HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1997, 1 - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT jcounat mcctingD:i g_9
aGEnda uEpoin ®N
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS 0 8 I S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Wor�
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Marsh Street Garage
Expansion Project
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Exhibit A) certifying the Final EIR for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Project including the recommended mitigation measures and the preliminary Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program(M1viRP)based on the findings of the final document
DISCUSSION
On October 21, 1997, the City Council considered the findings and recommended mitigation
measures for certifying the Final EIR for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project. The Final
EIR determined that the project could be completed without Class I impacts (Unavoidable
Significant Impacts)but there would be some Class II (Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated
to Insignificant Levels) and Class III (Less Than Significant Impacts) impacts which could be
reduced to insignificant levels through mitigation measures.
The "recommended mitigation measures" for the Class II and Class III impacts were discussed at
the October 21'meeting with staffs recommendation to accept the findings of the final document
and certify the EIR (see 10-18-97 staff report Exhibit B). However, during the meeting several
issues were raised concerning the content of the EIR. Specifically,the primary concerns dealt with:
♦ traffic projection figures underestimated the growth of traffic
♦ alternative site was not in compliancewith city policy(Land Use Element)
♦ the need to"monitor"for additional traffic signals
Since these issues remained unresolved, Council chose to postpone a final decision and directed
staff and the consultant to provide further clarification and return to Council on November 18,
1997. Given this directive,the consultant completed additional analysis and prepared responses for
Council's consideration. The detail of the consultant's responses are attached (Exhibit C) and
summarized as follows:
Traffic Projections
Issue—The contention was made that the methodology used for the traffic projections was flawed
and the corresponding figures were inaccurate.
Response—The consultant used the widely accepted industry standard of using land use models for
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage-EIR Certification
Page 2
projecting future traffic impacts. The cumulative traffic forecasts used in the EIR were based on
reasonably foreseeable developments over a 10-year period which were derived from the City's
updated Land Use Element(LUE). It is the land use developmentthat will generate the majority of
"new" traffic in the downtown area and not the proposed garage expansion. This type of land use
modeling for traffic forecasts is widely used in the traffic engineering industry and is the most
commonly used approach for EIR cumulative traffic analyses required by CEQA.
Alternative site
Issue—The alternative site used in the EIR did not meet the City'.s Land.Use Element policy of
placing garages along the periphery of the commercial core.
Response---The alternative site (Union/First Bank)used in the EIR was selected because it met
more of the feasibility guidelines(section 7.1.1 of the EIR)for considering an alternative location.
However,because this location was not in compliance with the LUE, another alternative site was
chosen for analysis. The consultant chose the Wells Fargo site(Nipomo/Pacific)because it meets
the siting criteria of the LUE. The consultant's findings determined that the Wells Fargo location
was similar in impacts to air quality and cultural affects, but was inferior for traffic impacts
although it had less pedestrian conflicts. The potential aesthetic impacts could be more due to the
scale of the structure compared to surrounding buildings, but would have reduced impacts for
removal of existing flora (i.e.,less trees to remove). This location could be considered as a parking
garage if so desired by Council,and in fact,is still under considerationfor purchase by the City.
Monitoring
Issue—Concern about the need to monitor impacts for future mitigation measures and the
assurances that the recommended measures would be implemented
Response---The recommended mitigation measures stipulated in the EIR have been modified to
more clearly define what will be implemented as part of the Preliminary Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program(M?Vf P). The mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street would be mitigated by the
implementation of the right-turn lane at the garage entrance prior to the occupancy of the expanded
garage. The installationof a signal at the mid-block crosswalk would occur after the Public Works
Department conducts a detailed pedestrian traffic signal warrant assessment and operational
analysis of the crosswalk. The Osos and Pacific intersection is recommended for signal installation
after a detailed traffic signal warrant assessment and delay study is completed and a
recommendation for implementation is submitted for Council's consideration. The first signal
warrants for both the mid-block crosswalk and the Pacific/Osos intersection would occur within 3
to 6 months after the expanded garage is operational and then annually for 3 years. The monitoring
program would be conducted in two phases: a pre-construction period for all recommended
mitigation measures, and a post construction period for confirmation of additional mitigation
measures. This approach of monitoring potential impacts after completion of the project is a widely
accepted method of mitigating future impacts.
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage-EIR Certification
Page 3
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department concurs with the findings and revised recommended
mitigation measures to assure the project complies with CEQA requirements. In addition, the
consultant has responded to all comments(City Council Hearing Report Exhibit C)received during
the October 21'public hearing and has elaborated on responses to comments from the August 27'
Planning Commission meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fimding for the expanded garage project has been approved in the 1997-99 Financial Plan
($4.5M). All costs associated with the project would be funded out of the Parking Enterprise Fund,
and an ample revenue stream presently exists to debt finance all necessary costs.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council's directive is to consider the findings and revised recommendations of the EIR
and determine the project meets the requirements of CEQA as well as City policies and plans. As
such the Council can decide among the following alternatives:
1. Accept the EIR in its entirety and approve certification without any future changes
2. Accept portions of the EIR and direct the consultant to modify sections of the EIR before final
certification
3. Not accept the EIR and redirect the consultant for future analysis
4. Not accept the EIR and determine that the project is not necessary at this time
Attachments Exhibit A—Resolution for final certification with attached monitoring
program
Exhibit B—Staff report from October IS'meeting
Exhibit C—Consultants responses to comments from public hearing
lxadmaah gamp eir 2
RESOLUTION No. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE
MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION LOCATED AT 860 PACIFIC
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were held before the Planning
Commission on August 27, 1997, and the City Council on October 21, 1997 and
November 18, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was considered by the City Council after extensive review
by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission
and concerned public; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been
evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's
Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the
proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Findings. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to
any approvals of the project. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
City. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Traffic
and Circulation, Air Quality, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, the approved
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 RESOLUTION No.
mitigation measures contained in the EIR and attached ( Attachment 1), will avoid or
substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a
level of insignificance and have been incorporated in the project.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and approved a Preliminary
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 2). Following certification
of the Environmental Impact Report and before project approval, a final Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program will be presented to the Council for approval, to
reflect Council actions in certifying the Environmental Impact Report.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
y J Jo ensen
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Traffic and Circulation
Install 4-way traffic signal at the intersection of Broad and Pacific Streets
Restripe westbound Pacific from garage exit to Chorro for through traffic and right-turn
only
Designate left and right turn only lanes for east and westbound Pacific exit traffic
Dedicate right lane as (garage entrance only ) between Chorro and garage entrance lane
Reclassify the segment of Pacific between Osos and Broad Street to Commercial
Collector Street with an 10,000 ADT
Upgrade gate equipment to facilitate in and out processing
Monitor the level of service at Pacific and Osos Street and themid-block crosswalk on
800 Marsh Street for possible traffic signal installation
Air Quality
Establishment preferential carpool spaces and provide information on alternative
transportation to the general public
Aesthetics
Ensure the project adheres to Land Use Element policies and ARC design criteria
Add curbside trees and planters and associated landscaping in the setback area
Consider alcove area and formal viewing area as part of the project
m -.q 711 71 D D D D A D g
co co CACal m
.. �.
m
2
v 7 '0 0 (n M k0 v v v v v v
(n 03 IM CO n CO
10 O 7 y m C� y y 3 (p CL O m m O m N. 2 m m
c cai 'm as ° mo. rn ' �'- m � m =
° 0 23
o w Q m a�� o o x W
CL � H � � m l" < a m n
tmir m ID go 7 =ID i m •mi O C y y
= m m4! O O T .+
m y CD = m' CL
m y a n O n m Cr M.
p m m 07 7.1 O. m 7 m m
^`
co
m .n.. N a C (o1 to
N O CL m l 7 m m• - O
7 K ai a _
I �
m a Q c Q c1 Cr c x v v v
a n n n ci 0
CD 0 0 0 0l o o O O o o y Z
R.z RLD D H N N (AA N ((n N N N ID
CD O D D D I D D D D O
X < Cl) D -0 cn
X
_
= nCD co CDI 'CD CD D v > > 10 10 'o m _Z
a •o "D "o 1
(p o m m m m1 m m m m m m m
o �I N p a a
3 3 31 3 3 m m 3 3Mi
m ' (D _ CD =1 3 m n m m m m
� I > > 4) -m-I
o ;u OT � � � n � ��l3vp < � 5 � n � � � v � � D � D
D m O N 0 10 CD m O m (A m N O p fN O O (A '' N CA - n
05- n m m m m 7 m m m Im m m n ^: m y O. O. m 2) m10 � m m O m
/� o � _ � c3 �IS = moan c EaI a, n00
1\) A�O N q N m H H H I C y O y (@l N m .n.. .n.. W m (A m W m O
m =� 0'o aE 0"o 0 -0 °o—' = < 0 -0 a 'o 0 .0 010 09 3 m
_m m CL � CD cm� H � °—' � 0 cm coo � o � cmi � cmi � ZITI
o o w . 0 X10 = m m Q 3 = y y » .:
CL
� cw-0 Vo
= Ch CD 3 p2 02. 02 3.o � �
O m 0 O O O O O
O y q N y y 7 m .� ,Oy f�D 0 0 7 3 7 2 7 (�
3 (n (n Ica H °: m fD y m (n m (n O
G cn m (n m IV) m O m N m (A m N m N m
CD CL al n y n a a a a
o. I
I o �
I
m � � mmo� ompmmo� omc� m o
0 CD o n 0 0
m =B p S c = o o 0 m v o p c = m o � co a 3
2 =m 7 0 p a O m 3 3 7 1 O m 7 -m. m m s 3 � O
ao ^ ., Co0Q3 � co (3Q1� $ � o � $ y � ^ o- _ oao ^ �o
< m C !! a1 �.. m m n m 7
M .0 , o — gym p - Sr2m12m atm c' — = 2m2m2mm
CL m � � w o � � (ny (n ¢ oIao > aa> > c oc aM ago a0
Q N m o 7 m .3y.. 2 O 7 7 017 a C 7 a N N 0 a 0 a = a
nm =wa 2 acoCL cl c = a a a a a a
r-
03 m �3 0•c o.1 a m =. a. =. =L
� 007 D o m
m o
3
I m
I CL 'o
I c
I �
Attachment 2
0 D n D D 0 D
J
cn N �N N
<CD
�. m
Q a -n v �••� 0
7 Q 0 m < o 3
< .< y O n m m m m m O a
CD 2 � c a m 0 3 �► '2 = m
(D .n. >• m f�D C Co
CCD
(n N
CL n o 0) 03 c a c c 03 CDa
n Oc m a R. m o m
O m c < x
FL „
Cl) m m m (a
n N Qe fA
CD
fp
c 3, rmn c c
m Q
m = m
-0 -000 -0 -coo -0000000 ; D
Q V" O Q Q1 O R:m O m O m 0 H
C93 c * 3c c e e O
CD o o m o o m o m '- m ' m o N Z
PO �� R a%< a
O pDmO p pDCD pDm DmOD � m
`D m 10 -0 n < .o M nm .o O Orn nm m Z
m m o m m o m o 0 0 O
.m.. Z a. 10 .'7. Z 10
m m m m m m m m m m 0
.3.' Q Z
7
NN m c m c m c m
m
fn m y m m o� ' 0 Nomc < o o < a
CD mmmcm m0
m a c �
N m 7 0 y m y fD 0 0
N 0 CYC N N O � N n �
p N p y d O y p y FF Cf 0 m � II7 L7 a1
7Z' � �Z' � w �• CD CD (n 7Z' n N y to 0 Z
F En S m a -a m Q. m 07 07 z ^
I d m 0 O- m 0 � m O. O. O. C. O Y
O 0 O 0 CCD O 0 O = N O 0 � m
2 7 '� 7 n C 3 092 7 O O O
m N m y O m y m y O m fn O o O
N 01 N N y 8] N m N m
O. O. ry O. O. m O. m m m
O• O. O. O. O.
CL
CL
JD ao o m m ao -t
cCD oOCD[o'0Coom 0CD om -om mm m
W � � 0
w 0 O Q O � O Oo O (n Om OR O � O
O -+ �+ -+ O CD O M O C j
2 m 2 m < m 2 m 2 m < m 2 m < m < m < m
oaam � � 0 � � a � am= �
CL aa� a�
o `� c ' U cr
a (Aoaa` ra M*< vm
< CO
= 7' O W 7 3 0 m 7 0 W a W 0 W
c c c c c
m Co n Q (D =S to
CD o
m 'a
CL m
0
/` G
council
agenda uepout
C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager V
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Marsh Street Garage
Expansion Project
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution(Exhibit A)certifying the Final EIR for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project
including the recommended mitigation measures based on findings of the final document.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On April 16, 1996, the City Council conceptually approved the expansion of the Marsh Street*Garage and
directed staff to proceed with the planning process for this project. An environmental review of the
proposed 310 space expansion determined that certain components of the project could have an adverse
environmental impact which wan-anted a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR
concentrated on the potential impacts to—traffic and circulation—air quality—aesthetics(visual impact)--
and cultural resources. The EIR determined the proposed project was consistent with the City's policies
and plans with regards to the construction of parking garages, but there would be some impacts as a result
of the project.
The findings of the EIR determined that the streets and intersections in the downtown could be maintained
at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS), except at the Broad/Pacific intersection, air quality emissions
would be below state and federal guidelines, and that the visual impact of the building could be reduced
through design and landscape features to create an attractive facility. Although the EIR determined the
project could be built without significant impacts that would mandate formal mitigation measures, the EIR
"recommends" mitigation measures (Exhibit B—Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) be
included as part of the project in order to further reduce impacts of the project not considered significant by
CEQA standards but which could none-the-less be reduced. The recommended measures are highlighted
as follows:
• traffic signal at intersection of Broad and Pacific
• designated tum lanes at garage entrance and exit
• upgraded garage equipment
• monitoring of nearby intersection and mid-block cross walk for additional signals
• promotion of use of alternative transportation
• maintaining city-approved design standards and varied construction materials and enhanced landscape
for visual enhancement of the project site
The City Council's directive for tonight's meeting is to consider the findings of the EIR and to determine
that the analysis and recommended mitigation measures ensure the project meets the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's adopted plans and policies for final
certification of the proposed project.
EXHIBIT B
/-9
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Project Background : In April of 1996, the City Council, after much discussion, gave direction to
staff to begin work on three projects: a) expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Garage; b) acquisition
of the Wells Fargo site; and c) preparation of a Downtown Parking and Access Study. This agenda
item is one of the many steps necessary to complete the first work item. The remaining two projects
are at various stages of completion and are not a part of this agenda item.
To pursue completion of the Marsh Street Expansion, the Public Works Department commissioned
concept drawings for the project which would expand the garage by up to 310 additional spaces over
the existing public and private parking lots including the air space over the customer parking lot of the
US Postal Service. As part of the planning process, an initial environmental review for the proposed
310 space garage expansion was completed by the Community Development Department. The initial
review of the proposed project determined that certain components of the project could have a
significant impact on the environment and that a focused EIR was warranted. Four areas were
identified as needing additional study: traffic and circulation, air quality, cultural and aesthetic
impacts. As a result of these findings, a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared in January
of 1997. A contract for the focused EIR was awarded to Rincon Consultants from Ventura, in
association with Associated Traffic Engineers (ATE) for traffic analysis and Applied EarthWorks for
archeological determination.
EIR Process : The required Notice of Preparation (NOP) for environmental review was circulated
between February 21, 1997 and March 24, 1997 to solicit input from the public and interested agencies
regarding the planned scope of work in the EIR. It should be noted that before work began on the
focused ElR, a Town Hall workscope meeting was held on March 11, 1997. Although this public
meeting was not mandatory, it was held in order to get more information from the public based on
community concerns expressed about the project. The meeting was well received and the consultant
made changes to the draft workscope for the EIR based upon public input from this meeting before
work was begun. Given this feedback, an administrative draft EIR was completed by Rincon
Consultants,with ATE performing the traffic engineering analysis and Applied EarthWorks completing
the on-site work for archeological findings. Public Works and Community Development staff
reviewed the administrative draft and provided input to the consultant for completion of the Draft EIR-
Under
1RUnder the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 45-day public comment
period for the Draft EIR commenced on July 21, 1997 and extended until September 5, 1997. In
addition to the comments received during the public comment period, the Draft EIR was presented
before the Planning Commission on August 27, 1997. Although the latter meeting was not required by
CEQA, the Draft EIR was brought to the public forum earlier in the review process in order to
heighten the public's awareness of the proposed project as well as obtain more information from a
broader audience.
Environmental Issues : The relevant environmental areas that were identified in the prepared EIR are
listed below. The key findings for each area_will be discussed briefly along with the recommended
mitigation measures when applicable. The concurrence section will focus on the components which
have been identified as being key issues during the public comment period.
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 3
• Consistency with City plans and policies
• Circulation—traffic generation attributable to the proposed project
• Air Quality—increased pollutant levels as a result of increased traffic
• Cultural impacts—potential for significant archeological findings
• Aesthetic impacts—visual impact ofproject
• Alteratives to the proposed project
City Plans and Policies • The Final EIR has determined that the expanded garage is consistent with
the goals of the Land Use Element (LUE), Parking Management Plan (PAWL ), and the Downtown
Concept Plan (DCP) with regards to the construction of parking structures. This determination is
based on the following:
LUE states that "any major incrementsin parkin�rpply should take the form of structures
located at the edges of commercial core, so people will walk rather than&-ive between points
in the core':
PMP,Polices 4.1 to 4.4 (Expansion of Parking), stipulate that... `parking should be provided
in the commercial core for visitors and shoppers and that_the brrildin�of txtrking, structures is
the best way of P—r din more pamrking acilities"
DCP supports the idea of building parking structures along the periphery of the core to help
support the infrastructure of the proposed urban landscape,which includes a fully expanded
Marsh Street structure.
Traffic and Circulation : The increased traffic attributable to the project is one of the more sensitive
issues addressed in the EMR The traffic analysis for the fully expanded garage projected an additional
3,475 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 329 P.M. Peak Hour Trips (PHT) would be generated as a
result of the proposed project. The analysis assumed 75% (2,606 ADT and 247 PHT) of these trips
would be"attracted"to the area of the garage from other areas within and outside the downtown core
area. The remaining 25% of the trips were assumed to be "captured" from existing traffic already
present in the study area of the proposed garage.
: :: ...:.. ...:n.: .. ::t..',i' .:...>:.:Y..S::.,:::::...:.:ii:n. . yvi,,.v...:..n,......................n...,
:.
t noted thafOr:purppFeso.: hrs.:,cma srs?>:thes::7S%addih . >'s
, ,k 5 .� a orral taps 'c a„ 4vorsf
scenarila shore the rrrpacls of ihe�roy 'under .......ca.... oru The matease n chicle
it 5 , 5 , y 5 ' { ky 5 i kY5,,.a:>;: :;i�a...;
taps isnot;"alE"tielii; dff c r71 terms bf�rtOre Cars�bmrn to downtowtr(only o Ill°lo are esYrmated to
:come fr �:.>:, ;butt ,: n= ;<;;,:::: :
om outsrdethe:.. trnmf aiherneiv to the servrce caea o the a 'mita'a k5T7iis
attracted inp 'assrimpttan is r onsrstent write the; „ ; f ` g,k
PAF YP factors presented-In the Tnsdtrtte sof
firartsporiatron�'iigrneer'sTrip�?ze,duchon li=teport for retarl developrrrenfs rn°thedoivntotvrs,ar.`ea;<w?iicFi
ressrvites a ►'arrge o,{2.i-�0°la df imps are alrEady using rhe°travel condors�nd'�ould�1�,5re'
Although the increased traffic was identified as a Class III impact(adverse but less than significant) the
traffic data collected by the consultant supports the findings that the Level of Service (LOS) for
downtown area roadways and intersections would continue to operate acceptably (LOS A D, Exhibit
C), with the exception of the Broad Street/Pacific Street intersection (LOS F). The latter would be
mitigated by the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection.
/-/f
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 4
Additional findings support that site access for garage operations (ingress and egress traffic) could be
accommodated with existing garage lanes. Pedestrian flows would also increase as a result of the
project, but not at significant levels that would warrant formal mitigation measures. Overall, the EIR
acknowledges that there will be impacts relating to street traffic via increased vehicle trips, pedestrian
flow and bicycle travel, but at less than significant levels. Although the impacts of the cumulative
volume for the existing (plus expanded project) would be less than significant, the EIR recommends
the following mitigation measures be implemented as part of the project:
• Install a 4-way traffic signal at the Broad and Pacific intersection(required)
• Monitor Marsh Street mid-block pedestrian crosswalk for future signal installation**
• Dedicate right-tum only lane in curbside parking area between Chorro and garage entrance and
left and right turn only for east and westbound Pacific exit traffic
• Restripe westbound Pacific at Chorro for through traffic and right tum only
• Reclassify the segment of Pacific between Osos and Broad Street to Commercial Collector Street
with an acceptable 10,000 ADT
• Upgrade gate equipment to expedite in and out processing
bi..eVlarshSireef;med-blgckcrosswalkwas'ad�e ..
sled at a Crty Council meetrrrg
spnr�g ¢ie actions.takPrr (addrhoir Qf pedesbran signs°and lane markrn�s a>ad iemovalf itasli
�rontatner for rmpraved srghtvrsrbrlrty)have been made:card th'F. lid rs still.being monttored> :Thzese;
changes cvrriled xnth the a de'dreated rr, ht lrtrn lame frorrr Chorra io the gartr�e'entrmrce should'i5e
' cIns we71 "'
morutore before insiallinga vafficsrgnaI 14his location „ , " '�'£'x
Air Ouality : The issue of air quality (increased levels of pollutants) was another key factor for the
proposed project. The EIR acknowledges adverse air quality impacts will result as part of the actual
construction and increased vehicle emissions from the completed project. Construction impacts are
considered Class III (adverse but less than significant) which does not mandate mitigation measures,
but recommends them to help reduce this impact primarily through the use of water trucks for dust
control and minirniang the amount of area that is disturbed at any given time. Initial (Appendix B)and
expanded computer modeling (Appendix D) for increased vehicle emissions (Carbon Monoxide-CO-
and other particulate matter) indicate that even in the worst case scenarios the increased emissions
would still fall below state and federal guidelines for acceptable air quality standards. However, as with
the construction component, the EIR does recommend mitigation measures for reduced vehicle
emissions, which includes providing information for alternative transportation, the establishment of
preferential carpool spaces, and the capability to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations.
Aesthetics : The EIR stipulates that the fully expanded garage would have an impact on the aesthetic
environment of the site. .The viewshed is acknowledged as being adversely affected but less than
significant. The vicinity of Morro and Pacific Streets is currently surface parking at three out of four
corners and is not considered a high profile viewing area. However, through.recommended mitigation
measures the visual impact of proposed building could be reduced, and perhaps even enhance the
vicinity by creating an aesthetically appealing building on the site. The recommended measures are the
following:
/-/Z
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 5
FRRetention
the project adheres to Land Use Element Design principles and ARC design criteria
sign elements should complement and/or duplicate the existing structure and consider
surface fortis and materials to create the appearance of multiple buildings as opposed to
e structure
n and/or addition of curbside trees and planters and associated landscaping in the setback
the project
n of public art and possible recessed alcove area with appropriate amenities (e.g. water
n etc.)that conform to design standards
Cultural Resources : The EIR acknowledges that the project construction would adversely impact a
potentially significant archeological and historical resource if anything significant was discovered during
construction. Preliminary field work conducted as part of the Draft EIR did find some very limited
artifacts (old glass, broken china, nails) which could prove to be more significant upon excavation.
Since the area has not been explored beyond sample cores throughout the project site, there is a
potential to uncover more significant artifacts. As a result, the EIR recommends that a detailed design
and mitigation plan be established in order to guide construction activity. The construction work
would be phased to lessen the impact of any significant findings. If in fact historical material is
discovered at any step of the construction, a Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation(SARE)
report would be prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines for archeological artifacts in
conjunction with an on-site field archeologist.
Alternatives to Proposed Proiect : As a requirement of CEQA guidelines, the EIR addressed the
issue of alternative sites as well as the no project option. The EIR considered three options=
alternative site, reduced parking(160 spaces), and no project. Four sites (Santa Rosa Shell, Union
Bank/First Bank, Wells Fargo and Palm/Npomo) were looked at as possible locations for the
alternative site garage. Only the Union/First Bank site met the CEQA feasibility criteria(7.1.1), and as
a result,this site was chosen as the alternative. The reduced parking option would have corresponding
reductions in the impact areas, but would proportionately reduce the number of new spaces created,
which in turn,would not reduce the parking demand as much as the fully expanded garage.
Regarding environmental impacts, the alternative site would have many similar characteristics as the
fully expanded garage. As shown on the Downtown Concept Plan,this site is earmarked as a paridng
garage with residential units on the upper floors with mixed parking (residential and public) on the
lower floors. This could reduce the number of available spaces for the proposed site. It could also be
more difficult to accommodate existing businesses than the proposed site. The no project option
would be the environmentally superior alternative, but like the reduced parking option, it too, would
not meet the parking demand in this portion of the downtown.
CONCURRENCES
.__The Community Development Department concurs with the findings and recommended mitigation
measures to bring the project in compliance with CEQA requirements. The BIA also supports the
findings and recommendations of the final EIR. However, during the public comment period a number
of responses were received, either at the Planning Commission meeting in August or as formal written
comments from the Planning Commission and community members. The consultant has responded
(Section 9-Comments and Responses) in detail to all of the comments received, with the " key issues
and responses"summarized as follows:
/-13
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 6
Traffic— Based on the traffic wan-ants for Osos and Based on the tralflc data collected,staff concurs with the
Inadequate traffic Pacific which used IAS E levels, the data does monitoring of the intersection because it could defer or
mitigation for not support this action Instead it recommends eliminate the cost(S80-100K)for the signals. The same
intersection at monitoring the intersection at 6-month internals holds true for the Marsh cross walk, although
(Osos and Pacific) for the first year to determine if a signal is establishing the right-tum only for garage entrance may
and mid-block needed. The cross-walk on Marsh does not be wan-anted without the signal and should be
crosswalk(800 meet the 300 ft requirement for a signal and as monitored closely after completion of the project A 200
Marsh)and such is not recommended and is deferred for trip exceedance for vehicles would be a minor impact
number of vehicle future analysis. Pacific street with cumulative and given the recommended changes at Pacific and
trips on Pacific traffic from the project would exceed the Chorro. Additionalh•, right and left tum lanes from the
Street Circulation Element standards for arterial garage along with the additional exit lane the resulting
streets by 200 trips(5200) Thus the vehicle flow should be acceptable on Pacific street
recommendation is to reclassify the street to a
commercial collector street in order to comply
with the Circulation Element
Air Quality Computer models (CAI.INE4) were nuc for As a result of APCD's comments of inadequate
Thresholds for the winter season in addition to the peak summer calculations, staff commissioned the consultant to
projected increased months as suggested A 50/50 hot/cold start perform 3 additional models as well as recheck their
pollutants(CO)did was used based on the approximate 48% who previous data to address this concern.The modeling also
not follow park over 90 minutes. Based on the new assumed 75%new trips,which like the traffic analysis,
appropriate models and projected highest CO concentration, is"worst case'and well beyond what wvurld be expecl&4
guidelines and total one-hour concentration of pollutants of from the project Thus,based on these additional effor
projections for 10.3pprn, was well below the state standard of and analysis,staff is confident that the expanded garagt
cumulative impacts 20ppm and federal standard of 35pprrwould meet both state and federal air quality guidelines
and corresponding Furthermore, emissions projections were and not significantly affect the local air basin
mitigation recalculated as well and Nitrogen Dioxide
measures were (NO2), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and
inadequate Particulate Matter,PM(10)were below APCD's
threshold of 10 lbs per day. The cumulative
impacts did not model additional garages
because they are only in the long-range
planning discussion and years away of being
approved and funded projects and therefore
were not considered for purposes of this focused
Ea
Aesthetics—the The final architecnual impact will be decided at The planned mitigation measures for the setback area
visual mass of the the ARC and CC level,but through streetscape and alcove would attribute to the visual aesthetics of the
building cannot be and public art and landscape enhancements the building along with additional landscaping and final
mitigated and visual impact of the building can be reduced design features which would include reducing the
office space should Because of the limited street frontage along `Msual size' of the building through construction
be included in the Pacific and the planned additional exit onto materials.
ground floor Pacific, there would be insufficient area
available to develop as office/retail space.
�7
Council Agenda Report-Marsh Street Garage Expansion-EIR
Page 7
FISCAL MVACT
The funding for the project has been approved in the 1997-99 Financial Plan ($4.51V1) All costs
associated with the project would be funded out of the Parldng Enterprise Fund, and an ample revenue
stream presently exists to debt finance all necessary costs..
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council must consider the findings and recommendation of the EIR and determine that the
project meets the requirements of CEQA as well as City policies and plans. As such the Council can
decide among the following alternatives:
1. Accept the EIR in its entirety and approve certification without changes
2. Accept portions of the EIR and direct the consultant to modify sections of the EIR before final
certification
3. Not accept the EIR and redirect the consultant for more analysis
4. Not accept the EIR and determine that the project is not necessary at this time
Attachments Exhibit A—Resolution for Final Certification
Exhibit B---Summary of Environmental Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and
Residual Impacts
Exhibit C—Level of Service Guidelines
Council Reading File
Draft EIR Report
Comments and Responses Report
I:rArarsaeir
//S
RESOLUTION No. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE
MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION LOCATED AT 860 PACIFIC
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were held before the Planning
Commission on August 27, 1997, and the City Council on October 21, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was considered by the City Council after extensive review
by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission
and concerned public; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been
evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's
Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion
adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the
proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Findings. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to
any approvals of the project.
The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Traffic
and Circulation, Air Quality, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, the approved
mitigation measures contained in the EIR and included as Attachment 1, will avoid.
Exhibit A
or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated in the project.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed by and approved by the City
Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EER.
SECTION 3. Effective , Resolution No. (1997 Series) is hereby
rescinded.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Witftt6o2m y J Jor nsen
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Traffic and Circulation
Install 4-way traffic signal at the intersection of Broad and Pacific Streets
Restripe westbound Pacific from garage exit to Chorro for through traffic and right-
turn only
Designate left and right turn only lanes for east and westbound Pacific exit traffic
Dedicate right lane as (garage entrance only ) between Chorro and garage entrance lane
Reclassify the segment of Pacific between Osos and Broad Street to Commercial
Collector Street with an 10,000 ADT
Upgrade gate equipment to facilitate in and out processing
Monitor the level of service at Pacific and Osos Street and the mid-block crosswalk on
800 Marsh Street for possible traffic signal installation
Air Quality
Establishment preferential carpool spaces and provide information on alternative
transportation to the general public, and provide capability for'electric vehicle charging
station.
Aesthetics
Ensure the project adheres to Land Use Design principles and ARC design criteria
Add curbside trees and planters and associated landscaping in the setback area
Consider alcove area in the setback area.
Attachment 1
Marsh Street Garage Expansion El"
Section 2.0 Summary
Class III-Less Than Significant Impacts
Air Qualily: construction and op••erational emissions zvould fall below Air Pollution Control
District thresholds.
Treffic/Circulalion/Parking: additional average daily (ADT) and PM peak ho:tr trips;increased
traffic at entrances and exits to garage;additional pedestrian traffic;impact on bicycle traffic;
additional cumulative ADT trips.
Aesthetics: increased level of overall building intensity and scale;viezvshed alteration.
Class IV-Beneficial Effects
Tre ffic/Circdation/Parking: increased parking opporturriities dozuntoidn.
-XIR QUALITY
The proposed panting structure would generate minor localized emissions of dust and otherpollutants during the
construction period. These would be considered less than significant. Vehicle trips generated by the project are
anticipated to cause less than significant air pollutant emissions. The carbon monoxide emissions generated by
vehicles while driving through the proposed parking structure would be considered less than significant. Based•:.
on San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan projections, cumulative growth in the City is not anticipated to exceed local .
air pollutant thresholds,resulting in less than significant cumulative growth impacts.
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact c, .
Impact AQ-1 Demolition and None required. However, due to the potential These recommended
construction activities would nuisance of construction generated dust,the measures would ensure.
generate exhaust emissions and following mitigation measures are that impacts remain less
fugitive dust. Because these recommended: than significant.
emissions would fall below
recommended significance AQ-1(a) Water trucks shall be used during
thresholds,this is considered a construction to keep all areas of vehicle
Class 111, adverse but less than movement damp enough to prevent dust from
significant impact. leaving the site. At a minimum, this will
require Mice daily applications. Increased
watering is required whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 miles per hour.
AQ-1(b) The amount of area that is disturbed
at any one time shall be minimized.
AQ-1(c) if stockpiling of fill material is
involved,soil that is stockpiled for more than
two days shall be covered, kept moist,or :.
treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation.
Impact AQ-2 The increase in Although the project would have less than These recommended
vehicle emissions that is significant air quality impacts,the following measures would ensure _
anticipated upon completion of the mitigation measures from the APCD's CEQA that impacts remain less `
proposed project may result in Air Quality Handbook are recommended: than significant.
exceedances of the state and
federal air emission significance AQ-2(a) Provide preferential carpool parking.
thresholds. This is considered a
Class III, less than significant AQ-2(b) Information on public transit and
impact. local transportation management
rr City of San Luis Obispo
2-3 EXHIBIT B r
Marsh Street Garage Expansion�...
Section 2.0 Summary
:,III 016111,11RIA
organizations shall be provided in the parking
structure in order to minimize vehicle use and
related emissions.
AQ-2(c) Final design of the Marsh Street
Garage expansion shall incorporate
infrastructure to accommodate electrical
vehicle recharging. At such time as
considered feasible by the Department of
Public Works, recharge stations shall be
installed at designated spaces, not to exceed
Impact AQ-3 CO generated b a total of 10 spaces. _
vehicles using the parking gars a None required. None.
would inuease local ambient CO
concentrations. However,CO
x
concentrations would fall below
*state and federal standards.
Impacts are considered to be ata
Class III, less than significant level. '
-TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION/PARKING
The proposed 3f0 space garage expansion project is expected to generate a total of 3,475 ADT and 329 P.M. -
peak hour trips. The traffic analysis assumed that 75% of these trips(2,606 ADT and 247 PFfn would be .
'attracted'to the study-area adjacent to the garage from other areas within and outside the do,.vntovm con:area
of San Luis Obispo. The remaining 25%of the trips were assumed to be 'captured"fron, existin � '-
within the immediate project study-area. All of the study-area roadwatraffic flows
which are considered good levels of service, under existing and existing ys and intersections operate
tat LOS =D
ra
ra+project conditions. Most of the study
area intersections are expected to operate acceptably in the cumulative conditions, with the exception of Broad ,
Street and Pacific Street, which is forecast to operate at LOS F(57.1 sec. delay)vkth cumulalrre+project
volumes. Review of the site access plan found that the entrance and exit gate capacities would generally ,
accommodate traffic volumes associated with the 310 space expansion. The project is also expected to
increase pedestrian flows in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant with III implementation of
the following mitigation measures.signalizing the Broad StreebRacifrc Street intersection under cumulative
buildout conditions, monitoring the mid-block pedestrian crosswalk on Marsh street to d:temine the future need
for signal installation,improvements to the ingress and egress driveways serving the gerace, and restriping
westbound Pacific Street at the Chorro Street intersection. Pacific Street, west of the garage exit,is forecast to
carry volumes in excess of the acceptable level of 5,000 ADT, as defined in the Circulation Element for Local
streets, under the Cumulative+Projectscerl This wotild be potentially inconsistent YAh the existing
Circulation Element policies. However,given the nature of the commercial(office/parsing)land uses along this
segment, Pacific Street operates as a Commercial Collector Street. As observed during tread investigations,
there is sufficient roadway width and capacity on this segment of Pacific Street to accommodate forecast
cumulative volume of 5,200 ADT. Based on the current and future land uses abutting Pacific Street,it is
recommended that the segment of Pacific Street between Osos Street and Broad Street be upgraded to a
Commercial Collector Street with an acceptable capacity of 10,000 ADT as indicated in the Ciy Circulation ..
Element. All of the study-area roadways are forecast to operate acceptably in the cumulafrre conditions. = ;
Impact Mitigation Measures ,
Impact T-i Development of the None required. Pesidual Impact
project will result in the addition of hone.
2,606 attracted ADT to the
roadways adjacent to the site. J.
This would result in a Class III
impact(adverse but less than
significant),as the downtown-area
roadways would continue to I
�0
2-4
City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR
Section 2.0 Summary
operate acceptably.
Impact T-2 Development-of None required. None.
project will result in the addition of
247 attracted peak hour trips to the
intersections adjacent to the site.
This would result in a Class III
impact(adverse but less than
significant), as the area
intersections would continue to
operate acceptably.
Impact T-3 Development of the None required. However,the following Impacts would remain less
project will result in increased mitigation measure is recommended: than significant
traffic at the entrances and exits to
the garage. This would result in a T-3(a) Ingress. Based on the gate capacity
Class III impact(adverse but less analysis reviewed above, the peak inbound
than significant),as the proposed flows would be accommodated by the two
configuration of the entrance and entrance gates. City parking staff have
exits would accommodate peak indicated,however,that unequal loading
traffic flows at the expanded occurs at the hvo entrance gates,which could
garage. influence the future operation of the gate
capacities. It is therefore recommended that
the configuration of the two entrance gates and
the driveway throat design be modified to
promote more even utilization of the two
entrance lanes. Improvements to the gate
equipment,including bar code and proximity
sensors,pre-dispensed spitters(loop
detectors),etc. should also be considered to
enhance the entrance gate capacities.
Egress. Given the side-by-side configuration
of the two outbound driveways proposed for
the expanded structure and the high volume of
outbound trafnc which turns right onto Pacific
Street,it is recommended that the westerly
driveway be striped as a right-tum only exit
lane and the easterly driveway be striped as a
shared left-and-right-turn exit lane.
Appropriate signage should be provided inside
the garage to properly channelize outbound
traffic prior to the exit gates. In addition td the '
treatments at the exit driveways,it is
recommended that the westbound Pacific
Street approach at the Chorro Street
intersection be rdstriped to provide a separate
westbound right-turn lane. This lane addition _ .
Will allow for more vehicle queuing on this -
approach,thus minimizing interference with the
operation of the garage's exiting lanes. In -orderZo accommodate this re striping,the
existing loading zone on the north side of
Pacific Street would have to be removed,as
well as on-street parking (approximately 2 '
spaces)on the south side of Pacific Street
adjacent to Chorro Street. With the revised
exit lane configurations and the Pacific Street
: .City of San Luls O2-5 bFapq'_=
. �3
Marsh Street Garage Expanslor,
Section 2.l) Summary
restriping al Chorro Street, Pacific Street could
accommodate outbound traffic flows from the
LOS A garage with minimal delays in the
r
None
Impact T-4 Development of the LOS r range.
project will result in increased required. Impacts would be
parking opportunities in the bene ici_I viithout
downtown commercial area of the mitigation.
City..This would result in a Class
IV!mact(beneficial).
Impject will result in additional act T-5 Development of the None required. However,the followin
promitigation measure is recommended:g Impacts would be less -
pedestrian traffic in the Marsh than significant vrithout
Street area. This would result in a T-5(2) htid-Block Crosswalk on Marsh mitigation.
Class III impact(adverse but less Street Based on the signal warrant analysis
than significant). discussed previously,a traffic signal is not
warranted at the mid-block crosswalk
However,development of the garage
expansion is forecast to result in increases in
pedestrians using the existing mid-block
crosswalk on Marsh Street. It is therefore
recommended that the City conduct a detailed
pedestrian traFic signal warrant assessment
for this cross-walk after the expansion project
is completed to determine the ultimate need for
pedestrian signal installation at this location. If
the tta5c signal is ultimately installed at the
mid-block crosswalk I vehicle queues forming at
the signal could block the entrance driveway to
the garage. To rectify this potential problem,a
separate right-tum lane into the Marsh Street
garage entrance would need to be provided.
In order to provide the right-tum lane,on-street
parking along the south side of Marsh Street,
between the driveway and Chorro Street would
need to be removed, and the existing loading
zone and trolley stop would need to be
relocated. The potential signal would also
need to be coordinated with the upstream and
downstream signals at Chorro Street and
Morro Street to ensure that traffic flows on
Marsh Street are not significantly disrupted and
that queues at the signal do not extend into the
upstream intersection (Chorro Street/Marsh
Impact T-6 Development of the Street).
p None required.
project will result in additional Impacts would be less
vehicle traffic in the area which than signiicent without
could impact bicycle travel. This mitigation
would result in a Class III impact
(adverse but less than significant),
as the existing bike lane system in
the area would help accommodate
bicyclists in dealing with the
increased vehicular traffic.
2-6 City of San Luls Obispo.f
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR
Section 2.0 Summary
I
tT-7 Development of the None required. Impacts would be lesst will result in the addition of than significant withoutattracted ADT to the miligaN n.
ays adjacent to the site
under Cumulative conditions. This
would result in a Class III impact
(adverse but less than significant),
as all segments would operate
acceptably within their respective
design capacities.
Impact T-8 Development of the T-8(a) Broad StreetiPacific Street. Impacts would be less '
project will result in the addition of Development of the garage expansion would than s:anificant without
247 attracted peak hour trips to the degrade the intersection operations to the mitig�ion.
intersections adjacent to the site LOS F range(57.1 sec. Delay). A peak hour
under Cumulative conditions. This traffic signal warrant analysis was completed
would result in a Class Il impact for the intersection to determine the future
(significant but mitigable)at the need for traffic signals. The State peak hour
Broad Street/Pacific Street warrants indicated that.traffic signals would be
intersection. required to accommodate Cumulative+Project
P.M.peak hour volumes (worksheets are
included in Appendix C). Given the close
spacing behveen the Pacific Street and Marsh
Street intersections along Broad Street,it is
important that the signals be coordinated to
minimize delays and queuing on Broad Street
at Pacific Street. With the installation of a _
coordinated signal at this location,the
intersection would operate in.the LOS B range,
thus mitigating cumulative impacts.
T-8(b) Osos Street/Pacific Street. This
intersection shall be monitored 6 months after
and 1 year after the completion of the
proposed project to determine whether the
LOS has exceeded the significance _
threshold.
AESTHETICS j.T.�r•
This section, in examining the potential of the proposed project to alter the visual oraestheUc environment of the-
site, analyzes:
a. The project's conformance with aesthetic guidelines of the City'of San Luis Obispo General Plan Lana'~''
Use Element and Architectural Review Commission (ARC); -
b. The project's consistency with the existing design character of the downtown area;
c. Whether the removal of existing trees constitutes a sfgnfrrcant aesthetic impact;and `•-
d. The project's impact on viewsheds available from public areas.
The Marsh Street Garage expansion would conform with the General Plan Land Use Element and ARC
guidelines. Design features would reduce the impact of the project's mass and intensity to adverse but less than
significant levels. The addition of street trees would reduce the aesthetic impact of removing existing trees on
site to an adverse but less than significant level. Adverse but less than significant impacts on vievrsheds would
result with project implementation. Cumulative development in the downtown area is anticipated to result in
Adverse but less than significant cumulative viewshed impacts on pedestrians and motorists over the next ten
years due to the incremental reduction of the number of viewing opportunities from the str_at level of the
prominent natural features surrounding the City.
City of San Luis OWTS
2-7 - -
Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Section 2.0 Summary
Impact -
ImpactAES-1 The proposed a h1itigationMeasures
The following mitigation measures would P oposedual Impact
parking garage extension may not ensure insignificance: The Proposed project _
conform with the aesthetic policy would generally conform
guidelines of the City's General AES-1 a The Frith Gia Land Use
Plan Land Use Element and the applicable Project shall adhere to all Ele„—fent and ARC '
Architectural Revizv!Commission. pp Land Use Element Design cuid;lin=
Principles and ARC design criteria, as t)
s,thus having"a
This is considered a Class Il, interpreted by the Director of Community 1`s'flan significant
significant but mitigable impact. Development and the ARC. y imp'-ct -
;.
AES-1(b) The proposed garage expansion
shall duplicate the design elements of the
existing parking structure.
AES-1(c) At locations where driveway
access does not interrupt the facade,the
sidewalk frontage shall be buffered from the r
structure with either structural or landscaping
elements that would be at a minimum of four
feet in height. The provision Of a recessed
alcove area within the landscaped setback
area,adorned with a sculpture,water feature,
and seating shall be considered by the
Impact AES-2
Architectural Review Committee.
bulk and massinIn adding to the Mitigation Measures AES-1(a), (b),and(c)es Design features would
g of the existing identified above would ensure insignificance. reduce the increase in -
parking structure,the proposed In addition,the following mitigation measure mass and building
project would increase the level of is recommended:
overall building intensity and scale intensity of the proposed
in the project vicinity,therefore AES-2(a) Vary the surface forms and Project to less than
altering the existing design materials of the structure so that the Pacific sicniricant levels.
character of the downtown
community. considered Street frontage has the appearance of being
Class III, dvehse'but less than a two or three buildings instead of one,with the
significant impact. Part closest to Morro Street responding to the
context provided by the Post Office,the _
Presbyterian Church, or the Downtown --
Center.
Impact AES-3 Construction of the AES-3(a) Enlarged curbside planters shall The addition of the
Proposed parking structure be provided on Pacific Street and planted
addition would result in the be wide-spreading trees. Due d space mo'gation measures .
removal of the existing trees on constraints,the trees cannot be replaced on reduce he aesthetic
would
site,which contribute to the a one-to-one basis. Therefore,widened
existing visual character of the impact of removing the
area.'This is considered a Class Planters shall occupy what is now curbside
II, significant but mitigable impact. Parking,
w h ch 4lOUIdlCOVQor wide-spreading existing on-site trees to-. =
P 9 si adverse but less than -
Selection of these bigger area. ' signi cant level.
on
size,long life,and structu al soundnesl be s.
AES-3(b) Areas of the subject site proposed `
for landscaping or street tree wells shall be -_
Planted with ash trees of a minimum 24-inch
box size. A minimum of eight(8)trees shall -
be planted. The locations shall be selected
by a qualified landscape architect. Locations
shall be reflective of the canopy massing --_ -
l:ffy of San Luis Obispo— =r --7L/
2-8
Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR
Section 2.0 Summary
currently existing at the site.
AES-3(c) if the former Parks and Recreation
structure is demolished rather than moved,
demolition of that building and construction of
the garage expansion shall be done so that
the two liquid amber trees are retained in
their present location.
Impact AES-4 The proposed Although--the impact on viewsheds is Impacts on viewsheds
parking structure expansion has considered less than significant, Mitigation would remain adverse but
the potential to alter the viewshed Measure AES-4(a) is recommended for the less than significant with
of Cerro San Luis Obispo and City's approval, based on the Visual Arts in the dev=_!opment of the
other surrounding hills. This is Public Places Program,which stipulates that proposed parking
considered a Class III, adverse but 1%of the total approved construction cost of structure.
less than significant impact. eligible capital construction projects be
expended for the design and installation of
public art.
AES-4(a) The proposed project shall
incorporate artwork on-site,visible to the
public,that enhances and draws attention to
the visual features of the San Luis Obispo _
area.
x...- ;.RAL'RESOURCES . �~ °•�:;_�°. - _ - •;;-._ ..: ,:;�:_�- x ..
Archaeological and historic artifacts discovered during a site investigation�suggest that otherrasources may be
present In uninvestigated locations on-site. Construction of the proposed project could therefore pose a
significant impact on these resoun es. A survey of historic buildings revealed that the one building on-site was
previously determined to lack hfslorica/value. These archaeological and historical impacts are miligable to a
less than signifrcant level by combining archaeological monitoring and,if warranted, data recovery excavations
into a single field operation during construction.
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Impact FCRI construction CR-1(a) A detailed research design and With implementation of.
would adversely impact a mitigation plan shall be fled with the State this mitigation measure,
potentially significant Historic Preservation Office prior to any impacts to archaeological
archaeological and historical construction activity that might disturb and historic resources
resource. This is considered a important resources. The reseerc—h design would be less than
Class II,significant but mitigable would guide evaluation procedures for signiricant.
impact. discoveries and the treatment plan would
establish methods and procedures used for
each phase of work,from discovery to report
preparation.
Evaluation and data recovery work shall be _
City of San Luis Oblspo^' /-2S
2-9
Marsh Street Garage Expansic
Section 2.0 Summary
. .
combined into a single field operation. Initial
demolition and pavement removal would be
carefully monitored by a qualified
archaeologist. If intact archaeological or
historical deposits are uncovered,their
impoitance would be evaluated according to
a pre-approved research design.Data _
recovery would be carried out immediately
according to the treatment plan for :
discoveries that exhibit these specific -
'important'characteristics. Discoveries that
do not meet the criteria that would be _
considered ineligible for further treatment
under CEQA and City guidelines. Impacts to
important resources would be immediately
mitigated to less than significant levels
according to the predesigned mitigation plan,
Recovered artifacts would then be processed
at a laboratory and analyzed. A Subsurface
Archaeological Resources Evaluation report
would be prepared documenting the
archaeological procedures and results.
—_ City of San Luis Obispo^•
- 2-10
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIOi1S
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure
of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-
of-service (LOS) criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-
min analysis period. The criteria are given in Table 9-1. Delay may be measured in the field
or estimated using procedures presented later in this chapter. Delay is a complex measure-and
is dependent upon a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle leagtih, ;
the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group in question.
LOSA describes operations with very low delay, up to 5 see per vehicle. This-level of service
occurs wht:n progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during,the green
phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
LOS B describes operations with delay greater than 5 and up to 15 sec per vehicle. This level
generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More veliicles stop than
with LOS A, causing higher level-of average delay.
LOS C describes operations with delay greater than 15 and up to 25 sec per vehicle. These
higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle
failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with delay greater than 25 and up to 40 sec per vehicle. At level
D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
LOS E describes operations with delay greater than 40 and up to 60 sec per vehicle. This level
is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occurrences.
LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 60 sec per vehicle. This level, considered
to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow
rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1/0
with many individual cycle failures. Pool progression and long cycle lengths may also be
major contributing causes to such delay levels.
Level of Service criteria for signalized intersecfions is summarized in Table 9.1, in the.
Highway Capacity Manual, in the table on the following page.
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Exhibit C
100N.H00C Gvenue.su;:e 4.san_e 66rDara,cG c_11 O•16051 se7-4C i R
V
City of San Luis Obispo
City Council Hearing Input Report
Meeting of October 21, 1997
Marsh Street Garage Expansion
Environmental Impact Report
�o
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
in association with
Associated Transportation Engineers
November 5., 1997
EXHIBIT C /��
Marsh Street Garage Expansioi
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
CITY COUNCIL HEARING INPUT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report responds to comments raised by members of the public and by Council Members at
the City of San Luis Obispo Council Meeting Public Hearing held October 21,1997. The report is
intended to respond to additional environmental issues and CEQA requirements that are still of
concern in the publics mind,as evidenced by the input received at the hearing. It also includes
additional responses raised by Planning Commission members at that body's August 27,1997
Public Hearing.
1.1 ADDITIONAL INPUT to PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Section 9.4,Planning Commission Hearing of the EIR Comments and Responses Report,included a
summary of the input received at the August 27,1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing. It
reported that five speakers from the community provided verbal testimony input Of these,four
provided comment letters on the EIR,each of which were included in the EIR Comments and
Responses Report and responded to in detail.
Seven Planning Commissioners were present at the hearing: John Ashbaugh,John Ewan,David
Jeffrey,Janet Kourakis,Paul Ready,Charles Senn,and Mary Whittlesey. Each of the seven
Planning Commissioners were present and provided input
One commissioner,John Ashbaugh,provided a detailed letter,which was incorporated into the
Comments and Responses report as Letter#5 (please see pages 9-28 through 9-39 of the EIR
Comments and Responses Report). Section 9.4,Planning Commission Hearing,states that the
remaining issues raised by Planning Commissioners were addressed in the context of responses
to the seven letters received during the 45-day Draft EIR Circulation period(July 21,1997 through
September 5,1997),except the request for more detail relative to the issue of how much the
viewshed of San Luis Mountain would be affected. A graphic was developed(Figure 5.3-7,Public
Property from which Ground-Level Views of San Luis Mountain would be Blocked by the Proposed Parking
Structures),and was included in the EIR Comments and Responses Report. It will also be
incorporated into the Final EIR.
Since the publication of the EIR Comments and Responses Report, members of the City Council
have requested that a more detailed response to Planning Commissioner comments be provided.
The following is provided in response to that request. Meeting minutes were used to confirm
comments.
Commissioner Tohn R.Ewan
Mr.Ewan provided a letter summarizing his concerns. It is included herewith to ensure that a
thorough response is provided.
r City of San Luis Obispo
1
/-,2Z1
John R. Ewa
1221 SyIvia CT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 '
Re: Marsh Street Parking Structure Expansion EIR.
1, 5.2 "Upgrading"of Pacific Street to a Commercial Collector Street is not a
mitigation,but a change in terminology. The offices and residences along this street may
find this new level of traffic (2606 ADT) objectionable.
2. 5.2.1 Why the assumption of continuing operations status quo in the existing
garage. Changes to existing operations should be addressed in the alternatives section.
1 5.2.1& The street network impacts need to be expanded beyond the immediate
PacificBroad/Marsh/Osos to include the arterial streets which feed into this area, (2600
cars are not going to come from nowhere).
4. Appendix Trip Generation Spread Sheets show an average of over 45 pass card
holders, assuming an 8 hour day, these users reduce usable space by up to 20%.
Elimination of these long term users should be addressed in the alternatives section.
5. Impact AES-1 The proposed structure should beset back from the Morro/Pacific
street intersection,and along Monro Street. Perhaps architectural style on Morro Street
should be more in the style of the Post Office Building.
6. The,proposed Phase 1 should include commercial uses on the ground floor area,
as are currently included in the existing garage. If these uses are not to be included,than
the reasoning for excluding this use should be stated,with background information(per
sq. ft rental rates&vacancy rates) included
7. The right tum lane into the garage should be installed now, along with
signalization of the Marsh Street Pedestrian crossing.
2
Marsh Street Garage Expansion
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
Response 1: Page 5.2-8 of the EIR indicates that the project would not generate significant impacts
to the study area roadways,including Pacific Street The existing+project volumes on the section
of Pacific Street between the parking garage exit and Chorro Street would increase by 4,800 ADT,
which would equate to acceptable operations given the configuration of the roadway.
The cumulative volumes forecast for Pacific Street would increase to 5,200 ADT,which would
also equate to acceptable operations from a design capacity standpoint. It is also noted that the
EIR recommends removing parking and adding an additional westbound lane on Pacific Street
between the garage exit and Chorro Street. These improvements will increase the capacity along
this section of Pacific Street,where the project would add most of its exiting traffic. Figure A
provides a schematic illustration of the improvements proposed for this section of Pacific Street.
From a capacity and operational standpoint,Pacific Street will operate acceptably with the
forecast cumulative volumes and the existing street segment The cumulative volumes are,
however,200 ADT greater than the Desired Maximum ADT listed in the City's Circulation
Element(5,000 ADT). The EIR therefore recommended that the classification of Pacific Street be
changed to a Commercial Collector Street The response to comments developed for the Draft EIR
also provided an alternative recommendation that the City accept a forecast cumulative ADT
volume of 5,200 ADT for the short segment of Pacific Street between the garage exit and Chorro
Street,which will be improved to provide 2 westbound travel lanes.
As detailed in the EIR,the project would add 1,150 ADT to the short segment of Pacific Street
between the garage exit and Chorro Street,not 2,600 ADT as stated in this comment The project's
additions to the sections of Pacific Street west of Chorro and east of the entrance would be in the
200 to 400 ADT range,which would not generate significant impacts to Pacific Street Figure B
provides more detail on the traffic volumes forecast along Pacific Street
Response 2 The EIR analyzed the impacts of the garage based on the project description
provided by the City,which assumed that existing operations would remain in place for the
expanded garage. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR were also developed by the City and did
not include an option to substantially change the existing garage operations.
Response 3: The study area and scope of work included in the EIR traffic analysis was based on
careful review of the project by the consultant and staff at the City Public Works Department.
The project would not result in"2,600"new cars in the downtown. The 200 ADT figure cited in
the EIR equates to one-way trip ends,which includes 1,300 cars entering and exiting the garage.
Review of the project trip distribution figure presented in the EIR(Figure 5.2-3) shows that project
traffic disperses through the downtown grid system so that traffic additions on streets located
outside of the study area are insignificant(200-300 ADT).
Furthermore,the EIR states that the great-majority of the new trips would not be new to the
downtown area,but instead would be attracted to the garage from other less convenient parking
areas within and adjacent to the downtown.
3 City of San Luis Obispo
Q
W
D
133c'J1S O2JdoW U-
0
a
N X
cnW
d
W
W w
LU
W U Z
CY-x O a�
Qw CN
C7 0
W
U LLJ�
0
a
U J cc
Q U a
IZ
O
(� O O
Z_ Z Z
Y Y I
0- U
F-
O Z �
w
U
(n
Z
0
o a
~ W
133diS a>> O�J�JOHO
W W J
E.0g
'YW ''WIIIIY'
4 �_ /
EXISTING + PROJECT
ADT VOLUMES
w
w
V
W
3 400 0 4 850 < w 3 380 3 480
U O
PACIFIC STREET
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
ADT VOLUMES
uj
w
� W
w
o
3 780 0 5 250 W 3 500 w 3 880
U 0
PACIFIC STREET
�p ASSOCIATED FIGURE B
TR,wSPORTATION AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ENGINEERS
5
Marsh Street Garage Expansk A
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
Response 4: Data collected at the garage and information provided by City staff indicate that the
accumulation of Passcard holders in the parking structure reaches 20 to 25 vehicles during any
one peak hour period (8%-10%utilization). Elimination of these vehicles in the garage would not
accomplish the stated goal of the expanded structure,which will be providing 310 new spaces for
a 260 percent increase in parking available at the garage site. This option was therefore not
included as an alternative to the project
Response 5: This concern was addressed in Response 6C to the letter from Ira Winn,included in
the EIR Comments and Responses Report. It should be further noted that the mitigation measure
recommended at AES-1(b),which calls for duplication of the existing design elements,should be
removed from the Final EIR,since the new suggested measure AES-2(a)would better address
urban design concerns,and the two are potentially contradictory.
The suggestion that the proposed structure should be setback from the Monro/Pacific Street
intersection is noted. The conceptual site plan illustrates a Monro Street setback of 15 feet,which
is the zoning requirement for the Office zone. The Architectural Review Commission will make
design recommendations prior to finalization of the proposed project design.
Response 6: The concern about ground-floor space was also raised by Commissioner John
Ashbaugh in his letter. Offices would be allowed by zoning,but are not explicitly called for by
City policy. The City Council could require that a portion of the ground floor be designed to
accommodate office space.Ground-floor offices could add interest to the street presentation but
would not reduce view blockage nor alter the massing of the structure.
Response 7: City staff have indicated that the project now includes of the right-turn lane on
Marsh Street at the garage entrance to be implemented concurrently with the garage expansion.
With respect to signalizing the mid-block pedestrian crossing on Marsh Street,the mitigation
language requires that this be done when warranted. The mitigation monitoring plan also defines
the timing for implementation of this improvement To clarify the issue,the mitigation measures
in question have been reworded. Please see responses to Mayor Allen Settle's comments,
included below.
In addition,Mr.Ewan raised the issue of the changing of classification of Pacific Street as
inappropriate as a mitigation measure. This concern was addressed in Response 5T to the letter
from John Ashbaugh,included in the October 10,1997 EIR Comments and Responses Report.
Mr.Ewan raises concerns about the operations proposed. Operational issues will be addressed by
the Architectural Review Commission as part of their review of design features of the project.
Commissioner David TeffreX
Commissioner oner Jeffrey inquired about potential impacts to Pacific between Osos and Santa Rosa.
Review of the project trip distribution figure presented in the EIR(Figure 5.2-3)shows that the
project would add approximately 200 ADT to the section of Pacific Street west of Osos. This
minor traffic addition would not impact this roadway segment
r City of San Luis Obispo
6
/-3�
Marsh Street Garage Expansio6
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
With respect to operations at Broad and Pacific,the EIR outlines a mitigation for the cumulative
impact at the intersection which includes installation of traffic signals. With signals,the
intersection operation would improve from LOS F to LOS B operations with cumulative+project
volumes.
With respect to issues regarding reclassifying Pacific Street,see above response#1 to
Commissioner Ewan's Letter.
Commissioner Tanet Kourakis
Commissioner Kourakis stated that the analysis of the viewshed impact was weak. In response to
this concern,the City Planning Division staff prepared a diagram of viewshed locations near the
proposed project that would be blocked. This was provided in the EIR Comments and Responses
Report(please see Page 9-52),and will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
The viewshed impact was categorized as a Class III,adverse but less-than-significant impact
because the viewing locations affected are not identified by the City as either scenic highways,
important public spaces,or parklands. Therefore,the mitigation measure suggested is not
required to mitigate a significant impact,but suggested to alleviate an adverse effect. The concept
is that by using the existing public art program,to which the project will contribute,to spotlight
the City's visual features,that the public understanding and enjoyment of those features would be
enhanced.
The opinion that the height exception may be precedent setting is noted. Each height exception is
a discretionary action and therefore subject to review and approval by decisionmakers. The
Commissioner recommends that the project come before the Planning Commission to address the
height exception request prior to going before the Architectural Review Commission,since the
Planning Commission Wiling on this question will affect final design.
The archaeological mitigation measures are the recommendations of cultural resource
professionals. The concern regarding the extent of the mitigation measures is noted.
Commissioner Paul Ready
Commissioner Ready disagrees that the downtown core description was misconstrued,and that
the consultants have done an excellent job. He expresses a concern about the mid-block crossing,
an issue addressed in this report Please see responses to Mayor Allen Settles comments,
included below.
Commissioner Ready also expressed concerns about the mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street.As
reviewed above in response#7 to Commissioner Ewan's letter,City staff have indicated that the
project now includes implementation of the right-tum lane on Marsh Street at the garage
entrance. The mitigation language for the mid-block crosswalk signal requires that this be done
when warranted. The mitigation monitoring plan also defines the timing for implementation of
this improvement.
City of San Luis Obispo
7
/3
Marsh Street Garage Expansi, R
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21, 1997
With respect to street network impacts,see above response#1 and#S to Commissioner Ewan's
letter. With respect to long-tern users of the structure,see response#4 to Commissioner Ewan's
letter.
With respect to the issue of relief of parking which intrudes into the adjacent neighborhood,
Impact T-4 indicates that the structure would result in a beneficial impact by capturing a portion
of the neighborhood spill-over parking that is currently occurring. We concur with
Commissioner Ready's statement that the structure will in fact provide beneficial impacts to this
situation
Commissioner Ready wishes to further address the affected viewshed. This concern was further.
addressed in the EIR Comments and Responses Report. Please see responses to questions by
Commissioner Kourakis,above.
Commissioner Charles Senn
Commissioner Senn questioned how the parking structure corresponds to policies relative to
calling San Luis Obispo a compact urban form. Generally,structured parking would be
considered consistent with goals of keeping the urban form compact. Surface parking creates a
break in the built environment pattern,while structured parking provides a consistent built
pattern in the street fabric. The concentration of parking in one location keeps a certain number of
visitors to the downtown core area concentrated in the center,thereby increasing localized
pedestrian activity and strengthening foot traffic patterns in the vicinity. This would theoretically
have the affect of strengthening the utility of functions taking place in the downtown,which may
reduce the demand for developing urban uses on the periphery of the urban area. Therefore,the
proposed project would support policies for a compact urban form.
The issue of drainage and stormwater runoff is addressed in the City's Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Form,included as Appendix A of the EIR. The proposed project was
found to have a less than significant impact on water absorption rates,drainage patters,or the
rate and amount of surface runoff. This is because the amount of permeable surface area at the
subject site would not be expected to materially change. The site is developed with a building
and surface parking areas. Though there are some planters,there are no setbacks along the Morro
Street frontage. The proposed project would include a 15 foot setback along the length of the
Pacific and Morro Street frontages,potentially increasing the permeable surface area of the site.
Consequently,st ormwater runoff would either be the same or be reduced as a result of the
proposed project
The issue of how parking structures affect demand for parking has been the subject of much
disagreement in the discourse surrounding the EIR review and comment. This EIR has relied on
the methodology adopted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,which holds that parking
facilities do not generate trips(demand),but rather serve trips that are already in demand. Our
traffic engineers have found no documented studies that prove otherwise.
Commissioner Senn requested information regarding how parking spaces relate to traffic
demands. As discussed in the EIR and further reviewed at the Planning Commission hearing for
the project,the addition of the new parking spaces to the Marsh Street garage would not result in
r8 City of San Luis Obispo
/3�
Marsh Street Garage Expansioi.
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
a significant increase in traffic traveling to and from the overall dowritown area. It is estimated
that only 5%to 10% of the traffic associated with the garage expansion would be"new"to the
downtown This conclusion is supported by the findings of the Downtown Access and Parking
Study Progress Report No.2,as well as regional and national traffic engineering data regarding
traffic generation and its sources.
The height exception would accommodate a base height of 41 feet,with parapets extending to 48
feet Therefore,if an exception were not granted,the base height would be six feet lower,and
parapets would be 13 feet lower. The structure could fall within existing height standards if the
top level were not built This would reduce the number of spaces provided by 106,and would
reduce the total number of new spaces from 305 to 199,a 35%reduction. Another option would
be to place some of these spaces in a subterranean structure. Such method would greatly increase
the costs of both construction and operations.
Commissioner Mary Whittlesey
The commissioner raised concerns about a range of environmental issues addressed in the EIR.
She believes that the alternatives were not adequately addressed,and suggested that the
downtown parking and access study may provide some guidance here. The downtown parking
and access study is a broad program,and its review under CEQA is categorically different than a
review of this project-specific proposal. Please see response to comment 4C in the EIR Comments
and Responses Report.
With respect to the mid-block crossing issue,see response#7 to Commissioner Ewan's letter.
With respect to issues regarding impacts to Pacific Street,see above response#1 and#3 to
Commissioner Ewan's Letter.
1.2 CITY COUNCIL HEARING:PUBLIC COMMENTS
On October 21,1997,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the March Street Garage
Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report Thirteen speakers presented testimony:Tory
Houlgate,Eugene Jud,Ira Wynn,Craig Anderson,Peg Pinnard,Mike Spangler,Steve McGrath,
Shelly Sanwick,Brain Christiansen,Pierre Rademaker,Lawrence Houlgate,and Debra Holley.
The following summarizes their comments and provides responses thereto.
Torey Houlgate
Ms.Houlgate expressed concern about accommodating additional automobiles in the downtown
area. She recounted a vacation in a car-free resort and the Portland,Oregon policy of not
providing additional parking facilities in the core area. She expressed the notion that the
community wants people,not cars. She commended Santa Barbara for the pedestrian friendliness
of its downtown and its free downtown transportation shuttle.
The City of Santa Barbara operates 11 parking lots,four of which are structured. Each of the
structures is sited within a block of the State Street retail corridor. The structures contain 228,260,
508,and 525 spaces- providing a total of 1,521 automobile parking spaces. The shuttle was
r City of San Luis Obispo
9
37
Marsh Street Garage Expansic l
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
designed to carry pedestrians along different parts of State Street,not from parking lots to State
Street According to Jay Hillje,City of Santa Barbara Resource Specialist,the strategy of the
structures is to provide for people to park in one place and conduct the rest of their State Street
visits on foot To the extent that this is true,the parking structures may be seen as promoting
pedestrian life in downtown Santa Barbara.
According to Mr.Hillje,there is no free shuttle operated by the City. However,the City provides
shuttle service that circulates along State Street and Cabrillo Boulevard along the beach,which
has proven to primarily carry tourists concentrated in the lodging areas near the beach to the
retail core of State Street The service,which costs 25 cents per boarding,has not been
demonstrated to cut local trips to multiple State Street destinations.
The City of Santa Monica operates six municipal parking structures with 3,000 parking spaces,all
within one block of the Third Street Promenade-a three block retail street that is a car free zone.
According to City officials,the structures help meet the parking demand by regional visitors for
whom transit would not be a feasible alternative. Structures are used by a high percentage of
visitors to the promenade,which has emerged as an award-winning pedestrian-oriented urban
district
Drawing from these two cases,we would conclude that the existence of parking structures does
not inherently harm pedestrian viability,and may result in an increase in the number of
pedestrians using City streets.
Eugene Tud
Mr.Jud's presentation questioned the cumulative analysis used in the EIR for the traffic section
Mr.Jud presented several figures,copies of which are attached,which indicated that traffic in the
downtown area of San Luis Obispo could increase by between 60%and 135%over a 15 year
period. Mr.Jud based his analysis on national growth trends in traffic and information presented
in the Downtown Access and Parking Study.
ATE reviewed the conclusions reached by Na.Jud and determined that they are misleading and
based on inaccurate data,as follows:
Growth Factors: Mr.Jud contends that traffic in the downtown area would be expected to
grow at between 4% and 9%per year over the next 15 years(60% to 135% total growth). He
supports these assumptions using nationwide traffic growth projections and information
purportedly derived from the Downtown Access and Parking Study (DAPS).
Utilization of nationwide traffic growth trends to predict traffic growth in the downtown area of
San Luis Obispo is not appropriate. ATE obtained historical traffic volume data from the City
Public Works Department which clearly shows that volumes in the downtown area have not
experienced the type of steady 4% to 9%growth cited by Mr.Jud. In fact,the study completed by
the Public Works Department for the Mid-Block Crosswalk(March 1997)states that"Volumes on
Marsh Street have been fairly consistent over a ten year time frame".
City of San Luis Obispo
10
30
Marsh Street Garage ExpansiL 2
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21, 1997
It is noted that the EIR analysis does not rely on the simplistic method of factoring traffic based on
national or local historical growth trends. Instead the analysis looks at anticipated land use
development and estimates the traffic which would be generated by this development. The EIR
analysis also distributes the traffic generated by the proposed development,thus accounting for
the location of the origins and destinations of the trips. This type of land use modeling approach
to traffic forecasts is widely used in the traffic engineering industry and is by far the most
common approach used for EIR cumulative traffic analyses required under CEQA.
Downtown Access and Parking Study Forecasts:The figures presented by Mr.Jud state
that the DAPS shows a parking space inventory in the downtown area of 3,000 spaces and that
the study further estimates that 1,700 new spaces would be required in 15 years under a moderate
growth scenario. Based on these statistics,Mr.Jud hypothesizes that traffic should grow by 4%
per year. The statistics used by Mr.Jud are incorrect.
The DAPS states that the downtown area is currently served by 3,720 parking spaces versus the
3,000 spaces cited by Mr.Jud. Furthermore,the DAPS states that 1,020 new spaces will be needed
over a 15 year period under the moderate growth scenario versus the 1,700 spaces cited by Mr.
Jud. The DAPS study data indicates that the parking space needs of the downtown would grow
at approximately 1.8%per year,rather than the 4%per year figure stated by Na.Jud.
The data submitted by Mr.Jud also indicate that traffic in the downtown will increase by 17,000
ADT as a result of the 1,700 new parking spaces,and that this increase in traffic will result in a 6%
per year growth on the downtown streets. Again,these findings are based on inaccurate data.
The data presented in the DAPS study show that future parking demands in the downtown area
are expected to increase by 250 long-term spaces and 770 short-term spaces over 15 years under
the moderate growth scenario. This increase in parking spaces would be associated with a traffic
increase of approximately 9,250 ADT over a 15 year period,which is almost 50%less than the
forecasts provided by Mr.Jud.
EIR Cumulative Traffic Forecasts: The cumulative traffic analysis presented in the EIR
was based on reasonably foreseeable developments in the downtown area over a 10 year period.
This land use data base was developed by City staff based on the City's updated Land Use
Element. It is the land use development that will generate the majority of additional traffic in the
downtown area.
The cumulative traffic forecasts used for the EIR assumed that there would be 335,000 square feet
of new development generating over 12,000 new daily trips under a 10 year development period
(including the project). This 10 year traffic growth projection is 30% greater than the trip increases
which would result from the 15-year moderate growth scenario forecast in the DAPS(12,050 ADT
vs.9,250 ADT),as reviewed in the preceding discussion.
The EER cumulative traffic analysis clearly presents a reasonable worst-case assessment of
cumulative traffic impacts for the study when compared to historical traffic growth patterns
documented by the City in the downtown area and when compared to the future parking growth
projections presented in the DAPS. Itis also noted that,with the exception of the two
City of San Luis Obispo
11
-57
Marsh Street Garage ExpansiL A
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
intersections which were identified as requiring cumulative mitigation measures,all of the study-
area intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in the LOS A-B range with cumulative+
project traffic volumes. Thus even if traffic were to grow at the inflated rates cited by Mr.Jud,the
intersections and roadways in the study-area would operate at acceptable service levels based on
the City's adopted LOS standards for the downtown area.
Ira Wynn
Mr.Wynn raised the issue that the impact to the U.S.Postal Service and Mail Delivery was not
adequately addressed. The City has been involved with the U.S. Postal Service as part of the
project effort. The U.S.Postal Service's Assets Management Facilities Service Office has been in
negotiations with the City regarding the purchase of air rights and/or property. The City is also
working with the U.S.Postal Service District Office in Van Nuys. Through these discussions,the
Postal Service is well apprised of the project,and its design accommodates their loading and
delivery needs. Consequently,it is a reasonable assumption that the Postal Service will provide
for its needs prior to any lease or sale and that no significant impact to Postal Service operations
would be anticipated.
Mr.Wynn brought up a reference to a carbon monoxide impact that he stated was deferred to
later study. He alluded to the Draft EIR,but referenced a page 9 which is not contained in the
EIR. The Draft EIR and the response to the letter from the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control
District letter are conclusive about the expected impacts from air pollutants,including carbon
monoxide. The analysis of these impacts have not been deferred to a future study. Please review
section 5.1,Air Quality,and the responses to letter 2 of the EIR Comments and Responses Report.
With respect to impacts to the pedestrian ambiance of central San Luis Obispo,please review the
responses to comments by Torey Houlgate,above. Parking structures in active commercial
shopping districts in California appear to assist in getting pedestrians to these locations,thereby
increasing the level of pedestrianism along adjacent commercial areas. Pedestrians have the right
of way,and an increase in pedestrian activity would tend to impinge on the desirability of
vehicular travel as a primary mode in pedestrian districts. The proposed project would be
accompanied by a mid-block signalized pedestrian crossing,and other traffic signals which will
further enhance the pedestrian realn-L The increased concentration of parkers at the proposed site
will likely add to the level of pedestrian activity in the Marsh Street Garage vicinity,and a
corresponding decrease in the amount of time drivers use.streets to find parking during times of
high activity.
Mr.Wynn stated that impacts to roadways and intersections can't be mitigated. The EIR analysis
identifies the traffic impacts associated with the project and outlines numerous mitigation
measures-which would be required to mitigate these impacts. The EER also includes a mitigation
monitoring plan which has been developed to ensure that the identified mitigation measures are
implemented.
Craig Anderson
Mr.Anderson raised the question of the Pacific/Broad Street intersection signalization. Mr.
Anderson questions the mitigation recommending signalization of the Broad Street/Pacific Street
r12 City of San Luis Obispo
�-7�
Marsh Street Garage Expansior.
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
intersection. The EIR outlines a mitigation for the cumulative impact at the intersection which
includes installation of traffic signals. With signals,the intersection operation would improve
from LOS F to LOS B operations with cumulative+project volumes,thus mitigating the project's
contribution to cumulative impacts at this location. The EIR also requires that the signal be
interconnected and coordinated with adjacent signals to minimize queuing on Broad Street.
Mr.Anderson believes that the visual effects are not adequately addressed. The EIR includes
three before-and-after views of the subject site from three key viewing locations,as selected by
the City Planning Division staff and the consultant. In addition,an area-of-effect map was
drafted by the Planning Division and included in the EIR Comments and Responses Report. The
photosimulations have become the focus of a large body of input from the community,input that
may influence the final design and configuration of the structure.
Mr. Anderson stated that the fiscal effects needed to be considered,and that the City should
spend its money on transportation demand management approaches. Accordingly,he states his
opinion that the Downtown Parking and Access Study poses better alternatives.
Please note that the proposed project is an expansion of an existing public facility: CEQA
requires the discussion of alternatives to be guided by the rule of reason(State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126(d)). The proposed project is the expansion to a parking garage
accommodating approximately 310 new parking spaces to a 252-space structure. The proposed
project is not the adoption of an overall parking strategy,but rather a physical facility.
Therefore,the range of alternatives focuses on those that could meet the objectives of meeting
parking demand for 310 spaces. Among those considered is the No Project alternative,which
addresses the concept of addressing demand for 310 spaces through alternative transportation
and other program methods. Some of these methods are parallel to those addressed in the
Downtown Access and Parking Study.
It is important for EIR readers and decision-makers to understand that CEQA requires a
focused discussion on the impacts of the proposed project. Though there is a relationship
between the Marsh Street Garage Expansion project and the Downtown Access and Parking Study,
the role of this EER is to describe the environmental effects of the former. The need to address
an alterative to building the proposed project is fulfilled in Section 7.2.3,No Project.
The EIR includes a discussion of several project alteratives as identified by City staff,including a
No Project alterative. Analysis of the No Project alternative discusses trip reduction measures
which could be implemented to reduce downtown parking demands in the event that no
additional parking is provided in the future. With regard to fiscal effects,CEQA does not require
such information to be contained in an EIR(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15131).
Peg Pinard
Ms.Pinard discussed mformation.in the Meyer Mohaddes Downtown Parking and Access Study,
and found numerous inaccuracies. She acknowledged a link between that study and this one.
She stated that the EIR was too limited in scope,and that it omitted important information
about livability,nighttime lighting,and safety.
City of San Luis Obispo
13
i yi
Marsh Street Garage Expansion
City Council'Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
She opined that the increased traffic will disperse through downtown neighborhoods.
However,it is noted that one of the expected benefits of the garage expansion is that cars that
currently circulate and intrude into in-town neighborhoods because of a lack of parking will
instead be accommodated in an expanded Marsh Street Garage. The result may be a reduction
in trip intrusions into in-town neighborhoods, and a decrease of curbside parking outside of the
core downtown area.
As discussed in the EIR under impact T-4,it is anticipated that the structure would result in a
beneficial impact to this neighborhood by capturing a portion of the parking and traffic which is
impacting the area south of Pacific Street due to the spill-over parking which is currently
occurring. This spill-over parking situation is clearly identified as an issue in the Downtown Access
&Parking Study.
Ms.Pinard also commented that the impacts related to the structure will require widening of
streets in the downtown The mitigation measures included in the EIR do not call for widening of
any streets in the downtown area. Instead,the EIR recommends restriping Pacific Street within
the existing street width to provide a westbound right-tum lane at the Chorro Street intersection.
The issue of livability,though important to consider for development projects,is not directly
included in the State CEQA Guidelines suggested Initial Study checklist,nor in the City of San
Luis Obispo Environmental Checklist Form(please see Appendix A). The notion of livability is
inherently subjective,and is thus hard to directly define. Nevertheless,CEQA accommodates a
range of environmental concerns that encompass a part of what livability might be. Land use
and planning,air quality,transportation and circulation,biological resources,hazards,noise,
aesthetics,and cultural resources are issue areas under the purview of CEQA that all intersect
with livability issues. Of these,transportation and circulation,air quality,aesthetics,and
cultural resources were found by the City to warrant an EIR-level of analysis.
The issue of lighting problems was found to be less than significant in the Initial Study. It
states that "(n)ew lighting within the structure and on its walls will not cause significantly different
lighting conditions from existing lighting in the area. Lighting for the top level will be shielded and of a
height that will avoid glare. Lighting details will be subject to architectural review."
The issue of public safety was also found to be less than significant in the Initial Study. It states
that "(b)ased on experience with the existing garages, law enforcement demands are not expected to
increase substantially."
Ms. Pinard mentioned that county growth,including a proposed new courthouse complex,will
increase traffic levels and congestion The issue of cumulative growth is addressed in the EIR.
Though at the present time no downtown projects are sufficiently through the development
process to be considered pending,the EIR incorporated a forecast method,using the General
Plan as a basis for the cumulative analysis.
Mike Spanler
Mr.Spangler,though generally complementary of the staff and the EIR,stated that the EIR
should more effectively state that the purpose of the garage is to get cars out of neighborhoods
14 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansio.
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
and into structures. He stated that the structures make the City more pedestrian friendly by
facilitating a stored area for cars near the pedestrian core. With respect to air quality,he
pointed out that technological advances are improving engine efficiencies,thereby rendering
obsolete impact statements relative to air emissions.
The analysis in the EIR is designed to be an objective,worst-case assessment of environmental
effects. Though City studies have documented a high degree of vehicle intrusion into in-town
neighborhoods,and an expansion to the parking garage would physically accommodate a large
number of those vehicles,it is prudent not to speculate about the actual behavior of the drivers.
Mr.Spangler makes the point that parking garages do not in and of themselves generate traffic,
that it is the land uses in the downtown that generate traffic. We concur with this statement. As
discussed in the EIR and further reviewed at the Planning Commission hearing for the project,the
addition of the new parking spaces to the Marsh Street garage would not result in a significant
increase in traffic traveling to and from the overall downtown area. It is estimated that only 5%to
10%of the traffic associated with the garage expansion would be"new"to the downtown. This
conclusion is supported by the findings of the Downtown Access and Parking Study Progress
Report No.2,as well as regional and national traffic engineering data regarding traffic generation
and its sources.
Steve McGrath
Mr.McGrath points out that the goal of San Luis Obispo ought to be to get people downtown, .
and not cars,and that providing additional parking mixes the ends with the wrong means. He
mentions that the location is problematic.
The location of the garage expansion is tied to its function as an expansion of an existing
facility. The proposed site is currently occupied by an abandoned building and surface parking
lots. Therefore,the land use would not materially change,only the intensity of use.
Mr.McGrath raised issues regarding the reclassification of Pacific Street. See above response#1
and#3 to Commissioner Ewan's Letter regarding this issue.
Shegy Stanwyck
Ms.Stanwyck,a member of the Chamber of Commerce,states that the proposed project
implements policies for a compact downtown by putting surface parking lots to a more efficient
use.
Brian Christiansen
Mr.Christiansen expressed a desire to look at more creative,community-oriented alteratives.
He expressed a concern about the impact to the 1925 Post Office resulting from the different
building heights and massing. He questioned whether access to the Post Office was addressed.
15 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansio,
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
He expressed a concern about the reclassification of Pacific Street as"a mitigation measure. He
stated that the deferral of mitigation measures is not allowed under CEQA.
The Sundstrom case refers to the deferral of analysis of environmental effects to future studies
during the adoption of a Negative Declaration. The project environmental document is an EIR,
not a Negative Declaration,and this document explicitly discusses and analyzes potentially
significant effects. In addition,the Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino found that negative
declarations cannot be based on the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not
been formulated at the time of project approval. Such is not the case with this EIR,in which the
mitigation measures in question have been formulated,but the exact timing for such has been
deferred until an actual need is demonstrated. (See also Sacramento Old City Association v. Qhj
Council of Sacramento (1991)in which the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the City of
Sacramento decision to expand its convention center without first determining the precise
means to mitigate significant effects on traffic and parking demands.) .
Mr.Christiansen raised issues regarding the reclassification of Pacific Street See above responses
#1 and#3 to Commissioner Ewan's Letter regarding this issue.
Mr.Christiansen expressed a concern that the proposed project is growth-inducing in that it
allows the retail center to grow and to not provide parking. The City does not intend to
provide parking credits to future developments based on the parking supply expansion
provided here.
Mr.Christiansen stated that alternatives need to reflect the"Hyatt case." The Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)52 Cal.App.3d 553 (otherwise known as Goleta II),sets the
standard for the discussion of feasible alternatives to a proposed project and reiterates that the
consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason. The range of alternatives
presented in this EIR follows this rule of reason. An EIR is required to set forth a sufficient
number of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Such has been done with respect
to the.proposed project In addition,the Goleta court found that if alternative sites have been
identified in adopted plans,they may be included in an EIR. The Marsh Street Parking Garage
Expansion EIR has considered such an alternative site in keeping with a reasonable range of
alternatives.
Mr. Christiansen stated that the existing lighting is already too intense,and that additional
lighting would be a problem. Please refer to responses to Ms.Pinard,above. Lighting
questions will be further addressed by the Architectural Review Commission.
He believes seismic effects should be looked at The City's Initial Study found seismic risk to be
less than significant The structure would be built in accordance with the latest building codes
applicable to the relevant seismic zone.
Mr.Christiansen mentioned that an exception to the zoning code to allow for additional lot
coverage would be required. As designed,the proposed project requires an exception to the
height limitation applicable in the Office Zone. Such an exception requires approval of the
Planning Commission. The zoning ordinance allows up to a 60% lot coverage in the Office
16 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansioi
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
Zone. The proposed project would result in a lot coverage of 75%. Therefore,the proposed
project would require the approval of a variance. The description of the physical change that
would result from implementation of the proposed project and its environmental effects
relative to lot coverage and other massing issues are discussed in the EIR in Section 3.0,Project
Description,and in Section 5.3,Aesthetics.
Pierre Rademaker
Mr. Rademaker stated that though there are visual and aesthetic concerns,the Architectural
Review Commission will address these concerns. He stated that the access at Marsh Street is
optimal,since this is a primary downtown arterial. He points out that the cars are already on
the streets and in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mr.Rademaker states that the structure
will relieve parking in adjacent neighborhood areas. Impact T14 in the EIR states that the
structure would result in a beneficial impact by capturing a portion of this neighborhood spill-
over parking which is currently occurring. We concur with Mr.Rademaker's statement that the
structure will in fact provide beneficial impacts to this area.
Mr.Rademaker indicates that setbacks are adequate,the use is consistent with the"O" office
zone,and the project would contribute to the downtown.
Lawrence Houlgate
Mr. Houlgate sees the project as defining the viewpoint of the City. He expresses a desire that
the project be mitigated out of existence.
The belief that any facility built for cars is damaging to pedestrianism has been expressed by
many speakers. The EIR preparers do not agree. It could be stated that parking garages are
facilities that support pedestrians. Please see the responses to Torey Houlgate,above.
Miguel Dgynoso
Mr. Deynoso mentioned that he could not find the EIR in the Library. He expressed concerns
about the economic effects of the project,and asked if there had been any analysis thereof. He
wondered how many jobs would be created. He expressed a preference for local hiring
preferences for the construction aspects of the job.
The City provided copies of the EER to the Library. The document has been available for
review since its date of publication on July 21,1997. The City has not adopted local-hiring
preferences. However,local contractors routinely bid and work on City public works projects.
CEQA requires an analysis of the environmental effects of a project. The fiscal and economic
effects of a project is not a required part of the CEQA process.
17 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansii R
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21, 1997
Debra Holley
Ms.Holley supports the structure and states that the success of downtown business relies on
cars being accommodated in downtown.
1.3 CM COUNCII.COMMENTS
Of the five members of the City of San Luis Obispo City Council,four members participated in
the discussion of the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion EIR. One council member,Kathy
Smith,declined to participate due to a conflict of interest. Council members who spoke were
Bill Roalman,David Romero, Dodie Williams,and Mayor Allen Settle.
Councilman Roalman
Councilman Roalman indicated that the alternative analysis was flawed because the alternative
site that was reviewed was inconsistent with a General Plan Land Use Element policy that
precludes parking structures in the downtown core area.
The alternatives analysis did consider the General Plan in selecting alternative sites to evaluate.
However,it relied primarily on other City documents that provide more direction on parking
structure locations. Four alternative sites were considered,selected by their ability to meet
basic project objectives.These sites include:
• Union Bank/First Bank(middle of block bounded by Osos,Higuera,Morro,and
Marsh Streets)
• Santa Rosa Shell Station (southern half of block bounded by Santa Rosa,Monterey,
Higuera,and Toro Streets)
• Palm and Nipomo Street (northwestern portion of block bounded by Palm, Broad,
Monterey,and Nipomo Streets)
• Wells Fargo Bank (northwest quarter of block bounded by Broad,Marsh,Pacific
. and Nipomo Streets)
Two of these were inside the downtown core area as defined by the General Plan(Land Use
Element Figure 4). These were Union Bank/First Bank and Santa Rosa Shell Station. The other
two,Palm and Nipomo Street and Wells Fargo Bank,were outside of the downtown core. The
alternative site selected for review,the Union/First Bank site,was selected because it had the
highest likelihood of meeting project objectives and had the lowest environmental effects
relative to the other three. It is,however,located inside the downtown core.
As a result of Councilman Roalman's concern,an analysis of one of the alternative sites that lies
outside the downtown core area has been prepared. The one selected is the Wells Fargo Bank
site. The following analysis supplements the EIR and will be included in the Final EIR.
7.2.4 Alternative Site(Wells Fargo Bank site)
The Wells Fargo Bank alternative site is located three blocks west of the proposed
project site at the northeast comer of Pacific and Nipomo streets. The block is bounded
r18 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansioi
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
by Marsh Street on the north, Broad Street on the east,Pacific Street on the south,and
Nipomo Street on the west. Figure C illustrates the site and its relationship to the
downtown core as identified in the General Plan. It would provide 310 spaces,
approximately the same number of parking spaces as the fully developed proposed
project(Phases One and Two).
a. Air Quality. This alternative would generate approximately the same
number of trips and would be approximately the same size as the proposed project.
Because the alternative site would have the same capacity,the construction emissions
and emissions from vehicles would be expected to be similar to the proposed project
Therefore,the Wells Fargo Bank alternative would have the same air quality impact as
the proposed project with respect to air quality,resulting in less than significant
impacts. The Wells Fargo Bank alternative site is not located adjacent to any sensitive
receptors and based on carbon monoxide modeling at the project site,is unlikely to
create a CO"hotspot" problem.
b. Traffic.This alternative site is located on the northeast corner of the Nipomo
Street/Pacific Street intersection. It is anticipated that this site would provide approximately
the same number of parking spaces as the proposed project(Phases 1 &2). Implementation of
the parking structure at this alternative site would therefore generate the same level of net
traffic additions as identified for the proposed project site (2,606 ADT and 247 PHT).
Construction of the parking structure at this site would require that ingress and
egress be taken from Nipomo Street and/or Pacific Street,both of which are Local
Commercial Streets. The addition of project traffic on these streets could exceed the
Maximum Desired ADT level for these Local Commercial Streets (5,000 ADT),as
defined in the City Circulation Element,under either existing+project or cumulative
conditions. Development of the project on this alternative site would also likely
generate significant project-specific and cumulative impacts to the Broad Street/Pacific
Street intersection,located one block to east of the site,thus requiring installation of
traffic signals at this location. Improvements to Nipomo Street and/or Pacific Street
would likely be required at the entrance to the garage to ensure that traffic turning left
into the garage entrance did not impact through traffic on the adjacent City street. The
site circulation and access impact issues related to this project alternative would need to
be addressed further if this alternative site were adopted. From a circulation and access
standpoint,the Wells Fargo alternative site would be slightly inferior in that all ingress
and egress would be accomplished via local commercial collector streets (Nipomo and
Pacific Streets),whereas the proposed project maintains ingress on an arterial(Marsh
Street). Conversely,this alterative would likely generate fewer pedestrian conflicts.
This underscores that the site is a few blocks farther from the core,and is therefore more
distant from the heaviest concentration of pedestrian circulation and the destination
desired by pedestrians.
c. Aesthetics. The Wells Fargo Bank alternative site,currently a surface parking
lot,would be developed in the southwest corner of a block that is dominated by surface
parking areas. Apart from the Wells Fargo Bank building,there are only two small
structures along Marsh Street. The urban character of the south side of the Pacific Street
City of San Luis Obispo
19
Marsh Street Garage Expansic t
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21, 1997
block includes a residence and a mix of office and retail uses: It is similar to the Pacific
Street block facing the proposed project.
Because this block is less intensely developed,a four-level structure will be more of a
visual change than the proposed project relative to its immediate block. Therefore,the
building could be found to be inferior from a massing and urban context perspective.
Depending on the location of the viewer,a parking structure at this location would also
block views of Cerro San Luis.
This alternative would not require removal of a substantial number of trees,as
compared to the proposed project. Therefore,on-site aesthetic features would not be
affected. When combining the issues,the issue of scale change predominates.
Therefore, the site would be aesthetically inferior to the proposed project.
d. Cultural Resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Appendix that was
prepared for this document indicates that there are 10 recorded archaeological sites
located within a 0.5 mile radius of the project area as well as historic buildings within
and around the project area. As this alternative site is near the proposed project,it can
be assumed that it may contain archaeological artifacts and be as significant as the
proposed project,in terms of archaeological resources.
When including the analysis of the Wells Fargo Bank alternative site with the other three
alternatives and the proposed project,the No Project alternative remains the environmentally
superior alternative. If the No Project were not considered,then the Reduced Parking Alternative
would be considered environmentally superior to the project and the other alternatives as it is
also superior in all four issue areas.
Councilman Roalman also raised concerns about the cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the
EIR. See response to Mayor Settle's comments and Mr.Eugene Jud's comments regarding this
issue.
Finally,Mr.Roalman raised the issue of inconsistencies of the proposed project with the General
Plan,particularly with respect to parking policies. The concern stems from Policy 4.10,which
indicates that"(a)ny major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures,
located at the edges of the commercial core" [emphasis added].
To clarify the issue,Figure C has been included herein. It indicates that the commercial core,as
identified in Figure 4 of the General Plan Land Use Element,bisects the Marsh Street Garage
block from east to west. The proposed expanded garage lies outside of the defined core. The
access to the expanded area remains the same as the access to the existing Marsh Street
Garage—the access is provided from Marsh Street at the mid-block between Chorro and Morro
streets. Since this block face is within the commercial core, Councilman Roalman has argued
that the proposed project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.10. Therefore,the
City Council may need to decide whether the access point to the garage is considered a"major
increment" to the parking supply,or if it is the supply (structure and its spaces)which
comprise the major increment.
20 City of San Luis Obispo
mis
Plop
'410 1-mm—
Jlly ® � �r � � � ,;� 01;11111. `���`��♦ ��`.
MI
90 DOW ����,
NMI
� •,���' Vii♦ '����� � � i,`� �'�����������
1
•ice� ���� - ����Di����l���♦ ������! �i,►��
Marsh Street Garage Expansic A
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21, 1997
It should be noted that the Palm Street garage lies entirely within the downtown core,as does the
north half of the existing Marsh Street garage. Consequently,it would appear that of the three
facilities,the proposed project best adheres to Policy 4.10.
One of the roles of the City Council is to interpret General Plan policy when questions arise. The
downtown core is defined in the General Plan in Figure 4,and the expanded structure lies beyond
its boundary. On the other hand,the access road is clearly within its boundary. Therefore,a
closer look at the policy language is warranted. The proposed project clearly meets the policy
direction to provide parking in a structured format. The words in question are"at the edges of
the commercial core." Webster defines edge as" the part farthest from the middle;border or
margin."
Therefore,the proposed project would appear to be at the edge. If that policy had stated"outside
of" the core,the interpretation would be more clear cut. The Planning staff has found„through
the Initial Study,that there is a less than significant impact to policies. The City Council may not
approve a project which is inconsistent with City General Plan policy. Councilman Roalman has
called a consistency question forward. Therefore,the City Council must rule on Policy 4.10.
Mr.Roalman suggested that the EIR should have included a land use section,and that if it had,it
would have found Class I impacts. As stated above,the City Planning staff found that issues of
land use compatibility and policy were less than significant.
Councilman Romero
Councilman Romero stated that the mitigations proposed for the mid block crosswalk and the
signal and Broad Street and Pacific Street should be implemented in conjunction with the project
City staff has indicated that the project now includes the right-turn lane on Marsh Street at the
garage entrance to be implemented concurrently with the garage expansion. With respect to
signalizing the mid block pedestrian crossing on Marsh Street,the mitigation language requires
that this be done for the project when wan-anted. Wording for Mitigation Measures T-5(a)has
been modified to more clearly define implementation timing. Please see responses to Allen
Settle's comments. The mitigation monitoring plan also defines the timing for implementation of
this improvement
The traffic signal at the Broad Street/Pacific Street intersection is intended to mitigate cumulative
impacts,as the intersection is forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service without signals
under the existing+project scenario. The revised mitigation language for Mitigation Measure T-
8(a)states that the signal shall be implemented prior to occupancy of the expanded structure.
Please see responses to Allen Settles comments. The mitigation monitoring plan developed for
the project defines the timing for the monitoring and implementation of this improvement
Councilman Romero also stated that Pacific Street should not be reclassified as a Commercial
Collector Street. He instead recommended that the City accept the minor exceedance(200 ADT)
of the Desired Maximum ADT similar to the approach that was taken by the City for Chorro
Street
rr 22 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansio
City Council Hearing Input Report
October21,1997
0
From a capacity and operational standpoint,Pacific Street will operate acceptably with the
forecast cumulative volumes and the existing street-segment The cumulative volumes are,
however,200 ADT greater than the Desired Maximum ADT listed in the City's Circulation
Element(5,000 ADT)for Local Commercial Streets. The EIR initially recommended that the
classification of Pacific Street be changed to a Commercial Collector Street
The response to comments developed for the Draft EIR also provided an alternative
recommendation that the City accept a forecast cumulative ADT volume of 5,200 ADT for the
short segment of Pacific Street between the garage exit and Chorro Street,which will be improved
to provide 2 westbound travel lanes. This would follow Councilman Romero's recommendation.
Allen Settle
Mayor Settle requested additional clarification on the methodologies used to analyze the traffic
impacts of the proposed structure expansion.
As discussed in detail in the project EIR,the methodology used to forecast traffic generated by the
garage was very conservative. The trip generation estimates for the garage were developed based
on detailed traffic counts conducted.at the existing parking structure facility. This is the standard
procedure used in the traffic engineering profession to estimate the trips which would be
generated by future developments. The traffic analysis also assumed that 75%of traffic generated
by the expanded structure would be new to the study area roadways and intersections analyzed
in the EIR. This assumption is viewed as very conservative,as it is commonly acknowledged that
parking spaces in and of themselves do not generate traffic. Many of the cars which will use the
expanded structure are currently travelling to and from the downtown area,and will simply
divert to the structure once it is open
Mayor Settle expressed concern over the cumulative traffic analysis presented in the EIR based on
information presented by Mr.Eugene Jud at the hearing.
ATE reviewed the information and conclusions presented by Mr.Jud and determined that they
are misleading and based on inaccurate data. ATE also compared the cumulative traffic forecasts
presented in the EIR with the growth forecasts outlined in the Downtown Access and Parking
Study(DAPS). They found that the cumulative growth presented in the EIR for a 10 year period
was 30%greater than the parking and traffic growth forecast for a 15 year period in the DAPS. A
detailed review and comment on Mr.Jud's analyses is presented in the above responses to his
public testimony.
Mayor Settle stated that there needed to be assurances that the mitigation measures proposed for
the project would be implemented.
The language pertaining to the required mitigation measures identified in the EIR has been
modified to more clearly define implementation timing. A detailed mitigation monitoring plan
has also been developed for the project which defines the timing for the monitoring and
implementation of the project improvements. The following reflects the proposed rewording:
City of San Luis Obispo
23
Marsh Street Garage Expansio, 4
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
Mitigation T-5 (a) Mid-Block Crosswalk on Marsh Street. Development of the
garage expansion would result in increased pedestrian use of the
existing mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street. It is recommended
that a separate right-tum lane be provided on Marsh Street at the
garage entrance in order to improve traffic and pedestrian flow at
this location. To provide this right-turn lane,on-street parking
along the south side of Marsh Street between the driveway and a
point east of Chorro Street would need to be removed,and the
existing loading zone and trolley stop would need to be relocated.
It is also recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this
mid-block location. The signal would need to be coordinated
with the upstream and downstream signals at Chorro Street and
Morro Street to ensure that traffic flows do not extend into the
upstream intersection(Chorro Street/Marsh Street).
Timing. Implementation of the right-turn lane on Marsh Street at
the garage entrance would be required prior to occupancy of the
expanded structure. Implementation of the signal at the mid-
block crosswalk would occur after the City Public Works
Department conducts a detailed pedestrian traffic signal warrant
assessment and operational analysis of the cross-walk and
submits a report summarizing their findings and
recommendations to the City Council. The first signal warrant
and operational analysis report would occur within 3 to 6 months
after the expanded garage is operational and then once a year for
3 years.
Mitigation T-8(a) Broad Street/Pacific Street. Development of the garage
expansion would degrade the intersection operations to the LOS F
range (57.1 second delay). A peak hour traffic signal warrant
analysis was completed for the intersection to determine the
future need for traffic signals. The State peak hour warrants
indicated that traffic signals would be required to accommodate
Cumulative+ Project P.M.peak hour volumes (worksheets are
included in the Technical Appendix). Given the close spacing
between the Pacific Street and Marsh Street intersections along
Broad Street,it is important that the signals be coordinated to
minimize delays and queuing on Broad Street at Pacific Street.
With the installation of a coordinated signal at this location,the
intersection would operate in the LOS B range,thus mitigating
cumulative impacts.
Timing: Implementation of the traffic signals at the Broad
Street/Pacific Street intersection would be required prior to
occupancy of the expanded structure.
24 City of San Luis Obispo
Marsh Street Garage Expansio,
City Council Hearing Input Report
October 21,1997
Mitigation T-8(b) Osos Street/PacifidStreet. Development of the garage expansion
combined with cumulative developments in the downtown area
would degrade intersection operations to the beginning of the
LOS E range (31.1 second delay). A peak hour traffic signal
warrant analysis was completed for the intersection to determine
the future need for traffic signals. The cumulative+project traffic
volumes forecast for this intersection are slightly than the
minimum volumes satisfy the State traffic signal wan-ants. It is
recommended that traffic signals be installed at this location to
accommodate cumulative traffic volumes,when warranted.
Timing: Implementation of traffic signals at the Osos
Street/Pacific Street intersection would occur after the City Public
Works Department conducts a detailed traffic signal warrant
assessment and delay study at the intersection and submits a
report summarizing their findings and recommendations to the
City Council. The first signal warrant and delay study report
would occur within 3 to 6 months after the expanded garage is
operational and then once a year for 3 years.
City of San Luis Obispo
25
- WETING AGENDA
.. .,E 11-/9- ITEM #
Marsh Street Garage II: Questions and Issues Demanding Clear Answers:
1 ) The stated rationalization in favor of parking garages is based on the
claimed need to "revive the downtown" (more retail 'customers) . Yet, we are also
told that parking garages do NOT attract new traffic (some l0% new traffic per EIR).
How does the one claim square with the other?
2) It is also argued by garage proponents that the intended purpose of any
new garage is to draw parkers out of surface lots and the neighborhoods. How does C,*
r
this square with the purported need for new customers, since these parkers are al- O z
C.) C m
ready downtown? n
M
n G
3) If the surface parking lots are cleared for new construction of commercial 0 o m
retail building, where will the new building personnel , employees, and customers n
park --especially since underground parking is so expensive for individual build- ,Ir::
ings and because the parking garages will already be filled by people who formerly
parked in the surface lots?
4) Does this not also create an endless call for more and more parking garages
as new buildings take over from lots? And how can the city possibly afford to keep
up with this vicious cycle of parking demand?
5) If parking garage proponents are correct in stating that new garages will remove
the need for keeping all the surface lots, would they will willing to cancel out
parki,Ag lots in direct proportion to the number of garage spaces built? For example,
as a garage is completed, a lot could be shut down and used for a public park or
playground.
6) Since the legal alternative to Marsh II garage is violative of the commercial
core (Union Bank alternative in EIR) and the Wells-Fargo site is highly speculative
and also within the downtown core, we need a direct comparison between Marsh II
and Palm II. u (Perhaps there is another peripheral site comparison that can be drawn
with all the relevant facts?
7) The definition of the "commercial core" as put forth in the Downtown Concept Plan
does not square with the definition of the core as seen by the General Plan (see page
21 , Figure C, memo of Nov. 5, 1997 (Rincon Consultants to City Council , Hearing Input
Report, Meeting of Oct. 21 , 1997) . As the city core now stands, the minimum core
boundary (according to what actually exists) is Palm to Pacific and Santa Rosa to
Beach streets. Enough business growth exists south of Broad Street and roughly east
to Pismo streets to make out of date the concept of a core limited to the square
Osos to Broad, Palm to Pacific. How can we decide where the garage (s) •isms, to be
placed outside the core, if no one agrees on what the core is?
page 2.
7) Everyone seems to agree that traffic demand reduction measures are needed, but
garage proponents do not see these as ANTECEDENT to garage development. Yet, the
first garage will not open its doors for at least three years. Why not institute
TDM now, rather than sitting by and waiting. It would show good faith on everyone' s
part and would be a good way to test the waters. Here are recommended strategies
for implementing TDM in 1988 as a way of testing demand modification and financial
commitment:
1 ) raise parking fees on existing Marsh Street garage during rush hours.
2) implement neighborhood parking 2-hour zones and offer park and ride shuttles
from city owned lots, using incentives to encourage commuters to use them.
3) expand vanpool and jitney services to downtown and airport
4) institute regular shuttle service from opposite ends of downtown and crossing
through the downtown. Vans rather than busses should be used.
5) implement electronic signs to direct traffic to oppn.,/ surface parking spaces.
8) Traffic growth projections are based on an assumed one percent growth in downtown
building per year. But this system of projecting growth does not take account of
visitation from outside the area (tourist and shoppers) . Since one aim is to in-
crease visitation, the one percent figure does not make sense and does not square
with other growth figures showing traffic increasing at a much higher rate**Can
the consultants adjust their projections to show a more realistic growth rate
based on visitors as well as buildings?
9) Environmental impacts negatively affecting the downtown are routinely written off
as "mitigations". These are subjective judgments that do not square with state-
ments in the EIR admitting serious impacts and acknowledging that certain qualita-
tive conditions cannot be so assessed (e.g. : air quality, land use, neighborhood
quality and quality of life in downtown SLO are EXTERNAL COSTS "and beyond the
scope of this fiscal analysis") . Yet, these qualitative elements are the key to
all arguments against the Marsh II project. How can we deal with this quandary?
*** e.g. : retail sales growth at 6-7 percent for past 2 years; 7 percent growth
in traffic on highway 101 in SLO per Caltrans; -- belies zeroe traffic growth
on Marsh St. per Rincon consultants.
Winn/Jud/Anderson
October 17, 1297
to: Mayor Allan Settle and
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 mutt 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 '
rip maria 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-fulfilling 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.
Ira Winn
Re: Inconsistencies in the Arguments of Parking Garage Proponents Arising in --
Public Hearings , SLO City Council, October 21, 1997
1) Garage location within commercial core : Location of the Marsh Street ex-
pansion is a direct contradiction of the 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 Pacific,
west to east. The north-south axis is incorrectly defined as stretching from Osos
to Broad. Anyone who knows downtown SLnnows that very important stores and
pedestrian areas are located both south of Broad street and north of Osos, and this
matter need correction.by 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 objective 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 the Ne 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, eKcellent 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 spYavl 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 .leszon,
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.aod.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 ara a sites: The Environmental Protection Act requires that an
alterna ive e s u ie apt
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 con estion: Predictions about the growth of downtown traffic over the
next 1 - 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.
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /i-i_�7 ITEM #
From: Arnold Jonas
To: JDUNN,955PO.MMCCLUSK
Date: 11/17/97 4:10pm
Subject: Judd Letter re:860 Pacific Street
Eugene Judd submitted a letter today with three questions/suggestions concerning 860 Pacific Street. Number 2.
asked if removal of the building is in compliance with CEQA. Prior to taking action approving the relocation of the
building to Hataway Street,the ARC adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration covering the move and
reestablishment of the building on the new site.Thus,the process is CEQA compliant.
CC: RWHISENA
L
CDD DIR
O FIN DIR
O FlRE CHIEF
oft DIR
O POLICE CHF
O TEAM O REC DIR
.O UTTL DIR
O PEAK DIR
MEETING AGENDA
-p`I�pppp
ATE-- 4'7r-9� /
ITEM #
I�IIIIIIIIIIII�IIII�� III
II
cItY oBispo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 14, 1997
Mr. Eugene Jud
1228 A Palm Street
P.O. Box 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Dear Mr. Jud,
The Mayor received your letter dated November 12'the following day and asked that I
respond to your request for traffic data. The data you request was compiled for the City
Council as a part of an agenda item concerning the mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street.
It showed a fairly consistent number of vehicles using Marsh Street over a number of
years. I have attached the relevant page from that staff report. I have likewise attached a
copy of a printout from our database of various traffic counts on Marsh Street. I checked
with our Traffic Engineer and she does not recall a specific request for this information
even though the two of you did discuss the issue of Marsh Street traffic numbers during a
class of yours at which she was the guest lecturer. Please contact Debra Larson, Traffic
Engineer, at 781-7190 if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
tt=19t
TC0 NCIL DDIR
O FIN DIR
i❑Fie CHIEF
� L�Dw
Director of Public Works LXPCMRWW LUMMUNF
LTUOUT VAIIIII U38N IR
-'
COIR
C: City Council
CAO
Traffic Engineer
Parking Manager RECEIVED
p
attachments
997
I:trans/parking/marsh garage jud ltr UNCIL
/0 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
PAGE NO. 21
11/14/97
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TRAFFIC COUNTS
STREET LOCATION BLOCK DATE ADT DIR PEAK
NO
874 MADONNA PLAZA MCDONALD'S ENTRANCE -200 08/15/91 5686 WE 617
875 MADONNA PLAZA MCDONALD'S ENTRANCE -200 08/15/91 7652 EB 727
876 MADONNA PLAZA MCDONALDS ENTRANCE -200 08/15/91 13339 TOTL 1317
883 MADONNA PLAZA WHEREHOUSE MUS . ENT. -200 08/22/91 435 EB 62
884 MADONNA PLAZA WHEREHOUSE MUS .ENT. -200 08/22/91 2499 WE 294
885 MADONNA PLAZA WHEREHOUSE MUS .ENT. -200 08/22/91 2934 TOTL 356
300 MARGARITA E/O HIGUERA 100 06/19/86 1116 WE 101
668 MARGARITA E/0 HIGUERA 100 05/31/90 1521 WE 136
823 MARGARITA E/O HIGUERA 100 07/10/91 1302 EB 151
824 MARGARITA E/O HIGUERA 100 07/10/91 1303 WE 114
825 MARGARITA E/O HIGUERA 100 07/10/91 2605 TOTL 267
1582 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/12/97 10079 TOTL 0
1583 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/13/97 13271 TOTL 0
1584 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/14/97 13119 TOTL 0
1585 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/15/97 13571 TOTL 0
1586 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/16/97 14108 TOTL 0
1587 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/17/97 15509 TOTL 0
1588 MARSH E/O CHORRO 0 01/18/97 14120 TOTL 0
308 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 03/13/86 12492 TOTL 1150
302 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 06/05/86 14097 TOTL 1175
306 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 08/01/86 11385 TOTL 1040
304 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 09/03/87 14155 TOTL 1276
305 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 12/04/87 14303 TOTL 1330
440 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 09/28/88 14166 TOTL 1275
467 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 12/09/88 13414 TOTL 1288
482 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 02/15/89 13520 TOTL 1225
505 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 04/26/89 14786 TOTL 1244
542 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 08/09/89 15169 TOTL 1318
567 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 11/08/89 14400 TOTL 1273
624 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 02/22/90 13552 TOTL 1274
647 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 05/10/90 14102 TOTL 1263
6MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 06/07/90 14102 TOTL 1263.
67755 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 08/02/90 13915 TOTL 1265
714 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 11/01/90 13361 TOTL 1239
774 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 02/21/91 13039 TOTL 1199
997 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 12/11/91 13346 TOTL 1221
1158 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 06/04/92 13197 'TOTL 1168.
1201 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 07/30/92 13489 TOTL 1244
1343 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 11/26/92 12843 TOTL 1251
1364 MARSH E/O CARMEL 400 02/11/93 12293 TOTL 1155
1404 MARSH E/0__CARMEL - 400 05/11/93 13015 TOTL 1155
San Luis Obispo Downtown Mid-Block Crosswalk Study March 1997
Page
I ovember of 1995 an improvement project was completed along Marsh ipomo to
Santa This project constructed Mission Tile bulbouts a pavement crossings at
Broad, Garden rro Street intersections out with Mission Tile and colored
pavement crossing mid- o e and Morro Streets. Landscape planters, refuse
receptacles, benches and oun installed as part of this project. The project
designer was W' ssociates; project engineer o of San Luis Obispo was Barbara
Ly • eering Assistant in traffic matters,John Rawles;an r b' a ne Peterson.
Marsh Street Prior to 1995
In recent years and prior to 1995,Marsh Street was a 15 meter curb to curb roadway with standard
corner curb returns and pedestrian sidewalks typically 3.3 meters in width in the downtown area.
Vehicle traffic volumes historically have been counted on Marsh Street north-east of Carmel.
Volumes on Marsh have been fairly consistent over a ten year time frame,some variation would be�e
expected simply based on seasonal variations.
For this ten year period a summary of vehicle volumes on Marsh Street, on a two year basis, is
identified as follows:
Table 1
Historical Vehicle Volumes on Marsh Street North-East of Carmel
1986, arc
500
1988, eptem er 14,100'
1990,May
1992,June 13,200
1997,January o - ast of Chorro)
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
compare pedestrian activity at various times of the day and at the various mid- ossrng
locate the downtown area, pedestrian volumes were counted at a (5) mid-block
crosswalks an Chorro to Morro segment of Marsh Street. asoning behind conducting
counts at all mid-bloc s was to provide a compare pedestrian volumes at the various
crossings. The five mid-block cr were co uring three time frames: morning(9:00
to 10:00 a.m.), noon (12:00 to 1:00 P.M. emoon (3:00 to 4:00 p.m.). For map location
identification,see Figure 1 on page 6 fo rng this ' n.
It was observed that the treet mid-block crossing has the highe an volumes of all
mid-block crossin ' e downtown area. The mid-block crossings in the roa se is between
Chorro rro Streets are consistently utilized at a higher rate than the other mid-block
c S.
JUD CONSULTANTS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS FITE
»iJ/:+Fi.:.�IJiny�.i.
wY J:viv+w6:v:4:0vnw:�'v:in2�in::Jii}i n
1228 A Palm Street, P. O. Box 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406- 1145
Phone/ Fax (805) 545 -5919
November 17, 1997 Other offices in Switzerland and Poland
City Council MEETING
City of San Luis Obispo AGENDA
990 Palm Street DATE -/LL "•ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Removal of the building at 860 Pacific Street
Dear Members of the Council:
By chance I met the contractor who was chosen to remove the above building. He informed me
that the building should be moved within three weeks.
In a letter of May 19, 1997, 1 pointed out to the council that "In clear violation of FPPC instructions
the City Attorney allowed councilwoman Kathy Smith to vote on this issue. Therefore the vote
should be repeated following correct procedures."
I have the following question and suggestions:
1. Was the above-mentioned vote ever repeated?
2. Is the removal of this building in compliance with CEQA?
3. Could the City Administrative Officer please inform the public at the beginning of
tomorrow's meeting what the exact intentions of the council are regarding this building?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eugene H. Jud
RECEIVED �oUNCII CDD DIR
AO 0 FIN R DIR
NOV 1 7 1997 C�TTORNEY G3'PWDRHI�
CrCLERKfORIG 0 POLICE CHF
SLO G3"!-' CLERK 0 MG TW M 0 REC DIR
0 UTIL DIR
0 13 PERS DIR
Ar
c� cc � h e SAN LUIS O S I S P OX ' �M� ,Ae
wli
DATE. ITEM #
-OL-D T__ O
NEIGHBORHOOD
- _ ASSOCIATION
Comments on the Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR
Specifically. the EIR:
* Fails to identify properly the significant environmental effects associated with
the proposed project,
J
Z5 * Fails to identify the significant neighborhood impacts associated with the
LU C o proposed project,
L-_ U
uJ _ * Fails to use the adopted General Plan as the guideline for impacts on the
W 'o v surrounding neighborhoods,
z o
w *Fails to evaluate reasonable alternatives to those impacts based on the
guidelines in the adopted General Plan,
* Fails to identify feasible mitigation measures that would also reduce or
eliminate those impacts.
Instead, the impacts of the proposed project are misidentified and understated, while
the impacts of the alternatives are either ignored or not fully analyzed.
For any proper analysis of the Marsh Street Parking Expansion, the
following needs to be included:
1) First of all, early involvement of the neighborhood in the process. The
General Plan clearly intended for full participation of neighborhoods in .projects that
affect them. This was not done.An inadequate and incomplete query was made of
some residents without disclosing to them the proposal to transfer long term parking to
the front of their homes and filter commercial traffic through their neighborhood.
2) A preliminary analysis of the impacts of the existing parking garage so that
they could be addressed, measures taken to solve them and then making sure that the
problems are not repeated in any subsequent expansion. This was not done.
3) Working with the residents and the Old Town Neighborhood Association to
address solutions to existing problems and possible future impacts. The residents
have many ideas for helping to solve the existing problems and could have helped
fashion a meaningful mitigation program: This was not done: = -
This project concentrates and directs the flow of commercial traffic
through an established, historic, residential neighborhood. To be
adequate the EIR must: examine the Impacts of the project to the
surrounding residential neighborhood, present alternatives and
meaningful mitigations. If the EIR Is to be based on fact, and real
information, It must include significant input from the residents and the
Old Town Neighborhood Association. The apparent proposal to transfer
long term commercial and governmental parking from the city parking
structures to a residential neighborhood is a violation of the General
Plan, obviously unacceptable, and not an option.
Leo W. Pinard, President
Id Town Neighborhood Association
_ 4
Phil Peterson, Vice-President
November 10, 1997
cc RQN
Marlin Vix, Alta Vista Neighborhood
DIR
,POONCIL FIN DDIR
AO
ICAO 0 SIRE CHIEF
L'l/�IORNEY W DIR
L�CLERKIORIG REC DIR HF
O M M 7 / a UTIL DIR
D PERS DIR
MEETING
1228 A Palm Street, P. O. Box 1145 z
November 12, 1997 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406- 1145
Phone/ Fax (805) 545 - 5919
Mayor Allen Settle
City of San Luis Obispo Other offices in Switzerland and Poland
RE: Marsh Street Expansion EIR -Traffic growth data for downtown SLO
Dear Mr. Settle:
The above-mentioned data are critical to the debate over the Marsh Street Garage Expansion and
to the decision to go forward with any future parking structures in the downtown. Although this
data was supposed to be collected every two years (per the Circulation Element), my efforts to
obtain them from Public Works staff or City traffic consultants (i.e. ATE) have proven fruitless.
In addition to the unavailability of this data, conflicting statements over traffic growth in the City
made by City staff and ATE raise issues of credibility. In 1996 our City Administrative Officer
stated in the Telegram-Tribune that annual traffic growth in SLO is 5% (enclosure 1). However,
the latest memo (November 5, 1997) concerning the Marsh Street EIR by Rincon/ATE states at
the bottom of page 10 that traffic volumes on Marsh Street have been fairly consistent over a 10
year time frame (since 1987).
Zero growth over a 10 years time frame appears to be improbable as:
1. Retail sales grew by 2% annually (enclosure 2).
12. The Marsh Street garage was opened and showed an annual traffic growth of
approximately 27% between 1991 and 1996 (enclosure 3). The Marsh Street Garage
contributes approximately 15% to the traffic on Marsh Street.
3. The opening of the Downtown Center caused additional drop-off and delivery traffic on
Marsh.
4. Marsh Street is an arterial road of City and County-wide importance, to which the remarks
of our CAO in enclosure 1 apply.
5. Traffic on Highway 101 grew 7% annually between 1978 and 1991 (enclosure 4).
1 am requesting that staff or our consultants please provide the traffic data for Marsh Street and
surrounding areas over the past 10-15 years which verifies the claims made by ATE. As I am
compelled to respond to the comments about traffic in this latest Rincon/ATE memo, I would be
thankful to get these data at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your offer to assist in this effort.
Sincerely,
EATrORNEY
0 CDD DIR
p FIN DIR
Eugene H. Jud O�JRECHIEF
Jud Consultants P.7PwDin
HEC plRHF
enclosures O OTIL DIR
O P91 i DIB
•iqi �;�codRa� c� _ m'� 3 3� a� Ga� N ,, SYo „� .. � c-•. �.. a
•�
` Lc CN'CRT-^ �RN'Ta) ou°: c� 3°1 co RCN) � N p
1' wp I'd `"" CCC)ZC0
� O c� Na) O m .• R 3A 0t
� 0� N.-O-� ocOS R� � ���� C d �i•, R O� N �
p�0 > � > w a).+''-• C �y d s m �,3'y„ )�d' N CL >+ p +-��"•d y 'J
L ON �R UT N.., R !CC,
.. NUN Cy •• a).r >...�, 'O �, _,...
C E' �. 3 o S.. N'�.. e N f).5.0 L C L) C
�+ N ,.�^,..r Lou N '� Uo Lcz � a) R U � U EL 0 N
v R w w N m.0 y d p 3 o N 0 R N tl
. I a) cl )TN vi� _m C CL�''�" U Fd. O O 7 v Ta) R 'J- �3 °'� U,�Y. If Rto i b y
> iC y�. 'L' p N N Y N- N.a+ > CDNx.yb ^C r U �'d O T �+Tr �N N 42 tl
.-r R .O"•U'U p++ C]., E.., L OCO RyN,� .C. RO OpNN O"-' '� CNi.� .Z .= vyi C C ;pl
0�.4 .T. O w p.. al CD _ U N.0 U w m �/, C C.
..+ R N C O o ., N Z— 3 L .:+ a)t3,., al C y N •-N-•.''y O C.7 R,d..L. R PK 0.1�•' '..'+�[E��.
C L' L1 C N m'^� > N'd N C•d cyV N'N N G'N C N L (.7•r
0� 0 cC �; �Di? yo � ai � bRdo N £ � Ed3 ❑ ❑ OEpEac�No E
y0 U3' �pL' vN�3, >TdCb ca) ocCaE ' s -yaEimsN. no°:" d�oDNLo. dtd �" sN, v� b
(1) Nim R'O'C L"� 1-,.O C-0 d N .^� ,r E al, jt 3 C O vi W•0�'a N R L N �
a . 'S E o. , N N_ d .. o N L a) R .. o L mood
�I 1 �a 2:1 o G1= a�•? at 6 a E�3 cN? ax°' � .d, n c� °: E = 3 ccila u
0,0 O m'--' �+ .y, m CL N,..i
R1 '�7,� L A.J u? C p R CD. 3 C� a) 0 Q•^ m(U R a) 3 p
C y.S �'d €, .� �w E C) � N R y�i ,.+O'�j•> N O U .- �U O R � U per$ y
7+„N �y'.Nd ip C N C E N ..N.. N C) N C U
Ny R UIQ C O L,N+ CC_+ N p _TL 3 O 'er O C C �• •> R Qu,�+
a 0.., co
O U o �.' .O N N O is > ''.' O L .,'.' O N R sN. V •O'd m
o a oD 3 S o:g 0 coz w cd U N a)AR`' r" .R
y N N 7' O V t0 R y ti J.n N .0 p '�
L y rr N 6) a ` .-Oy y O N U(/� w N O L V�' N N O aN+.y.,'O�O w 0
[6 R L z "'� L C N L
C7 N N N R O R aS'O.V, N U R N i?'-, �,O„0 y O C.) r-'_.+ R a) tl Q U "A C
T/1 OLy � CU
y 'd `nom f�' � _'O N•C aRiy C 2—,zU o� 3y � NNNR > Op
CZ a> L0.y4� Na) uZ� R otlaE d > >.� Nvcz pi OROR p ^'. + 0 C13
3��J RO -^ c°)))A a) - yC >,v;o N CRN n N3C0c°� yNaria
^ , U co� d o e C mw dM N. N 0 O C , R R R 3
0'g > Lyoo,. off' S•y, oo N = C.) o a� 0 N � o
s O y y" O O' .:i w d > C N a),t•, O U. 42 a�:-. R T d �, p C. U
m R L N N�) R R O 4 O N'. '� U R y��.�.L+ co C a)w CIL-)
O
C: O-u N N.0 N O '�' N R E L N mCC Cp'= a) {....'C+.0 A ri C C �U m�, p N N
� `.YvR C¢ . ❑ c'd � LNw $ ooamtir-� > C N ER rC -LcL" E� E3
> CRUC as w N » a) 0E L o me .. 0 ao _ a � = 00 0
^ U•O R..+ to 0-0 N a)A E U.-.w O N R N R. 10,r +.+ U R +•+ 'O N
'C'O � v7 c6 N C ai� O vi N co N Cj O ,..
: 7 to
R fo E a `p y^y� C � E•C y �}..," R�.+ �U. 7 0'd ,0
w .O
O " 00 3 R•�'N a N o 3 N C -, N O o O R
N E
N -�r.� I ca. EnLR 03 w
nm000 dOON�_ � +-U. Ei > � ELa L
ONO � CONCG' Cy a) G"� C'Oo.+ �.� gUiOa).'�+ U � yccO_..+.0 ,.. c0.1LO- >,CR
w2 C L.. y¢ qV L> �•C^"N°R.do �'d dp,.0� `'"L (VO O'3 >; ai." A'O L
m E m o'a) s'R.. i O.y 6) N �•3'd �� C N cCt+L' Ow.C.C.0 �,�"y 00
3N..fl •= O N (D' . y:s N 0 N =.� w N•d.R.� 3 •o �.�.1' O�.a.�. 7• R C r
N y m 3= 3.S 0 x `'c C p OA E= ❑ C a cE y m..� E __�� 3 T
L .0 L GL O L 4... O N R p N N N R .`+ y .r
r_7'.�✓� �,y.'�- a'
c' aooa' d�.c� Ci
'tj $ '0 � CMNo �R-
aN " No � > aboEoyr � ,
N• N •d> ced ,RL C CA a) CC) YO Ropp�3aso.
o R� a) >� � C '.J- •� � ay ��,�� O d ,�...�� a) aO,N d �N...c,'d� N��•o��d N O.
•� 5s';ti.?+i �o �:'ccu
�.S cCNi•y V� o.� c.,i 7°'CO ° vCOiy �. �o� ymNCr Ems, T:bddmEE' a)
r c:...
a>� `S� 0 ca 0 o el,0 0e ° cya ao � N>, m aE sas-y, c` 0 a°Jir3y m co d y�= o off '
:.Frx CD'O N R U.- N CT N E 3.-. R U U:.+ C R c6 O'.0 .0 A U N CT
N
O ,a•'^, (L) m 0�-' Tom' "-' ,:, m C w a) >'L w N i
N _ 'O N b N a) to
�� � CIS N NNmL ~ CN c, S;So� oo Swa>� � R0wg.00- C:a -Z8-W )^T•'o
a 3 N
E o N E E m > g 0 3 j^u.m as c d w.S�- 'p vi 0 'Ra N A 3 sem.d > aR)4
R •--�a) p C �.N�.m m. N C R �� N N N. N C O N a) d �'
n`a. 7 ., 0 ai coe^m 3 c'C aU.� O•d a�.S b"
C N CND .RC W NV�•d TLC �A
CC L.-y U N..�J N R N �y N m C m.+�p ca m m
F- R 'O N O.0 R N 0 •^, O L cd 7 7 C 'd N•O .^.� R 7 R N 7 O a)'U+-. G a)
Z, czO 00 O�,r N..C, U d•[1.N, Uf.O.,�j O •O O OS Cw o Ow O N
O N O L L""' O > a'C.>,'Ly 3� N N O ,O .0•^' F1yC N N N CD""' O L URN C 67'C O.N RA
O -.>n y 0i , a, m U R•� > CS. •� G 0,..: �+ C G'�o C N� y N Nom+ G 'C.....+
u ( A dim 0 w R N o e"ab c�A o y•dw o O S N 0 Rn
O �••� y t a) 9 O b O .d'd'NC U.�a r" N ,C C O,rL, U a U d E w, a),.' ++ b 3 ❑ al COD
CL a) 0_m" 0a) Ca' >' N S•• a ��vG- $ c�., Nc'N >R`.`.� aLya>i. �(n O d R
N C O u NLN, U�d R'N'A N•d 0•a) N NZ' d O mN N NAC O f.�'~ U'•� L+ U „' N R O «E"'. N
O C aLi C .7 C N n iC R m cya E'� p,o 5.7 N N A C�"o o E o O N y aLi ai.� � R� U )-'N a)
C b•+ r-1 w R m U y 0 a)b w Q) N th ��J" RSO d O a) W� C N O U a)
L N O N L"' -' .O L L w O N - R : L T >'p N R A ��'
_ u o rte. a,) C ca y.rJA al C C T.O p �w p,+ U O C N A E C r� 3 p c�y v >o in
� 0 co y� C=c y U 7'-C•"r C; a)•d O 'O O L a)O�fn N L O.a) R O N..N.uy-. 6) O'N
R a m ).' d• '•. i y o b NO 0
N.0
v..: m 0. 'Uw30ECD8._ U m 0'. cz m cc .0 C1 .N++iY=•> c^= _� �a�a; ?� --
n
� y
a
O V
O IC 1FI� C7 )o
o`
anw- am
J I `
q 1
1
C\
j P 1
P
Q
a
m C.
c.
444 - 4
w/dIP c V s A i
par F:
d
Ar =
AG •U 2 z
0 4
� y m
Q ~
• O
S C9 v)
$ W a U
si7311op;ospuusnogj, F O !
U A '
:i
v
•#h:%t:. }•.#?o:##e?%:tyk`i ;}:?'3 n
Cgs.;::Kt3itS'::3}4:.::::n .d t'Li}%q:j:�ti�}!.3#;:;::x,g:' :a:i#S"' r:n x;,•::c.. Ol
»;s•}•Sr.r»ha,s>•.•:s.'iaf:: »::.. „a:::.y,:ifi.i:..:{{,a;.tt.;. .i:.St�:'I::�F>X+tk°: `:%:a::i a.k:{;. YA•:':s�"e:y:`:
;}'j.,j}:}t..,rf'.»ts,;:{,TS:kkSti r�,}s#fi;f:u.;}?rk';::r:Q{".}.{.R.Q»: ,•arr�,�»}::�iv;".:.?}:i•:::}>:1�;;,.,��. .}•,s�.»tu}a,T.::s.3k
;}fl:3;}i.S)•}}>.Nbjt^. �`,. , ,`y.; .�.. ..r.a.}?:; ::4.5..::.%::,;.'$:r a•:'", j#x3•a. �:'�::: <.k?.:'.}:{..�< ak}:s},:>{}.;i{}}{{:.
::i3».S:);}s.^?.,}'r:j}}k}?s}s�:}iis}>aa?%:a.3x,?eti::?ia:;
:.
' :......:..:..:......:Si..:.,,»!t. :'•':::::,.::�::.":..c!..{,.{.;�ss..::iufS.;:{:sx:t` > �
.......::: e tiu;.'%S;do,ti::tai:M.
— _. .,.--}�.x:.,:>' >•s R.thftG;ififl;3};%0ai
I
p.' ,i'vF tii}.�'y;.?yi:tia):{:,vni:•':i.v;.: :':
:v
/� /p �:);} :»stg•u;;y,.Vii:}s '"S.
::":j::�: }M1}`<iiSS:.}}'# .a ::Si::i#;S3s.S}:R:SS;'SSfcS»:'.,`.k.••;:j^k:'a;{.:ii':ro}y:'v:u...c':{{vn:,:. p�
';
a .<M^.wy,$js.;.;.:k#C�;}:.}.� .....:r+{+,.ot:};.,,::a:ii:::.{s:}s:•kkk:S:.}+c.}»i::ip:i{:t::'S:+f., r:}:. Zf iSY».S:#:it.; t?.�.v,%���.jxa .:.;•..x,o....s:.:S,.%y�i<t:
{+e,S?;..,.•;+V}y{» }
- .,,c..:,;.'#t:,:.,.:<}}.t?::`<}a':rrtxS:�:%ik;}:j;}.:{.::.:. .:%:.»;y:•�}:,,::.or't<k.,}:?:S::S}:.}{?<•.s:;:a<:::�}i;:;t;r:k;::};#:::S,;nS::"}a '„fir:.%.:.:;
® I I IIII
ZL
COW %$a}>,.....:v.::#�S�}..:.s...k:ir.^•.:'jt.{,.' :+�:•'.^:;:x”r.+..n?a::..a}:}s>?`.'fe}:ay::?.a}...y..{?#55+C.:�:5;:R..;�{:<,:�s�SS,. �+
#.aas {}?}:+.%SS:}{k.}:.:.."•: r 3' r:r�,.>...,. K. r :S,.»j5., A:c{'
cRj?w�°�:.'4�".�?:#S},r;{.:xr:•`:`.xcs.fn %f»k':;�:$:k::ifn•":i:c;jiM1,➢�,:';�.5�::.,` ,:',tla:%arf si:,}�,n:�'.•r.t::
W ttt:a;;�.r,�+ s{::.:y:...:.:,.:.}:.}a?S.r%x•y? �E °qi::}a;;YS.;; S.}•ii:v:.}}¢?}?r`}V.{3.%�S?�..;#•?S.
x Sax,.:•.t;:•.}.,:a,,.::., .:a,:+, Nf :., }yarx...,.:i x 7a»}y .,t.
°;;
Imh
I� I
• � °, ... III I I
klii'S}S' i}jh�+•"v{w{b?aji.i'i{i (+ji C�
ikj?M i;;:* y:...jf.a%; r
».i:;.a'::ty,3:x:.y..y,;},;v};:::•<yiS5::i3;`?�.,vdC' :}#":.y{.ti• iyC,�'i
::ti#iiL\.aiw:jii..x:E'P-::a:4:::i�ii:n.: •• .}a}.a.Ya:}}}n.: .?i`k\;\':k4;:\T 'i�<. '
F..,{.;A
° i:�:}Y:j},:; :..".:.k;..:n... a +.r}:.u3:..{a'•:
_ � � _ _ _. -- •:f.%::}:^•.:f?id't'v'}:f;#$is!,v,.?t: aeiif�i:#t:,ig'T,}a}}µ9
II N
.x '"x"K+
};,, jy au::k .q4.:,•
3}}x:�`jr<; ;:S;fiir;'ttii5,t�.a. #;A%#t'r s{.^»a}
•fiNf}#s;:'X.'„:;`.'.ffx:;+}%?'fti%';:Yiyt... '}»;.h'H�s
:^:q.; a.)' ....5,%•k:�.s{.,., .,�5%}..:x..:3!$:r:»:t:.:r:er,Y.,
nx
+:x:}:,::jA:#}};:;s•{E{i.}k;%vk¢;'j(;Ac:#%:.x�x:s i^i .,'+.:?�/f;Q».
e
G CN
C
o N
^ U
LO Ui L-)
O �,
CL
r �
to
C
CO co m
Q�
L LO p (�
E �
I cc
d- U co - L
0 o
Z3' _
� CO � roh CC -
F" v m� >-
_ CO rn
0 x r O
x =
Q) O U
voi .mac
p --
(-- o
o O ) I•. co
Q Y p
Qco E
lI
{� U
�O
ti a`
U N
ti c
7
O ECOu
r LO o >.
cq
E
h '13
c•7 O — v�
O' O O `
O p O O p cz
C) nu
O p O p Uo
O
p
cn o p U-
C.)
N
.-L Q d d O
a F'
S
• o c
C� a
Cy O�
* �tOSAA 1S OBISpo
?Q O O`�� OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249■805!781-7119. FAX 805!781-7109
November 12, 1997 MEETING
�+uE14'Dq
DATE // /� 9 ITEM #
Mrs. Peg Pinard ` - -O.CDD DIA
DCAO O FIN C:'
714 Buchon Street Cao O FIR.C:
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 12411ORNEY Q?WDIR
OCCERK/ORIG O POLICE C F
0MG
O REC DIR
Dear Peg: O uTIL DIR
O O PERS DIR
I wanted to provide a response to your letter of November 2, 1997, concerning the perspective of
the Old Town Neighborhood Association and your reactions and su
Proposed Marsh/Chorro Parking Structure expansion project. ggestions concerning the
First, I would agree with your basic contention that it is better to fully anticipate and take pro-
active steps to eliminate or mitigate problems before they happen. Secondly, while the garage
expansion project is obviously intended to reduce the high parking demand in the downtown, it is
certainly our hope, that in doing so, it will also help to relieve parking congestion within the
nearby residential neighborhood. Thirdly, as you know, a major purpose of the EIR is to address
the anticipated impacts of the proposed expansion and to develop suggested mitigations. Most of
these mitigations would be.in place prior to the opening of the expanded garage structure
certainly others could be considered if a need for them is indicated. , but
The City Council, over a number of years, have been concerned with the impact of parking by
"outsiders"in City residential neighborhoods. We have now established four such residential
Parking districts, two of them in areas adjacent to Cal Poly. However, over the last several years,
the City has also refined our procedures for initiating and implementing residential neighborhood
parking districts, and the process is relatively easy to achieve. The key element is that a majority
Of people within a designated area must truly want such a neighborhood parking district to be
established and, upon evidence that such is the case, the process for staff and Council.
consideration and full implementation is relatively rapid. I understand that our Parking Manager
has been in contact with representatives of your neighborhood regarding thisprocess and that
signatures are currently being gathered in anticipation of a formal application to the City Council
As you can respect, it is better not to create the perception that it is the City's desire to mandate
such neighborhood parking districts, as it is a matter of self-determination for the neighborhood,
and consequently it would be the people of the neighborhood who would solicit the interest of
their fellow neighbors.
The present Marsh/Chorro Parking Structure has functioned quite well, considering the number
Of automobiles that park within the structure each day. Basically the expansion would work in
much the same way. It is of course realized that the number of cars would be greater. Some of
RECEIVED
NOV 1 3 1997
SL 1T CtC �i o an Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services.Programs and activities.
�i Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410
CD
MY Of San WIS OBISPO
those cars would be downtown customers or visitors who are now forced to park in outlying
areas such as yours. Increased traffic has been a major emphasis of the EIR analysis and the
reason for particular suggested mitigation measures.
The Parking and Downtown Access Plan identified under-utilized ten-hour meter areas in the
periphery of the downtown and proposed ways to encourage downtown employees to use those
areas rather than taking up parking spaces in the core of the downtown. It also recognized that
employee parking could impact residential areas, such as yours, and that measures could be taken
to address that issue should it arise.
In the way that I've outlined above, I am hopeful that the Old Town Neighborhood
representatives and the City staff can coordinate together, in a manner similar to what has
happened in other neighborhoods, and that the neighbors can refine their requests regarding
whether they want such a residential neighborhood parking district established and, if so, for
what defined portion of the neighborhood.
Peg, I am hopeful that the City's traffic and parking analysis, contained in the EIR, and the
proposed mitigation measures, in combination with what can be accomplished in the
neighborhood by a properly defined neighborhood parking district, can be positive solutions to
the issues you point out in your letter.
Thank you for writing, for sharing your concerns, and rest assured that the City Council is vitally
interested in providing the same protections to the Old Town Neighborhood, in terms of parking
intrusion, as we have for other neighborhoods of the City.
Sincerely
G
Allen K. Settle/
Mayor
city clerk memorandum
Date: November 13, 1997
To: City Council
From: Bonnie L. Gawf, City Clerk(?"—
Subject. "Red File" Redistribution
The attached letters were distributed to you prior to your discussion of the
"Downtown Parking and Access Plan" at your October 28, 1997 meeting. At that
time, Council directed that letters received prior to tonight's meeting that relate
exclusively to the Marsh Street Garage be re-issued to the Council for the
November 18' meeting.
Although many of the letters you received prior to your October 28' meeting
mentioned the Marsh Street expansion in their discussion of the plan, the attached
were the most specific to that issue.
MEETING AGENDA
V0 NCIL L 'I DIR TE Z�ITEM 0
NAO ❑ E CHIEF
P�iORNEY PW DIR
@'CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR October 23, 1997
p ❑ UTIL DIA
❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle,
You have 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 over
the edge. Instead of adding to our problems you should be helping us
reduce the amount of driue-through traffic that we already have.
That's what was promised in the circulation element...that you would
monitor traffic and take action when traffic levels got to the limit for
our residential streets.
Well, here you have Pacific Street with more cars on it than it should
have. Rnd what does the consultant propose doing? Well, just rename
the street and make it a class higher! You used our tax money to have
someone advise you to just "cop out"? That's like saying to someone
who is overweight that they don't have 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,
k;�bV1 ul
a G ,
q2 qo )
RECEIVED
0 C T Y 7 1996
SLO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
,I2 2L9 7 ITEM #
COUNCIL :E[3UTIL
R
x'90
PYA AO HIEF
ORNEY
CLERKIORIG CHF 3346 Barranca Court
❑ MGMT TEAMR
❑ IR San Luis Obispo
IR CA 93401
October 25, 1997
RECEIVED
Councilperson Dodie Williams
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL 0 CT 2 7 199
City Hall
At the EIR hearing earlier this SLO CITY COUNCIL nd 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- &-.: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
MEETING AGENDA
�
UNCIL ❑ CDD D" TE �`Z�ITEM #
LA0 ❑ FIN D6.
rPAOFM CHIEF
IFY iORNEY NW DIR
CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR October 23, 1997
❑ ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PEAS 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. find 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,
�- q3 ��l
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 1996
SLO CITY COUNCIL
MFETING AGENDA
�UNCIIL IR .,E ��
0 J IR
yQAO ❑ F CHIEF
�3' -ORNEY W DIR
CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR October 23, 1997
❑ ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
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,
RECEIVED
0 C T [ 7 1996
SLO CITY COUNCIL
P V MEETING AUZNDA
J
DATE
89
�'.�,LZ ITEM #
Oro: D£DD DIR
November 17, 1997 ate.,
0 A7 TORNEY �FIR_G:.
OCLERKIORIG �wDIR
Honorable Allen Settle MGMT,TEAI� 13 POLICE CHF
❑REC DIR
Office of the Mayor p 0 VrIL DIR
City of San Luis Obispo El PERS DIR
990 Palm Street 01"X- �.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle
And Members of the City Council:
Please accept this letter as input for tomorrows Council Meeting at City Hall
regarding pending action on whether to certify the environmental impact report for
the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure. In brief, I request that the
Council certify the report and direct all parties concerned to promptly move forward
with this very important project.
I acknowledge the controversy in this issue, but I believe there are several good
reasons for supporting the project:
• There is a shortage of adequate and satisfactory parking in the downtown core
business area, particularly the Downtown Center section (which has become an
important meeting place for business, commerce, and leisure pursuits).
• Sufficient revenues are available to cover expansion costs. Long-term upkeep
and maintenance costs are relatively minimal for such structures.
• The project augments the long-term interests of the community to contain and
nurture business activity and the customer base drawn to those businesses,
within the downtown business core.
Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts, since this project will have a
direct impact on the work of our organization and how efficiently we can conduct
business within the City of San Luis Obispo with, and for, our customers.
S' rely,
LSLNOV
ED
Lee Ferrero 997
President & Chief Executive OfficerUNCIL
3566 South I iguera Sheet ■ Suite 100 ■ San luis Obispo ■ Cafrfamia ■ 93401 111 (B05)781-2200 ■ Fax(W 541-4111
L �9
.._cETING AGENDA
DATE i / L L ITEM # �
1vI EMORANDUM
OUNCIL ]DIR'
November 13, 1997 DO CAO ❑TI RNEY D3'F9CA
LERKIORIS 0 a T.TEAM O To: Members of the City Council —> 0 O 0
Via: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Work
From: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
Subj: Mitigation Measures Marsh Garage EIR
As directed by Council at the October 21"meeting, staff and the consultant have clarified
the issues which were raised during the meeting and are addressed in the staff report.
However, recent review of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
has raised the issue of the recommended "timing" for the installation of the traffic signal at
Pacific and Broad Street. The draft EIR indicated that a traffic signal would be needed at
this intersection because future traffic as a result of the project would deteriorate this
intersection to an unacceptable Level of Service F (Attachment 1).
However, these projections were"worst case" (10 year cumulative impacts plus the
project) and would not be present under existing conditions plus the fully expanded
garage, which projects an acceptable Level of Service D (Attachment 2). Given this level
of service, a signal would not be needed until sometime after the garage was completed
and the intersection could be monitored to determine when a signal may be warranted.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the timing of the mitigation measure for this
intersection be modified to match the recommendation for the Pacific/Osos intersection
and the mid-block crosswalk monitoring, which recommends traffic warrant analysis be
conducted 6 months after the completion of the project and then annually for three years.
This would allow a better determination of what traffic measures may be needed and defer
the capital investment ($100,000) and ongoing operating and maintenance costs until it is
necessary to install the signal. Staff will present this recommendation at the meeting.
Attachment I Existing+Project Intersection Levels of Service
2 Cumulative+Project Intersection Levels of Service
J
ccmemoeir RECEIVED
N OV 1 7 1997
ISI-0 CIT`( CLERK
Table 5.2.6
Cumulative + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative +.Project
Intersection Delay.(sec.) ; LOS Delay (sec.) LOS
Chorro Street/Higuera Street 6.7 sec. LOS B 6.8 sec. LOS B
Broad Street/Marsh Street 7.6 sec. LOS B 7.8 sec. LOS B
Chorro Street/Marsh Street 5.9 sec. LOS B 6.2 sec. LOS B
Morro Street/Marsh Street 9.0 sec. LOS B 9.0 sec. LOS B
Osos Street/Marsh Street 5.2 sec. LOS A 5.5 sec. LOS A
Broad Street/Pacific Street' 32.9 sec. LOS E 57.1 sec. LOS F
Chorro Street/Pacific Street 4.3 sec. LOS A 5.6 sec. LOS B
Morro Street/Pacific Street' 7.0 sec. LOS B 7.3 sec. LOS'B
Osos Street/Pacific Street' 26.5 sec. LOS D 31.1 sec. LOS E
' Weighted delay reported for constrained movements at the 2-way stop controlled intersections.
The data presented in Table 5.2.6 indicate that most of the study-area intersections would
continue to operate acceptably with Cumulative and Cumulative + Project volumes. The
Broad Street/Pacific Street is forecast to operate at LOS F in the Cumulative + Project
scenario. The addition of traffic generated by the structure would contribute to the
significant cumulative impact at this location.
Mitigation T-3 Broad Street/Pacific Street. Development of the garage expansion
would degrade the intersection operations to the LOS F range (57.1
sec. delay). A peak hour traffic signal warrant analysis was completed
for the intersection to determine the future need for traffic signals. The
State peak hour warrants indicated that traffic signals would be
required to accommodate Cumulative + Project P.M. peak hour
volumes (worksheets are included in the Technical Appendix). Given
the close spacing between the Pacific Street and Marsh Street
intersections along Broad Street, it is important that the signals be
coordinated to minimize delays and queuing on Broad Street at Pacific
Street. With the installation of a coordinated signal at this location, the
intersection would operate in the LOS B range, thus mitigating
cumulative impacts.
Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project Associated Transportation Engineers
Traffic, Circulation & Parking Study 24 June 4, 1997
Table 5.2.3
Existing + Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Conditions Existing + Project
intersection Delay(sec) LOS . Delay (sec.) : LOS ;
Chorro Street/Higuera Street 6.5 sec. LOS B 6.5 sec. LOS B
Broad Street/Marsh Street 7.4 sec. LOS B 7.6 sec. LOS B
Chorro Street/Marsh Street 5.7 sec. LOS B 6.0 sec. LOS B
Morro Street/Marsh Street 9.0 sec. LOS B 9.0 sec. LOS B
Osos Street/Marsh Street 4.9 sec. LOS A 5.1 sec. LOS A
Broad Street/Pacific Street' 18.8 sec. LOS C 27.5 sec. LOS D
Chorro Street/Pacific Street 3.7 sec. LOS A 5.0 sec. LOS B
Morro Street/Pacific Street' 6.3 sec. LOS B 6.5 sec. LOS B
Osos Street/Pacific Street' 19.4 sec. LOS C 22.1 sec. LOS D
' Weighted delay reported for constrained movements at the 2-way stop controlled intersections.
The data presented in Table 5.2.3 indicate that the project would not produce significant
impacts at the study-area intersections, as al.l intersections would continue to operate
acceptably in the LOS A-D range.
Impact T-3 Development of the project will result in increased traffic at the
entrances and exits to the garage. This would result in a Class III
impact (adverse but not significant), as the proposed configuration of
the entrance and exists would accommodate peak traffic flows at the
expanded garage.
Vehicles entering the expanded parking garage would continue to use the existing drive-aisle
on Marsh Street. The ±130-foot drive-aisle located along the east side of the garage would
continue to provide access to the two gate controllers at the garage entrance. During peak
periods at the garage, vehicles may be stored in the drive-aisle while vehicles are delayed
at the entrance gates. The pass-through lane, for oversize vehicles and patrons deciding not
to use the garage after entering the Marsh Street driveway, would be reconfigured with the
new structure and connect with the new exit for pass-card users. The pass-through lane
would exit on to Pacific Street at the approximate location of the previous medical center
parking lot driveway.
The garage exits would continue to be located at their existing locations on Pacific Street.
An additional exit gate for pass-card users would be constructed adjacent to the east kiosk
providing outbound access to Pacific Street. Visitors that were issued parking tickets from
the "ticket spitters" at the entrance would be able to exit from both kiosks, where attendants
Marsh Street Garage Expansion Project Associated Transportation Engineers
Traffic, Circulation & Parking Study 14 June 4, 1997
From:LEE ADAMS To: Date:11/17/97 Time:10:25:46 Pape 1 of 1
MLL71NG AGENDA
DATE 11-11 ITEM #
November 17, 1997
Mayor&City Council
City of Son Luis Obispo
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We wish to express our support for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure.The downtown area is
great retail asset as well as a tremendous source of pride for our community.Adequate parking area,
constructed in a manner,which is compact and functional,is mandatory for continued enjoyment of the area
by the maximum number of citizens and visitors. The Marsh Street facility can be expanded without negative
impact on the ambiance of our community and should be completed as quickly as possible.
Regards,
Lee and Karen Adams
COUNCIL O CDD DIR
�1AO ❑ FIN DIR
ArA0 O VIRE CHIEF
a% ;,t;E'/ PW DIA
✓ ;'IO;IG ❑ POLICE CHF
G "l CAM 0 REC DIR
• ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ 0 PERS DIR
RECEIVED
Nav 1 7 1997
SLO CJi"Y CLERJ(
MEETING AGENDA
DATE -__ITEM #=
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officef��
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
DATE: October 28, 1997
SUBJECT: Ira Winn comments on Marsh Street Garage expansion
In his letter to Council dated October 17, 1997 concerning downtown parking, Mr. Winn
states at the top of page two that the location of the Marsh Street Garage expansion is a
direct contradiction of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. Mr. Winn is
incorrect. The General Plan states (as correctly quoted by Mr. Winn) "Any major
increments in parking supply should take the form of structures located at the edge of the
commercial core..." . Page 51 of the Land Use Element is devoted to a map defining the
downtown planning area, and the downtown core area. As shown on the attached copy of
that map the Marsh Street Garage and its' proposed expansion actually overlap the
boundary of the LUE defined downtown core.
There is no requirement in the LUE that a garage be in or out of the core area, only that
the structure be at the edge. Perhaps Mr. Winn has confused the LUE core boundary with
the study area boundary of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan, which encompasses
a larger area.
EWAUNCIL QtCptTDIR
CWAO ❑FIN DIR
OAeAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
DAT16RC
NEY OIR
CMURPORIO O POLICE CHF
0 MGM El REG DIR
0 UTIL DIR
O��� O P6i8 DIR
Land Use Element
I ' , I
C ,
cam.
c O
O
O
Y
3
0
i3 0 } �
Fi rf O f 3� a s i.
r ,
3
4
z ♦ ,. O KS frtY Si [
K
fr.l
L S3
3.
L O. > F
r l MARSH Srms-GARac.3E
Si S
F O
f / f r• FT �S. W { � IO
3
> < z u s e
✓ ♦ r R O
oez •K x;
M
R O
SY F h i 4 Yh >
iw.z.
_ s
1��1I7n7
FIGURE 4
Cly of ° DOWNTOWN PLANNING ARE
OWMEMENQ100 San LUIS OBISPO CORE
D W LUE 9/9/94
51
u. V,1 V1 o n f-arroll CZL1201
MEE T ��I���pp��qqAGENDA
TO: MAYOR&COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE," ,7 ITEM #LZ,
FROM: HOWARD CARROLL
DATE: 11/18/97
FAX #: 781-7109
HOWARD CARROLL
Post Office Box 1025 (805) 541-0178
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Fax (805) 541-0178
Mayor Allen Settle November 18, 1997
Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Dodie Williams
Kathy Smith
Re: Environmental Impact Report
Expansion of Marsh Street Parking Structure RECEIVED
Dear Mayor & Council Members: N O V 1 7 1997
SLO CIT,l CLERK
I'm urging your vote in favor of the certification of the environmental
impact report for the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure,
The expansion of parking in the Downtown is essential to it's economic
vitality.
Our customers demand convenience, the same convenience offered at other
shopping centers, malls and outlet centers both within and outside our city.
Our competition dictates what we must offer to be successful. The
Downtown needs parking!
I'm looking for you to not only certify the EIR, but also to establish a
timeline to meet the parking needs of the majority of our shoppers.
Following the successful implementation of the plan, focus your efforts
upon the "alternative transportation" solutions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Since WCarrol
COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO ❑FIN DIR
ACAO ❑j�fRE CHIEF
HOwar ATTORNEY GOW DIR
RICLERKIORIO ❑POLICE CHF
❑SIG T ❑REC DIR
®' 1 ❑UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR
MEr=-':-IG AGENDA
iiiii�lllllllllllll���a��l
DOLAN147 ITEM #=
council mcmomnbum
November 18, 1997
TO: City Council
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Of ce
SUBJECT: City Property at 860 Pacific Street
Yesterday afternoon I had a conversation with Eugene Judd where we briefly discussed the three
points in his letter,previously provided to Council.
I told him, regarding 860 Pacific Street, that the property had been originally purchased for
downtown parking purposes and that, in the interim, the building was to be used as the temporary
offices of the Parks and Recreation Department. I told him I would check the records to
absolutely confirm what I had said.
Attached is the staff report to the City Council, of your meeting of September 15, 1987, which
report was authored by Toby Ross, then Assistant CAO.
This memo makes it very clear that the primary intent and purpose of the acquisition was for the
downtown parking program.
CC: Eugene Judd
etbuxn MtDD DIR
❑CAO ❑FIN DIR
CIAO ❑FIRE C4:-F
DATTORNEY 04WDIR
OIL-ERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑M IVIT TEAM 13REC DIR
p� O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR
r ���■���® a-rGiYH�II Y.IIY�Y�tii � WOiW ®�7 41 � � � .•• .__�'•,•1.f 4:
• M: Toy Ross 7 ?repared by: Car ! Ravens
Assistant City Admi :rator Parking Progras C. .dinator .
Acquisition of Property at 860 Pacific Street.
=e
M FIEAMMENMTM:
Purchase Property at 860 Pacific Street for 3445.@00 with some of
Proceeds From a Bond Issue.
BACGR.OUN0:
Site Description
The site is a 6,650 square foot parcel fronting on Pacific Street and is
zoned for office uss. A tvo-story structure with 3,400 square feet of
office space is located on the site. There are seven paved parkins spaces
on the westerly side of the building which serve the offices. The City
E. Recreation Department currently occupies the space.
Situation
!. On July 16, 1985, the City Council-adopted a resolution approving a lease
with an option to purchase property at 860 Pacific Street. known as the
Knight, Towle. Sage and Johnson property. At the time, the sits was wider
i` consideration as a.possible location for a parkins structure and has`beea
used as office space for the City Recreation Department.
Adjacent property was recently selected. for construction of a parking
structure. . Vhile current plana don't require use of this land for a
structure, ownership of the land vould allow greater latitude is design or
the building. Not only does ownership of this property provide the
opportunity for future eMansion of the parking structure, it also allow*.
for more efficient design of the structure.
— 85Caluation -
If this property is purchased, the walls of the parking structure eeoald be
_ located closer to the Knight, Towle, Sage and Johnson Bnildtag. thus
increasing the interior space end improving the parking layva4 mad +
."rculation plan within the structure. Openings in the side br. tae
parking structure which will face the salsting building voald be-permitted
_ pnd would allow light and natural ventilation" in the bwuildins: . If this i': !
land is not purchased, the Building Code would not allow for Openings -` n
within ten feet of theadjacent property line "and their removal sosald
diminish natural light to the interior of the building and a mechanical
Ventilation system may be 'required.
N.
.11. IAMFW I • V•VP/V — ..
:l 44
•.
.�..4 fVClL AOEND EPO � '� ;`
The dUrreW lease is for a two-year term. wj%A an option to extend for an .'-':;9p,.:•
additional two years. The lease also contains an.
optfixed sum during the initial two-year period, with anion opportunityato .tsetor .a;; � .
extend the option for an additional two-yeas period by the payment of as
additional $30,000. The fixed sum was set at 1445,000 which was the
appraised value of the property in July 1(j85 when .the lease arrangements '. .
were made.
ALTERNATIVES
�., Option 1 : Purchase the property by December 1987. Design of the parking
E" structure could proceed with the flexibility of design
mentioned. The Recreation Department would remain in the.
building until another location is found or until the property
Is sold, traded or needed for expansion of the parking
structure.
Option 2: Renew the lease for another two
lease totals !30,000.. The option oeC
buy the property will beost of renewal of e'
extended .;,r another two years .as well: However, the
— . fee is not applicable towards an eventuai purchase of the.
Property. Monthly rental rates will increase from $3740 to
approximatmly $3970. To exercise this option, the City mast•.
notify the property owner 120 days in advance of the
termination of the current lease (by October 15, 1987), The J:
Recreation Department will remain at this location until the
expiration of the new lease in January 1990.
+ Option 3: Renew the lease and purchase property by December 1989. • Again.—
�- the renewal option is exercised by payment of 330,000. Mouthl�r:'. •
rent will increase as noted and the purchase price will F:
increase to about !489,000 after February 11, 1988 when the
current lease expires. The Recreation Deparment.will remaiatjtiwr
this location until another location is found.
Option 4: Do not purchase and do not renew lease. If the propert> '!e not,
purchaseds future expansion of the parking structure and I
parking structure design options mentioned will not be
possible. If the lease is not renewed, the Recreation
Department must relocate by February 1988.
OTHER DEPARTMENT Copff4M8
The Public Yorks
Department concurs that acquisition of the property wou1Q"�" '
be benetioial .for current parking structure design and for retelstion or`,;:~~:>.
expansion options in the future. +� c
ov
The Recreation Department in that this building meats_eurrent
needs for the department. The location also is easily accessible:.b7:thd� :a:.:
public. The department wishes to remain in its present.location for::'at,`.�• :
least three more years or until a suitable alternative location to
selected.
�N
'..0is;
Y.S
'iL�.
r r,_
•� CIL /4�AE1\i�1 REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
Purchase of the property will cost $445,000 if acquired now and "
approximately $489,000 if acquired within the next two years ( $44,000..,
more). To extend the lease for another two years will cost $30,000 which
is not applicable towards a sale price. Rent will increase from $3740 to
$3970 per month ($230 more per month).
Proceeds from a bond issue are available for purchase of this property.
However. money will be needed to make the debt payments for issuance of
this bond and it Is recommended that the funds which would othervise .be
spent by the Recreation Department in rent be paid instead to the Parking
Fund as long as the Department occupies this building. The Recreation
Department budget currently includes $55.000 per year for rents which is. .
sufficient to make principal and interest payments on that portion of the
bend proceeds.
If the bonds are to be repaid by the Recreation Department, - than money
must be appropriated annually from the General Fuad for the term of the
bond (until 2066). If the land is needed for the parking project, :then F'
the Parking Fund would pay the General Fund and that money could be-used •: .
to make bond payments. If the property were sold, the net proceeds would
return to the General Fund.
RECOPUM ATION
Direct staff to acquire q property for $445.000 usins some of the:proceeds"".
from the 1986 bond issue.
,..... '
Attachments: ;,,
1 - Vicinity Map
:;:';:�,
• V:Ia�!:• .fir'
' ..�•.'ice.^.hl�,!`:'.
A
e�
.r.
i.i
r't .
n
11/1E/1997 12:36 6055436680 GARTH KORNREICH PAGE 01
MEETING hGENDA
DATE t� 9 7 ITEM #
Garth O. Kornreich, Architect
,�- 1029 Isla v Street. San Luin 0t ispo,CA`.;4111. Phwu• and Fa-,. S03-.
November 18, 1997
Mayor Allan Settle& Councilmembers:
Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Dodie Williams
Re: Marsh Street Parking garage expansion: IV D
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: N O V 1 8 1997
SLO CITY COUNCIL
I want to state my support for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking garage. I a
looking at all sides of the issue, but the time has come to certify the environmental impact report and
approve the expansion.
The money collected from the parking meters and in-lieu fees has been directed from the beginning to
the expansion of parking facilities. Once again you are considering robbing from Peter to pay Paul by
dipping into, this fund. This money should not go to other programs, no matter how valuable.
Alternative transportation is a very necessary program, and one I support. As an architect, I would be
the first to applaud the end of the automobile as king of the road, but it hasn't happened yet. The reality
of San Luis Obispo today is that the automobile is the number one means of transportation for our
citizens and tourist to the downtown and will be for a long time. You must provide for these cars or
you will put the downtown at risk. It is unfair for the merchants downtown to have paid into that fund
for years through parking in-lieu fees and parking meters that we feed to use their stores (thus making
their goods more expensive) and not get what they have been promised.
The idea of using that money to pay for programs to keep people out of downtown is ludicrous. To
keep government employees home by buying them computers with the parking fund money so that they
will not spend money for lunch or shop downtown, goes against common sense. A lively and healthy
downtown is defined by the people using it. Staples is easier to use than Mission Office products
because they have easier parking. Maybe when the Mall gets its act together, it will again be real
competition to the downtown because it is easier to use. So in a misguided attempt to dictate social
habits through politics by stopping people from using their cars, you actually push them to drive further
out of town for more convenient shopping. It is an un
that will only grow worse without
your action to solve the problem. Please take action 'tthe ars I ion. Thanks.
qo ❑FIN D;n
Sincerely, ORNEYli0 FIRE Rh...
❑POLICE CHFT M 0 REC DIR
0 ER DIR
v Y 0 PERS DIR
► /
James P.Sargen 73805.781-3838 IFA11/1&97 21.1 50 AM 6213
November 18, 1997A *7- DA
MENIP-h-D"TEMDATE ETI # .� .
Mayor Allen Settle and
Members of the City Council
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the Council:
Tonight you must certify the EIR and move forward with the expansion of the Marsh Street
garage. It is a critical clement in moving forward with the visionary Downtown Plan.
The Marsh street expansion is about holding on to the customers we have, in face of new
competition. It is not about bringing thousands of new customers to downtown. It is
about using land prudently, stacking cars. It is about implementing compact urban form
and not just paying lip service to the concept. It is about protecting our residential
neighbors by getting cars out off their streets. It is about reducing circulation congestion,
by moving cars off the street, so that pedestrian customers feel safe in walking our
downtown and crossing our streets.
Tonight you will once again hear from the supporters, property owners and merchants of
the downtown, and from the opponents, some from the environmental community, Cal
Poly professors, intent on using our downtown as an experiment for their theories, and
their students, few of whom really are concerned, but are involved, in it for the °rade.
The people you do not hear from, are the vast majority of residents, shoppers and former
shoppers. Most of these people do not attend Council meetings, they are seniors who do
not go out at night; working moms and people intimidated by the process of speaking at a
public meeting.
These people do, however, vote. They vote in two ways, at the ballot box, and in making
choices on a daily basis, deciding where they will spend their money. Provide insufficient
parking, treat them as lab rats in a research project, and they vote by spending their money
elsewhere.
I commented months ago that all of the surveys done of public sentiment are from
intercepts in the downtown. In my days in running large regional shopping centers and
urban projects, most of our surveys were of the attitudes and opinions of those who were
not our regular customers. These were the people we were interested in hearing from.
I like to think that our family, the Copelands are identified as being moderate and
responsible people. We are very solid supporters of the community, working on
community projects, funding community events and charities and maintaining our
properties to reflect positively on the City. We are the people who have made a substantial
investment and accepted risk We are the only people who will bear the consequences if
the project is rejected.
Speaking for our family, we look at the garage expansion as being vital to the future
wellbeing of the downtown. We fully expect the Council to move forward with the project.
A NO vote is unacceptab
�'"r' q.GBTl6R
Yours truly, Q E`' ❑FIN DIR
0 ❑FIR
The Sargen Family ❑eCER IORNEY ❑ R
p.�(�RK/ORIG 13 POLICE CHF
SMT T ❑REC DIR N OV j B EUt4CIL
❑UTIL DIR
[7 PEAS DIRSLS CITY C
MEETING AGENDA
DAT, ' � � 9 ITEM #
November 14, 1997 `
MEMORANDUM
TO: Staff -
�.; 8 RC ORNF,Y 'ObLWE G,:r
FROM: Allen K. Settle "� OR1
y1R
SUBJECT: Marsh Street Environmental Impact Report
I recommend the following changes be put forth in the EIR motion for any adoption to
certify this impact report. They are as follows:
1) To remove any language that implies long-term parking is being shipped into
residential neighborhoods and streets.
2) Remove the language that redesignates Pacific Street so as to emphasize the
impacts of redirecting traffic from the Marsh Street structure back on to Marsh
Street. Reclassify Osos Street between Leff and Buchon Streets to a
residential arterial street with ADT of 8000 and a speed limit of 25 mph.
3) Mitigation monitoring shall be changed to reflect the affects of the existing
parking structure Phase 1 and proceed with necessary traffic mitigation
measures prior to the construction of the Marsh Street extension.
4) Safety measures must be articulated that go beyond simply a matter of lighting
and further that proposed lighting be designed to protect the glare on the
surrounding residential properties for both the new and existing parking
structure.
5) Traffic dispersal patterns shall be defined so that the surrounding neighbor-
hoods don't serve as a filter. For example, a series of right hand turns
directing the traffic back to Marsh Street would be appropriate.
6) The City must assist the neighborhoods at this time in their desire to create a
neighborhood district.
7) The City must be sure that the design of the parking structure be responsive to
the General Plan, to recognize proper setbacks and stepdowns as to scale of
the structure. The ARC will have the flexibility to consider this as part of the
structure design.
8) The City shall involve the Old Town Neighborhood Association as to parking
districts,traffic management and related impacts to the construction of Phase
2 of the Marsh Street parking structure.
I would appreciate these points being incorporated into any final EIR certification.
c: City Council
" MEETING AGENv
DATEA
��-1� ITEM # City of San Luis Obispo
Public • Department
OUNCIL ®'CDD DIR
CAO ❑FIN C' I
AO ❑FlI,l
Memor/ITTORNEY WWI,
DL I
CLERK10RIG ❑POLIO 1:.:°
❑ GMT TE ❑REC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
To: John Dunn O 2P uZZYmg O PERS DIR
From: Mike McCluskey
Date: November 18, 1997
Re: Mayor's request
I'll respond to each of the Mayor's proposed motion items and then attach an appropriate motion which
may achieve the desired results.
1) There is no language in the EIR which states that parking is being shipped into residential
neighborhoods and streets so there is nothing to remove. This item probably relates to the
Parking and Downtown Access Plan which states as a goal to move long term parkers out of
the City core and to the periphery where there is underutilized parking. The second progress
report identified that these areas are where 10 hour metered parking currently exists and are
not being used by long term parkers.
2) Pacific Street and Osos Street
• Pacific Street is currently shown as a local road and as such has a Circulation
Element Goal of no more than 5,000 cars per day total. At the last Council meeting
the Council discussed the fact that the EIR states that at full build out of the City (est.
at 10 years)plus the project the number of vehicles would exceed the goal capacity by
200 vehicles per day. Therefore the consultant stated that the City should redesignate
the street to a collector which has a higher Circulation Element goal of 10,000 cars per
day. One option the Council discussed was simply directing staff to asterisk this
stretch of Pacific to allow, say, 5,500 cars per day when the Circulation Element is
next updated. This would allow the street to remain a local street with only a slightly
higher vehicle rate than others without needing to receive an entirely new designation.
Thus we cannot simply not redesignate Pacific Street because if we don't we
will be in non conformance with our General Plan. We need to either make it a
collector or leave it a local street and asterisk it in the Circulation Element.
• We cannot redesignate Osos Street between Leff and Buchon Street at all. There
must be some form of nexus to the EIR in order to tie this recommendation to this
project. This section of Osos was not studied and is not a part of this project. Further
this two block stretch does not meet the criteria the Council established for a
residential arterial i.e. where the street is bordered by residential property where
preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and
where speeds should be controlled. In this two block area is a mixture of business and
residential and traffic speeds are already moderate. Speeding, if any, occurs in the
0 Page 1
stretch of Santa Barbara from Broad to Church and pretty much follows posted
speeds thereafter. Finally residential arterials do not have volume restrictions placed
upon them by the Circulation Element and to do so at this meeting would be
impossible because the change to base description of a form of roadway would be a
major enough to fully need planning commission review. By the way, all the items
which change the Circulation Element will eventually require Planning Commission
and public input and additional Council hearings before all changes will be final.
3) The Mitigation Monitoring program is designed to monitor the needed environmental
mitigations found necessary for the new project. Therefore it is not possible to monitor the
environmental impacts of the existing garage as that is not the project. If it is believed that the
existing project plus the new project will have traffic patterns which will affect neighborhoods
then the Council could direct that the monitoring program include an element which monitor the
dispersal patterns of traffic leaving the structure at 6month, and one year periods (same
schedule as other mitigation monitoring elements) and install additional signage as necessary
to direct traffic away from neighboring residential areas. Likewise the Council could also direct
that signage be installed as a part of this project which direct traffic while still in the structure
and awaiting exiting in preferred exiting patterns. This type of signage could be installed now if
the Council felt it necessary.
4) Safety issues are not part of an EIR they are for direction and guidance from the ARC and
project architect. Council could give specific direction that the project architect develop safety
aspects into the parking structure.
5) Traffic dispersal patterns is the subject of#3 above. One block from Pacific is a north bound
route (Marsh Street) and likewise one block away is Pacific - a south bound route. In theory
there should be no reason for traffic to disperse through residential neighborhoods. Council
could request that signage to be installed prior to the project or with the project which directs
traffic dispersal patterns be reviewed by the Council if they would like to get into that level of
detail.
6) The City is already assisting the area in forming a formal neighborhood district. The parking
manager has been in contact with representatives and is currently awaiting the receipt of
petitions for formation - the first step in that process. The Council could emphasize our
willingness to help the neighbors help themselves.
7) In order to build the project and provide the number of spaces in the EIR a small exception to
the height restriction and lot coverage will be necessary due to the requirements of the Post
Office. The EIR shows setbacks along both Pacific Street and Morro Street. Therefore no
specific Council action is required to direct that setbacks be provided as to change the design
would be to violate the EIR. The ARC will most certainly determine the aesthetic necessities of
the project.
8) The Old Town Neighborhood participation in parking district formation is a forgone conclusion
as they are the only ones who can initiate the process. The last thing the City should do is
force something on the neighbors. Traffic management guidelines for neighborhoods are
currently in development and a representative of that neighborhood has attended some of
those meetings. Upon final Council adoption sometime this spring, the neighborhood will be
better empowered to give input to the Council regarding traffic issues in their neighborhood.
Traffic management issues related to traffic dispersal of the structure are outlined above in#3.
9 Page 2
MAYOR'S MOTION
1. Adopt the CAO Recommendation
2. Direct staff to include traffic dispersal signing within the
structure and at key locations outside the structure to direct
exiting traffic away from the Old Town Neighborhood
3. Direct staff to work with the Old Town Neighborhood to form a
neighborhood parking district per their wishes following the
existing City adopted process