yes. Palm Hshould be moved up behind the Marsh Garage expansion. It should begiven vigorous Council support Rationale for making Palm lI second priority. 1. The success of the Downtown Center suggests that this quadrant of the core would be ripe for similar development. 2. The Court Street block represents the prize piece of real estate for a significant ND►NLV PAiLWK4 �1b fts �i'tf�� Page 3 eN -wigs vk-&* 6 commercial development within the near future. Existing par ' g must be removed and relocated nearby to make such a development feasible. 3. The Downtown Concept Plan identifies a major parking structure running from the library to the Pahn Theatre with entry from-Palm Street which would have sufficient capacity to provide replacement parking for those surface lots#3 &#11 presently existing on site plus those withdrawn from the Court Street lot #6 plus some surplus to accommodate additional parking to support new development at Court Street and on Monterey and Paha. This structure has come to be called "Palm II". 4. The parking vacancy currently existing in the Palm Street Garage could absorb some of the parking spaces lost from the demolition of lots 3 and 11 (those presently running from Pahn to Monterey) as well as private lots that would be destroyed during the construction of Palm II 5. The grade change from Pahn to Monterey Streets strongly suggest the Palm H could be designed so that it would have no visible exterior facades except for an entrance. 6. Palm II is visualized in the Concept Plan as a multi-use structure combining roof top housing, commercialloffice uses facing Palm, and an open plaza next to the Library and across the street from the City-perhaps useful to small scale ceremonial events. 7. Exits onto Monterey from lots#3 &#11 would be closed; exiting traffic would no longer disrupt Monterey Street. 8. The two parking lot frontages on Monterey Street could be filled with commercial developments thus providing a continuous shop front face to Monterey. 9. Second floors of commercial structures facing Monterey could become "first floors" based on direct connection to the tiered parking structure behind them. This access should make these floors very desirable on the rental market. 10. Palm II is visualized to have three pedestrian exits to Monterey, one somewhere near Pier One, another onto Morro Street (which is partially closed to vehicular traffic), and another that would have to be taken through an existing building and exit near the existing mid-block crossing to Court Street. 11. The City would complete negotiations for the use of the Court Street property so that the moment Palm Il opens,the Court Street developer could begin foundation work. 12. Palm II would cause a displacement of City offices on Morro Street; it is possible that space might be leased in the old Copland building on Monterey. This displacement might give impetus to City Hall expansion plans(currently in limbo) and once again bring engineering and public works services back within City Hall. City Hall expansion would also trigger other important moves in the community including the Little Theatre and the Children's Museum Pm sure that there are other items to be considered in the sequencing,but what I have itemized is Page 4 illustrative of the thinking I believe has to be set down so that all concerned parties can see the opportunities for participation. Such an outline begins to identify potential players, it can provide rough.cuts at costs and a better understanding of a time line. Thank you for your time in reviewing my thoughts, i en Schwartz O1 Buena Vista San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 c: Pierre Rademakeri ;� ouNca ❑ CDD DIR MrcnNG l� C 0 C3 FIN DIR 0 ] FJAE CHIEF ORNEY W DIR j mwm� CLERKIIORRIG ❑ PGL•.C: C::F n u M� E �M ❑ REG r:.1 UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, Octob..: 19, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle and Councilpersons Bill Roalman, , Dave Romero,Kathy Smith and Dodie Williams Re: Parking and Access 1:eport Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Martha and I going to be'down under' during your October 28 hearing on this very, \• ry important matter. Here are my thoughts;Pm sorry that they are lengthy. Nothing is si-aple. I think that most of you know that I have been a student of cities for most all of my ad Lilt life and that during my public life on our Planning Commission, City Council, the Downtown I oncept Plan Design Team, and the BIA Parking Committee, I have attempted to insert the less ons I have learned into the discussions that have given form to our own community. Please allo-vti me to share what I have learned. The fundamental lesson I have learned is that cities rot from the inside out- especially American cities. How to prevent that rot is the question before your Council as you consider this report. The physical form of all cities worldwide center on the initial commercial core. In our language, we call that core "downtown." When land was plentiful and cheap,there was generally enough "flex" surrounding the downtown to allow expansion outward in a concentric pattern. But as the uses surrounding these downtowns began to fill up and harden(becoming increasingly valuable in terms of the uses that land was put to)the downtown core became locked in. For a growing city, this presented a dilemma. Where could additional area needed for basic commercial e\pansion be found? In America,the response to that question has taken two primary forms: (1)the New York model in which added space was acquired by building upward producing dense skyscraper city cores; and (2)the Regional Shopping Center model wherein very large shopping centers were built on cheap land on the edge of cities. The newest planning jargon for these outlying centers is "edge cities"in that new communities spring up around these regional shopping centers. Los Angeles is a fairly good example of that modeL The regional shopping center becomes essentially another city- at least shopping-wise. The historical downtown then begins to unravel and deteriorate. How many people go downtown in Los Angeles? Very,very few percentage-wise. L is no longer an altogether pleasant place to go albeit there is a tremendous and costly ongoing effort to try to change that image. (Did you know that we in SLO planted street trees before L," did?) But to the issue. San Luis Obispo is now at the point where.our downtown is virtuall_- locked in. Page 2 Surrounding land values are expensive. Not a single vacant parcel of land exists within the Palm, Nipomo,Marsh, Santa Rosa core on which to build a new commercial-retail building. Yet,within this same core area there exists some 54 public and private parking facilities taking up land which could/should be used to provide the additional space need to keep our downtown compact and viable. All but two ofthese are surface parking lots. At this point in our history we have three choices: (1) We can continue to bitch and fight over this access issue and let the downtown waste away to the competition being exerted by neighboring communities- and it surely will; (2) We can abandon downtown and focus attention to improving Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza and work to tum them into more viable retail shopping areas- economically and otherwise; or (3)We can look at a vastly modified "New York" model and intensify our downtown by using the land presently covered by parking lots and/or raising our building height limits so as to create more commercial-retail floor area. This decision, of course,is yours. The phrase "economically viable"that we kick around is unfortunate. Any downtown could evolve into a restaurant and entertainment center or an office dominated service center and still be "economically viable." But I don't think that is what this community wants. My reading is that we want a diverse and interactive downtown the parts of�Nhich act synergistically so that the sum of the parts exceeds the simple addition of each of the components. We want commercial-retail, office-service, governmental,historical, recreational and cultural components to all act together in a manner that mutually strengthens each other. (Some degree of housing in the downtown also makes sense.) These components need be tied together in ways that make the downtown a pleasurable pedestrian friendly place to be; a place that is made easily accessible by multiple means of transit- automobiles,bicycles,public transit, etc. Downtown must continue to make a profit for those who invest in downtown and for the city which counts on tax revenues from retail sales- and to a lesser extent,from property taxes and business licenses. So we all are stake holders in this process- citizen/visitor users,property owners, business people and the city government as represented by you the Council members. What I have recited is essentially the vision of the Council adopted Downtown Concept Plan. I believe it is the guide that you should use to test all other proposals against- especially this Parking and Access Plan,which in my opinion, has failed to understand the comprehensiveness of the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan is the big pier re plan;the Parking and Access Plan has turned out to be a pimple, a pimple that people keep scratching at,making it bleed and fester out of all proportion to maintaining the health of the b o dy - the downtown. R Page 3 The consultant states that parking in the downtown is the most highly managed parking in the city. Ifhighly managed means the parking program is most efficient,then this statement is dead wrong! The city manages parking most efficiently in any other district save the downtown. Why? Because the city by means of its zoning requirements has come to specify the parking required for any land use prior to development taking place. And it has worked! The parking ratios peruse have turned out to be amazingly OK Developers even have to provide for employee parking. Why isn't parking downtown "managed"with the same efficiency? That's a long story,but those objecting to the provision of adequate parking downtown don't seem to understand nor care about the history of CR parking requirements that has brought the downtown district to this impasse. Allow me to try to summarize: 1. More commercial floor space is needed in the downtown core, and in particular,retail commercial to insure a better mix of downtown uses. (If this isn't true,then stop here.) 2. The downtown core must be kept compact geographically if we are to stress pedestrian use. 3. The prime properties for such commercial-retail expansion are presently covered by inefficient surface parking lots- some private, some public. 4. To make those properties available for commercial use requires the removal ofthe parking that currently covers them (The Court Street parking lot is a prime example.) and locating new parking in concentrated form(structures) accessible by perimeter streets. 5. Unless there is definitive proof otherwise, my contention is that alternative forms of transportation can not fulfill the customer loss created within a viable timeframe. 6. The Marsh Street Garage expansion should move ahead post haste. 7. The consultant's suggestion for a parking element in the Fremont Theatre area should be nixed;that is rwt where growth needs to be encouraged at this time. 8. The recommendation for a Palm If site as number two is correct. However. the diagram shown on page 13 is totally out of keeping with the recommendations ofthe Downtown Concept Plan which visualizes a multipurpose structure. The site should be brought into conformity with the Concept Plan. A Palm lI structure should never be allowed to touch Monterey Street. (Remember the pedestrian friendly goal?) 9. The third parking structure should be located on Nipomo street between Palm and Monterey as per the Concept Plan. A structure at this location is only a block from lEgalera Street to serve commercial retail needs. The surface parking lot at Nipomo and lEgueraLoiildbe recycled into retail commercial and fiuthermore, the location ofthe third structure at this location would also allow parking lots with the Mission Plaza/Historicl Museum to be"lifted" to allow much needed expansions of our cultural facilities located there. This location would also provide some surplus to allow parking to be removed from the Wells Fargo site should Page 4 development in the SW quadrant of downtown so warrant. I will close with a snide question. What kind of impact do you think this report has on the public when the top photo on the cover page shows a meter maid writing a parking citation? Is that the message? Don't come downtown with your car or we will nail you? Ride alternative forms of transportation or drive yourcars to shopping centers where there is plenty of free parking! I leave SLO on the 23rd. If you have a chance to read this before then and have questions, give me a call at 543-8592. Sincerely, r enneth Schwartz 2 1 Buena Vista San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 c: John Dunn, CAO Debora Holly, BIA Pierre Rademaker, Concept Plan Team ;-IttIIIiIa AUtNUA 'ATE 10729-27 ITEM #�_ council mcmomnbum UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR October 23, 1997 WAO ❑ FIN DIR . V,ACAO ❑ PW CHIEF Q� iORNEY WPW DIR TO: City Council CLERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF ❑�1G T EAM ❑ REC DIR ®' ❑ UTIL DIR FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ❑ ❑ PERS DIR SUBJECT: Parking and Downtown Acces Plan: V' on for the Downtown A question was asked at the Coffee Klatch, "What is the vision for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan?" My answer is that the `vision" for the downtown is properly contained in the Downtown Physical Concept Plan and that the parking plan, similar to several other areas, are partial and instrumental means for achieving the objectives of the Downtown Plan. If the vision of the Downtown Plan is to be achieved over the next several decades, then it will be necessary to: 1. Provide for adequate egress into the Downtown and parking spaces. 2. Provide for the cleanliness of the Downtown,trash and refuse, street sweeping, etc. 3. Prc vide for events and festivals and ceremonies, including Thursday night Farmers Market. 4. Provide for the attractiveness of the Downtown, its streets, and public spaces. 5. Provide for the safety of Downtown, including Downtown Police Officer, traffic and speed controls, seismic safety and sprinkler upgrades to buildings. 6. Provide for a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment. 7. Exercise proper control over development and redevelopment. 8. Preserve and enhance Mission Plaza, San Luis Obispo Creek, parks and plazas, street furniture,historical buildings. 9. Provide that the Downtown be the "community forum" where people go for a wide range of goods and services, food and entertainment, and public meeting areas. 10. Provide that the Downtown continue (and improve) as a regional shopping attraction and commercial (and financial, entertainment, and governmental office) center. Former Mayor Ken Schwartz has just written a letter to the City Council (re: Parking and Access Report, October 19, 1997)in which he states: "...we want a diverse and interactive downtown the parts of which act synergistically so that the sum of the parts exceeds the simple addition of each of the components. We want commercial-retail, office-service, governmental, historical, recreational and residential and cultural components to all act together in a manner that mutually strengthens each other. These components need be tied together in ways that make the downtown a F ECEIVED CT 2 3 1996 CITY COUNCIL W pleasurable pedestrian friendly place to be, a place that is made easily accessible multiple means of transit—automobiles, bicycles,public transit, etc. Downtown must continue to make a profit for those who invest in downtown and for the city which counts on tax revenues from retail sales—and to a lesser extent,from property taxes and business licenses. So we all are stake holders in this process — citizen/visitor users,property owners, business people and the city government... ...that is the vision of the Council adopted Downtown Concept Plan. " When the Downtown Plan was being prepared and subsequently reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, it was the intent that the Plan be consistent with the Land Use Element and the General Plan, and that the Plan augment and be a means of implementation of the General Plan. The City's General Plan, particularly in relation to the central core of the community, is just that, general, and needs to be made more specific in order to provide a meaningful guide to purposeful action. Attached are some excerpts from"the back of the Downtown Plan"which sets forth the `vision" of the Plan". Attachment DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO PHYSICAL CONCEPT PLAIT A PHYSICAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE Downtown San Luis Obispo is Special! r Downtown is a vital commercial dis- trict;.it is the focus of local and regional government; it is the center of our cul- The success of the downtown is a tural activities and festivals; it is a place fragile thing; if not nurtured it will likely where people go to enjoy entertainment, be lost. Constant vigilance, ongoing ex- dining and music; it is the community's perimentation and visionary leadership favorite meeting place. When residents are necessary to keep the the downtown were asked in a 1988 survey to name vital. their favorite part of the City, the most common response by far was the down- town and Mission Plaza. 1 Primary Goals of The Plan: 1. Provide a physical framework which retains and strengthens the economic health and makes provision for rea- sonable future growth in the down- town area. The Vision Shaping The Plan: 2. Give pedestrians priority in the down- To preserve, protect and enhance town; encourage walking by making downtown San Luis Obispo as: the downtown a varied and exciting place to be. 1. the major commercial and business center offering a wide variety of . 3• Treat streets and pedestrian ways as goods and services; urbanized parks. 2. the historic center of the City and 4. Improve downtown circulation by the County; emphasizing alternative routes for through traffic that do not pass 3. the seat of County government; through the core area. 4. the primary cultural and entertain- 5. Provide parking structures at strate- ment center of the County; . gic points on the periphery that are within easy walking distance of ma- 5. a major destination point for tour- jor activity areas. ists; and 6. Eliminate surface parking within the 6. the major congregation center — an core area to allow infill of commer- enjoyable place to meet others, to cial and mixed use functions. celebrate, and to participate in fes- tivities. 7. Improve access between the down- town core and peripheral areas by: a. Public Transit: locate routes and . stops strategically throughout .the downtown area; create park and ride options -- especially for downtown employees; continue the concept of the free trolley for core area circula- tion b. Private Autos: increase parking spaces available to the public at stra- tegic locations; provide parking struc-. 2 tures at critical intersections of ma- stories of commercial buildings in jor routes into the core area, and the core area. direct through traffic around the downtown 15. Provide harmonious transitions be- tween core area functions and nigh- t. Service Vehicles: regulate times, bors on the edges. and provide incentives to minimize conflicts between service vehicles 16. Accent the entries and gateways to (deliveries) and pedestrians, autos the downtown. and public transit. 8. Preserve and augment the visual mix- Key Concepts Expanded ture, diversity and interest of the downtown while retaining the tradi- Pedestrian access and environment. tional character of the existing struc- tures. Encourage rehabilitation and a. treat sidewalks, and other paths as adaptive reuse. Protect significant his- urbanized parks torical buildings. b. improve existing streets by provid- 9. Enhance San Luis Creek as a visual ing trees, benches and other furni- resource: extend its accessibility ture, lighting and improved sidewalks. within a compatible setting. .(street sidewalks will remain the pri- mary pedestrian routes). 10. Create opportunities for an additional one or two "anchor' retail stores. c. open up new pedestrian access routes in the middle of blocks (pri- 11. Provide and maintain a quality envi- marily between Marsh and Higuera ronment which will keep office and Streets and in the blocks adjacent to retail establishments in the core area the Government Center). and attract smaller independent busi- ness. d. extend pedestrian access along San Luis Creek 12. Encourage the County .to meet its future office needs in the vicinity of e. maintain and enhance safety from the existing County Government crime; design improvements with ap- Center. propriate lighting,visibility and other public safety features 13. Expand cultural, recreational and entertainment facilities in the down- f. provide directory signs for pedestri- town. ans. 14. Preserve residential uses on the pe- riphery of the downtown and encour- age more residential uses on upper 3 OW Transportation accents, define where upper story setbacks should be required. a. encourage through traffic to go around, rather than through, the Heritage Park downtown a. utilize the block surrounded by b. develop a combination parking, trol- Marsh,Nipomo, Higuera and Carmel . ley and bus intermodal structure near Streets as a "Heritage Park" for loca- the County government complex tion of historic buildings of modest scale that can be modified for com- c. provide more parking structures on mercial uses key streets that enter the city b. relocate historic or older, interesting d. extend and encourage the use of the buildings, if they need to be moved trolley system from other areas of the City, for re- habilitation and reuse in a compat- e. provide more facilities to encourage ible environment and enhance the use of bicycles c. provide a core pedestrian way and a f. respect the existing street pattern but parking area to serve the Heritage close selected streets to enhance pe- Park. destrian character without being det- rimental to vehicular traffic Core area mixed uses g. permit continued auto use of most a. promote mixed use in the core area; downtown streets and use curbs for while the first floor in some loca- short term parking. tions should be reserved for com- mercial uses, upper levels may have h. provide better signage to direct visi- housing, offices, dining,galleries and tors to downtown, especially from open spaces the highway. b. encourage the addition of more hous- Community character: ing downtown on upper stories over a city in a park commercial and parking structures. a. open up the creeks more to visual Gateways to the downtown and physical.access a. provide an entry arch on lower Marsh b. provide more street trees Street or near freeway off ramp c. preserve, in general, the existing b. intensify tourist facilities in the Marsh building height patterns of two and Street/101 interchange area and-pro- three stories; .identify opportunities vide a tourist information center on for higher buildings as architectural lower Marsh Street 4 c_ permit commercial intensification . east of Santa Rosa along with a mix of housing and commercial facilities d.create a park-like setting adjacent to the creek, southwest of the Higuera/ Marsh intersection.