Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002, C6 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL - J councilFebru M<a February 19.2002 ac EnbA uEpont Qm N.J. C (o CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works 4b SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY(PARKING COMPONENT) SPECIFICATION NO. 90309A CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve and authorize distribution of the North Area Regional Facility (Parking Component) Request for Proposal; 2. Authorize the CAO to award and execute contracts with qualified service providers if the amounts are within budget of$150,000. DISCUSSION Background At its meeting of February 5`h, 2002, the Council continued approval of the RFP for design and environmental services for the NARF Transit project until such time as the sister study, i.e. the NARF Parking study was before them for consideration. As part of that decision, Council discussed the need to have a synergy created between the two projects and a need to Have the two consultant groups (assuming that one consultant does not prevail in receiving both projects) mutually coordinate their design efforts to ensure integration of the two facilities. Staff has taken the liberty of revising both draft RFP's based upon this input and created tasks and objectives in the scope of work for each project to promote coordination and integration of the projects. In March 2001, the Council approved the North Area Regional Facility (Transit) — Alternatives Assessment Study and adopted Alternative C as the preferred site for the NARF Transit Facility. As part of that approval, Council also allocated $70,000 from the General Fund to conduct conceptual level design, investigate hazardous material issues in more depth (what is called a Phase II study) and complete property appraisals for the transit site. Additional investigation of the parking component of the NARF concept was deferred for inclusion in development of the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan. As part of the Financial Plan and Goal Setting Process for FY 2001-03, Council established the development of the NARF (both Transit and Parking)as a Major Goal for delivery in the current budget cycle. As shown in Attachment 2, Council allocated $240,000 in funding during FY 2001-03 for study, and to prepare the environmental work and schematic level concept drawings associated with the parking component of the NARF project. This RFP is a joint coordinated effort with the County of San Luis Obispo. The City and County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, see Attachment 3, outlining the objectives of working jointly to address parking issues and deficiencies in the surrounding area of the new /County / Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 2 Government building. The net result is this RFP, which focuses not only upon the previous Council adopted concept plan for the NARF project, but also contains work associated with the County's request to potentially utilize the "Bank of America" block as an alternative site for the NARF Parking project. The County has agreed to fund 50% ($75,000) of the estimated budget for the total project. ii - .. ' • ` .` �MOMINEY SSI . �- n 1 i -I .b l o ra.Mw a _y t. SI L -+ 1 a 1 pnwu.un iL'ti . <--"MM" ' Figure 1.1—NARF Transit and Parking,Concept Plan Source:North Area Regional Facility(Transit)Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates The NARF parking project is anticipated to be an integral part of establishing this block as the intermodal center of Downtown San Luis Obispo for employees, visitors and retail patrons accessing the Downtown area for daily trips from both local and regional origins. NARF Parking \ r . Sites Courthouse Y'fi \ 'P0�9 N Gove ent Center ••,! Si Figure 1.2—Downtown Vicinity Map c�� a Council Agenda Report: RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 3 The RFP—What's It All About? The consultant chosen for this project will:prepare"to-scale" schematic site plan and related elevations for a parking structures on two alternative sites; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Environmental Assessment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that identifies potential project impacts; present first order construction cost estimates; prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations; and present these recommendations to the City's Architectural Review Commission,Planning Commission,the County and City Council for consideration. This RFP solicits proposals to perform schematic level alternative analysis and assessments for two (2) potential sites for the parking garage component of the NARF Parking project. As shown in figure 1.3 the two alternative sites are in relatively close proximity to the NARF Transit location and the proposed County Government Center project. Each of the sites has positive and negative characteristics, which may limit or be cost prohibitive for development of a parking structure. Y' �+ Site A -% Extstmg A_ •\ Co ouse Proposed O Transit �O � Center Historic \ew many G� French Gove , Hospital i Center \• Complex Location \; Site B �. F, igure.1.3—Vicinity Map&Adjacent Land Uses The "Parking Dilemma" Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo is a dynamic and sometimes controversial issue. The City has identified the need to provide approximately 300 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project to meet the current and future needs of the community and an anticipated major development project in the downtown. Additionally, the County of San Luis Obispo has identified the need to supply approximately 500 parking spaces to meet the needs of its employees and citizens who will be visiting the newly approved and soon to be constructed 97,000 square foot new County Government Center building that is proposed for the southwest comer of Santa Rosa Street and Monterey. C6-3 A Council Agenda Report: RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 4 Finally, the County of San Luis Obispo Court system has also identified a need for approximately 800 new parking spaces in the future when a planned expansion of their facilities takes place in 7-10 years. Adding these numbers, there may ultimately be the need to provide approximately 1600 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project, and for businesses located east of Santa Rosa Street. As mentioned above, the concept of a joint transit and parking structure has been considered and approved by the Council and Board of Supervisors. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been adopted by both agencies regarding parking solutions in this area. The objective of this study is to analyze and plan for the first public parking structure east of Santa Rosa that will serve these demands. The City has a minimum goal of delivering 800 public parking spaces; which at least meets the needs of the new County Government Center project and the City's needs. Due to property size limitations, and the uncertainty of when the County Court project may be undertaken, the Court's needs should be acknowledged by the consultant, but not planned for as part of this project. Project Description The City and the County have agreed to issue a joint parking study (this RFP) to locate an appropriate space to construct a parking garage or garages to meet combined needs. The preferred solution will be a project site where the combined needs of the City and the County can be met in one parking garage (robotic or standard), impacts of the project can be feasibly and economically mitigated,and the project will fit into the existing and future character of San Luis Obispo. o Proposed yw NARF R Transit -n Center v- (Shell Station) Vk N r` Figure 1.4—Site A"The Sonne Toyota Block" This combined structure can be on either, or both, of the two identified sites. For purposes of this exercise, the consultant should also consider the use of Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Street and determine if alternative street design augments design and function of the adjacent blocks as a mixed use parking structure project. Cb � Council Agenda Report:RFP for the.NARF Parking Design Services Page 5 r' Potential transit alternative site. Airspace and bolo �r grade could be used f % .Ping purposes. Historic French Hospital Property r• N � , r Figure 1.5 —Site B "The Bank of America Block" The City Council has expressed an interest in the possible use of Robotic Parking© or an equivalent. The City is in favor of a concept called Compact Urban Form,which looks to create structured parking in the Downtown in-lieu of numerous surface lots to satisfy parking space demand. The idea of providing twice the parking in a robotic garage in the same space as a standard concrete parking structure has a lot of appeal. This would leave other land available for future development as offices, hotels, commercial or high density residential. If the cost per parking space is about the same and robotic parking can be shown to be technically reliable and operationally cost-effective, the Council would like serious discussion of this option. Finally, the property owner of the majority of properties encompassing Site B is open to the possibility of a joint private-public partnership development of a parking structure on Site B. The property owner of Site B is also open to the possibility of including the parking demand created by his future development in a parking structure(robotic or standard) on Site A. Given the overall demand for parking spaces,the City and County are willing to consider solutions that may include parking structures on each of the two.sites. Coordination with NARF Transit design consultant team: If more than one consultant is chosen for work on the separate NARF Transit and Parking projects, it will be the duty and obligation of each of the consultant teams to coordinate architectural' styles and integration of project site areas to ensure uniform development schemes for the blocks. At a minimum, the consultant should anticipate at least cb_s Council Agenda Report:RFP for the INARF Parking Design Services Page 6 two coordination meetings between these development teams to discuss project objectives and integration. Project Components and Milestones: In establishing the design and recommendations for preferred site for this project,the City anticipates that the consultant will undertake the following activities: A. Evaluate existing conditions to understand current circulation and access patterns, the dimensions of public spaces, and utility locations. B. To the degree possible, contact and meet with project stakeholders to verify project objectives and identify design and planning issues. C. Prepare a dimensioned Schematic Plan that accurately identifies all proposed changes within the project site area that meet its design objectives. After receiving the public's and County response to the various sketch plan alternatives, secure City Council endorsement of a recommended sketch plan and implementation strategy, then proceed with the completion of a final schematic plan for Architectural Review Commission and City Council consideration. D. Sponsor community workshops that solicit input from project stakeholders concerning any sketch plan alternatives (see discussion above) and the final concept plan, and follow up with individual stakeholder contacts for detailed feedback. E. Refine project design based on public, County and City staff input,and any initial direction provided by the City Council. Prepare and submit application and plan materials to the Community Development Dept. necessary to secure final approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC). Given the historic setting of this project, the plans for this project will also need to be reviewed by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and Downtown Association — Parking Committee. F. Secure City Council and County approval of the project's design once reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission. G. Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that investigates potential environmental constraints to the project site that may affect project design or delivery. Project Schedule: It is anticipated that the draft report will take between five to six months to complete once the notice to proceed is given. The following is the anticipated schedule for the project: Benchmarks Target Dates Issue RFP February 20,2002 Final written requests for March 20,2002 Information Submitted to City Proposals Due Aril 5,2002 Complete proposalevaluation Aril 17,2002. Conduct finalist interviews,if April 26,2002 needed Finalize staff re commendation Aril 27,2002 Award contract May 10,2002 Clo-� Council Agenda Report: RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 7 Execute contract Ma 17,2002 Start work May 20,2002 Complete Work 230 Days FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this project in the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan and via County contribution, summarized as follows: Funding Sources: Parking Fund FY 2001-02 _ $100,000 County contribution: $75,000 Current Budget: $175,000 Parking Fund FY 2002-03 $140,000 Total Budget $315,000 Project Budget: Proposed Consultant Services $150,000 Contingency $165,000 Total Budget $315,000 The $75,000 County contribution towards the project was unknown at the time of adoption of the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan and therefore not budgeted. A budget amendment will be processed to reflect this change in funding and subsequent reduction in necessary Parking Fund monies to complete this portion of the project. As reflected above, if the proposals come within the $150,000 estimated cost for this work, there will be $165,000 remaining in the two year budget to be used as contingency or allocation towards the next phases of the project that will include final environmental review and more advance design services once a preferred site has been established. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose to modify the RFP. This alternative is not recommended because it may delay the project. The Council may choose to defer the distribution of the RFP. This alternative is not recommended, because it will delay the project and will ultimately lead to a delay to the construction of improvements at the interchange location. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Workscope of RFP(complete RFP on file in the Council Office) Attachment 2: FY 2001-03 Major Goals Description Sheets Attachment 3: City/County MOU C:\Documents and Settings\tbochum\Desktop\RFP Advertise NARF Parking v3.doc Cb-� ATTACHI+M 1 Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK INTRODUCTION The City of San Luis Obispo, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo, wants to hire a qualified Consultant to analyze alternative sites, to design schematic plans and prepare an environmental assessment for a parking structure located in Downtown San Luis Obispo (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1.1). The concept plans should be the result of a public process that provides a variety of opportunities for stakeholders to participate. The City's Architectural Review Commission,the City Council and County will consider the schematic plans. Project to investigate all related improvements associated with a parking structure including. lighting, hardscape, landscaping, irrigation, required frontage improvements, etc. Consultant will be required to provide comprehensive services to process the project from schematic designs through the environmental determination stage of development. Such services shall include holding a minimum of two (2) public workshops, preparing schematic level designs, including review of alternatives and recommendations for appropriate entries, exits and internal circulation, preliminary cost estimates, environmental research and assessment to prepare an "Initial Study" that meets the State of California, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and processing said schematic drawings through City and County agencies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1. Project Location. Located approximately one-quarter mile south of U.S. Highway 101, the proposed parking structure named the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) is located on the current periphery of the Downtown commercial core of San Luis Obispo. The project is bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Monterey Street, Toro Street and Higuera Street as shown in Figure I.L A, / NARF Parking ` Sites Courthouse `1 0 N Gove ent \ ` 1�T Center - Si 1� „'' tion Figure 1,1—Downtown Vicinity Map C� - O ATTACHMENT I In 1993 the City adopted A Conceptual Physical Plan for City's Center. This plan presents a physical development concept for the downtown. Since 1993, the City has been selectively implementing various elements of the plan. The concept plan states that: A new transit center should be located at Santa Rosa between Monterey and Higuera; this center should include a multi level parking structure. The center and parking structure should have strong pedestrian connections to any county offices located across Santa Rosa. In March 2001, the City Council considered a number of project site alternatives and determined that the Shell Station site located on the southeast corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa was the most appropriate site for the long-term NARF Transit center location. A copy of the North Area Regional (Transit) Facility Report may be obtained through the Public Works Department or at http://www.slocity.org/i)ublicworks/documents.asp. At the same time,the Council identified the remainder of the block as a potential regional parking facility. Figure 1.2 depicts the adopted transit center location and the conceptual parking garage area as discussed in the NARF Transit report. �MONLEYf1R ':I-I T-1----------, M. raMmloi A. 1 V C A.� SNe 0 ------------ J- -_--__ 1 D i Y t I I 1 1 O `� j 1 wwuun em mrmre.Mmmmsan Figure 1.2—NARF Transit and Parking Concept Plan Source:North Area Regional Facility(Transit)Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates The NARF parking project is anticipated to be an integral part of establishing this block as the intermodal center of Downtown San Luis Obispo for employees, visitors and retail patrons accessing the Downtown area for daily trips from both local and regional origins. This RFP solicits proposals to perform schematic level alternative analysis and assessments for two (2) potential sites for the parking garage component of the NARF Parking project. As shown in figure 1.3 the two alternative sites are in relatively close proximity to the NARF Transit location and the proposed County Government Center project. Each of the sites has -2- p C 10-- / ATTACHMENT 1 positive and negative characteristics, which may limit or be cost prohibitive for development of a parking structure. A brief description of each of the sites is contained later in this RFP. EzistiSite A \� ' ng Co awe Proposed O Transit �O Center ' --``� Historic New omty G,V Frmc6 Gove �► Hospital Center \ �' Complex '�� ' Location ' Site B � f i Figure 1.3—Vicinity Map&Adjacent Land Uses The"Parking Dilemma" Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo is a dynamic and sometimes controversial issue. The City has identified the need to provide approximately 300 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project to meet the current and future needs of the community and an anticipated major development project in the downtown. Additionally, the County of San Luis Obispo has identified the need to supply approximately 500 parking spaces to meet the needs of its employees and citizens who will be visiting the newly approved and soon to be constructed 97,000 square foot new County Government Center building that is proposed for the southwest comer of Santa Rosa Street and Monterey. Finally, the County of San Luis Obispo Court system has also identified a need for approximately 800 new parking spaces in the future when a planned expansion of their facilities takes place in 7-10 years. Adding these numbers, there may ultimately be the need to provide approximately 1600 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project, and for businesses located east of Santa Rosa Street. As mentioned above, the concept of a joint transit and parking structure has been considered and approved by the Council and Board of Supervisors. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been adopted by both bodies on this issue. The objective of this study is to analyze and plan for the first public parking structure east of Santa Rosa that will serve these demands. The City has a minimum goal of delivering 800 public parking spaces, which at least meets the needs of the new County Government Center project and the City needs. Due to property size limitations, and the uncertainty of when the County Court project may be undertaken, the Court's needs should be acknowledged by the consultant, but not planned for as part of this project. -3- Cb`f� ATTACHMENT 1 The City and the County have agreed to issue a joint parking study (this RFP) to locate an appropriate space to construct a parking garage or garages to meet combined needs. The preferred solution will be a project site where the combined needs of the City and the County can be met in one parking garage (robotic or standard), impacts of the projects can be feasibly and economically mitigated, and the project will fit into the existing and future character of San Luis Obispo. This combined structure can be on either, or both, of the two identified sites. For purposes of this exercise, the consultant should also consider the use of Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Street and determine if the concept of alternative street design and use of airspace or below ground would augment function of the adjacent blocks as a mixed use parking structure. The City Council has expressed an interest in the possible use of Robotic Parking© or an equivalent. The City is in favor of a concept called Compact Urban Form, which looks to create structured parking in the Downtown in-lieu of numerous surface lots to satisfy parking space demand. The idea of providing twice the parking in a robotic garage in the same space as a standard concrete parking structure has a lot of appeal. This would leave other land available for future development as offices, hotels, commercial or high density residential. If the cost per parking space is about the same and robotic parking can be shown to be technically reliable and operationally cost-effective, the Council would like serious discussion of this option. Finally, the property owner of the majority of properties encompassing Site B is open to the possibility of a joint private-public partnership development of a parking structure on Site B. The property owner of Site B is also open to the possibility of including the parking demand created by their future development in a parking structure (robotic or standard) located on Site A. Given the overall demand for parking spaces, the City and County are willing to consider solutions that may include parking structures on each of the two sites. The following section briefly describes each of these alternative site locations. Alternative Locations Site A=The Spring Toyota Block As shown in Figure 1.4, Site A is bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Monterey Street, Toro Street and Higuera Street. The existing land uses on the site include a commercial building that houses Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, two small auto related commercial businesses, parking lot and an auto service center. The parcel located adjacent to Santa Rosa Street at Monterey, the Shell Oil gas station, is not part of the NARF parking project. The Shell station property has been identified by the City Council as a potential site for a future intermodal transit transfer center (titled the NARF Transit Center) that will be developed independently of the NARF parking project. An RFP for the NARF Transit project is currently being circulated for proposals and may be of interest to the consultant who proposes on this RFP. As part of that RFP, the City is requesting an alternative assessment to the Shell Station property, that of using Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Street,be developed. -4- I l ,419�� 1 ATTACHMENT 1 , / Proposed �. NARF Center Cr w entef � (Shell Station) N i r l Figure 1.4—Site A"The Spring Toyota Block" Adjacent land uses include a proposed 47,000 square foot expansion of the new County Government Center building located on the southeast corner of Santa Rosa and Higuera Street, office and general retail on the north side of Monterey Street and the east side of Toro Street, and a mixture of commercial, office and parking lots on the south side of Higuera Street. Monterey Street, which borders the project to the north, is a primary link between the Downtown to "Motel Row" which is a series of motels located along east Monterey Street at the eastern end of the city. Site A - Constraints (Partial List Only) ❖ Portions of the site are known to be contaminated ❖ The site is bisected by an underground creek(although it could be relocated) ❖ Portions of the site.have had little or no hazardous material investigations ❖ The easterly portion of the site contains fill material that will need archeological review and possible recovery ❖ Portions of the site have had no cultural review ❖ At least one property owner is adamant that the property not be purchased (i.e. The use of eminent domain will be necessary) ❖ The Council has expressed a preference to maintain an "office" presence along Monterey Street—even if of minimal depth ❖ Existence of long term leases for properties Site B—The Bank of America Block As shown in Figure 1.5, Site B is bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Higuera Street, Toro Street -s- c�-�a ATTACHMENT I and Marsh Street. The existing land uses on the site include the Bank of America building on the northwest corner of the site, office and retail commercial fronting along Marsh Street, and private surface parking. Adjacent land uses to the site include retail commercial buildings to the west and north, the historic French Hospital Building, miscellaneous office buildings along Toro Street (to be preserved as part of project), and a mixture of residential and office to the south on the opposite side of Marsh Street. Potential transit alternative site. Airspace and belo " grade could be used fo .O parking purposes. Historic `�• French � Hospital ftperty J! 10 N Figure 1.5 —Site B"The,Bank of America Block" Site B - Constraints (Partial List Only) ❖ Under private ownership ❖ Has long term leases that would have to be broken in order to use the site ❖ Timing of construction of a new parking garage would be dependent upon the private property owners plans for the property ❖ No hazardous material history on any of the property known ❖ No cultural review of the site has been completed but could be extensive ❖ The developer's plans for development of the site are unknown and therefore the parking demand of the developer is also unknown: SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Project Site Area and Design Objectives: Each of the alternative site areas for the NARF Parking Facility involve certain constraints and benefits. The primary objective of this project is to compile and prepare the necessary information and commensurate schematic -6- C b-l3 _ ATTACHMENT 1 plan alternatives to make recommendations for a preferred parking structure. This objective may be met using Site A, Site B, Sites A + B, as well as incorporating modifications to Higuera Street for use of airspace or below ground. Integration of the parking facility with the transit facility is also a primary objective. The schematic designs of the NARF Parking Facility should achieve the following objectives: ❖ The parking facility is integrated with the NARF intermodal transit transfer that will promote City modal split objectives. ❖ The parking structure is integrated into the unique characteristic of Downtown San Luis Obispo including a pedestrian oriented frontage along Monterey Street and shall be an attractive facility that addresses the aesthetic impact of the block(s). ❖ Maximize the amount of off-street parking spaces contained in the garage without excessive massing in relation to the adjacent land uses. ❖ Investigate and recommend automated parking design concepts as an alternative to standard parking structure. ❖ Provide convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access to adjacent areas and in particular, strong pedestrian connections to the areas west of Santa Rosa. ❖ Investigate the cost of replacing (as pan of the project) displaced office area and potential commercial area that does not overly impact gross parking space yield. ❖ A thorough and complete assessment of possible discretionary review decisions, such as building height or lot coverage exceptions that may be necessary for the project. ❖ Possible property acquisition and project construction phasing opportunities. ❖ A thorough and complete assessment of environmental issues that satisfies CEQA and identifies major and minor issues that may limit or impede the project. 2. Coordination with NARF Transit design consultant team: If more than one consultant is I for work on the separate NARF Transit and Parking projects, it will be the duty and obligation of each of the consultant teams to coordinate architectural styles and integration of project site areas to ensure uniform development-schemes for the blocks. At a minimum,the consultant should anticipate at least two coordination meetings between these development, °teams to discuss project obiectives.and ince agr tion• Consultant Scope of Work The general scope of work and related task items for this project are indicated below. It will be up to the consultants to determine what additional tasks may be necessary to deliver the project and include them in their proposals. The consultant will need to receive written authorization from the City/County to proceed from Phase A to Phase B. Cb-�� ATTACHMENT 1 Phase A 1. Data Research a. Meet with City and County staff for familiarization with overall parking issues and number of parking spaces to be created. b. Conduct a Phase 1 level hazardous material investigation of the proposed sites. C. Review existing reports, maps, aerial photos, existing and forecast traffic, and relevant historical information. d. Meet with property owner(s) of Site B to ascertain the degree of readiness to develop the properties and determine an approximate number of parking spaces that will be needed to serve their project. 2. Prepare Schematic designs a. Prepare at least six schematic designs of various parking structure options (three of which must be on Site A and two of those must involve robotic structures). b. Schematics must show points of ingress and egress, signalization needed (if any), proposed amenities (office space, landscaping, architectural articulation, etc. that would make each schematic appealing or fit into the locality. C. Schematics should address coordination of traffic movements with the proposed NARF transit facility. d. Schematics should be accompanied by a total preliminary cost estimate including right-of-way purchase, environmental clean-up, EIR preparation to CEQA standards, design, construction and construction management. 3. Presentations a. Conduct at least one public workshop to receive community input on the project. b. Make at least one presentation to the City Council. Direction will be given by the Council as to a preferred parking solution at that time. C. Make at least one presentation to the County. Direction will be given by the Board as to a preferred parking solution at that time. d. Meet with Joint City and County staff to resolve differences. 4. Refined Schematics a. Based on input from County and City, refine schematics to include color schemes, architectural renderings in sufficient detail for presentation to various City committees and final approval of the City Council. Note: if the County selects a second schematic, different from the City, no further work on that schematic will be required as.a part of this scope of work. b. Make one presentation to the City's Parking Advisory body. C. Make a.miriimum of one presentation to the Cultural Heritage Committee. d. Make a minimum of one presentation to the Architectural Review Commission _g_ C �-�S ATTACHMENT I and receive input. e. Make a minimum of one presentation to the Planning Commission and receive input. Phase B 5. Environmental a. Based upon input from the of the various committees, City Council County, prepare an Environmental Assessment(EA) of the refined schematic for the preferred site as outlined below. 6. Final Product a. Based upon the EA, the developed project schematic design and input from the ARC, prepare a revised estimated total construction estimate, and an estimated Gant Chart detailing all known obstacles to be overcome and a timeline for all steps required for project completion. b. Prepare 10 copies of the Selected Final Design, including the EA, cost and time estimates. Environmental Assessment: An environmental assessment will be performed by the consultant to determine what, if any, environmental constraints affect the,project site. A Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project area will be prepared by the consultant and submitted to the City for review and approval. The EA document will present the findings of preliminary environmental studies for the project alternatives. Included will be a brief project description, methods and findings (potential impacts and analysis of significance), identification of potential- impacts, otentialimpacts, and recommendations. A preliminary evaluation form, similar to an environmental checklist, will also be included. Other potentially significant issues include socioeconomic impacts related to any relocation of businesses or residences necessary to acquire property, existence and remediation of hazardous waste materials, and impacts to cultural resources. The consultant shall prepare an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) that includes a preliminary site reconnaissanceof the project study area, observations of surrounding land uses and a search of federal and state environmental databases (EDR). County and local agencies will also be queried regarding environmental conditions in the study area. The EA document will contain the following information for the selected alternatives: ❖ Initial Study Checklist(City form) ❖ Project summary(describing the project alternatives) ❖ Biological Resources survey(described below) ❖ Phase i Hazardous Waste Report -9- ATTACHMENT 1 ❖ Socioeconomic summary ❖ Cultural Resources Report (Phase 1, described below) ❖ Noise Study Recommendations for further study ❖ Preliminary environmental analysis of the.alternatives ❖ List of permits or approvals, which may be required [such as California. Fish and Game (CDFG) 1601-1603 Agreement or US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404 Permit, and CEQA compliance]. A Phase 1 cultural resources survey will be conducted by the consultant for the area of potential effects (APE). A record search will be conducted to identify documented cultural resources in the project study area. A visual surface reconnaissance will be conducted of the study area. A Phase 1 cultural resources survey report will be prepared documenting the survey findings. The cultural resources survey report will be provided separately from the EA and the results will be summarized in the EA. The consultant shall complete a hazardous waste report as part of Phase A of work. In May 2000, an Environmental Property Transaction Screen, was performed by SECOR International Incorporated, of San Luis Obispo, for project Site A. A copy of the document is available form the Public Works Department. The consultant shall review said report and investigate further the existence of hazardous materials and other contaminant waste that may affect the project delivery cost. The investigation should include a proposed remediation plan and potential cost estimates for hazardous waste recovery. Phase H level investigations of the site properties should be identified as alternative scope of work tasks. Any property "right of entry" agreements to perform said levels of work shall be the responsibility of the consultant with assistance,where necessary,by the City. THE PLANNING PROCESS The North Area Regional Transit and Parking facilities will be a new and innovative use of community space within Downtown San Luis Obispo. The planned parking structure will be of keen interest to those who commute or shop in the Downtown, advocates of alternative transportation modes and to those who operate businesses nearby. Key stakeholders in the planning process include the Public Works Department, the Community Development, Police and Fire Departments, the City's Utilities Department, area businesses and property owners including the County of San Luis Obispo, business organizations (such as San Luis Obispo Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce), environmental groups such as ECOSLO, SLO Transit riders, and people who access parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo on a daily basis. In establishing the design for this project, the City anticipates that the following activities will be undertaken: A. Evaluate existing conditions to understand current circulation and access patterns, the dimensions of public spaces, and utility locations. -10- y ATTACHMENT 1 B. To the degree possible, contact and meet with project stakeholders to verify project objectives and identify design and planning issues. C. Prepare a dimensioned Schematic Plan that accurately identifies all proposed changes within the project site area that meet its design objectives. After receiving the public's and County response to the various sketch plan alternatives, secure City Council endorsement of a recommended sketch plan and implementation strategy, then proceed with the completion of a final schematic plan for Architectural Review Commission and City Council consideration. D. Sponsor community workshops that solicit input from project stakeholders concerning any sketch plan alternatives and the final concept plan, and follow up with individual stakeholder contacts for detailed feedback. E. Refine project design based on public, County and City staff input, and any initial direction provided by. the City Council. Prepare and submit application and plan materials to the Community Development Department necessary to secure final approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC) (see checklists attached as Exhibit A). Given the historic setting of this project, the plans for this project will also need to be reviewed by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and Downtown Association—Parking Committee. F. Secure City Council and County approval of the project's design once reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) and Planning Commission. G. Prepare an Environmental.Assessment (EA) that investigates potential environmental constraints to the project site that may affect project design or delivery. Throughout this planning process, the selected consultant will take the lead in preparing all documents, applications, plans, and related materials and for arranging for public meetings and opportunities for public input. The City will provide public notice of meetings as needed. DELIVERABLES AND SPECIFIC SERVICES Consistent with the planning process described above, the selected Consultant shall provide at least the following as part of project: Deliverables A. Preliminary Sketch Pians (reduced scale plans showing implementation phasing, circulation, parking and setback areas) that demonstrate various alternatives for the project. The project development team will review the sketch plans and 1-3 project alternatives will be chosen to proceed to the public workshop input process. B. Presentation materials and information needed to schedule and conduct any public meetings or public outreach efforts. C. Conduct Public Workshops and solicit input from community stakeholders regarding the project alternative sketch designs. D. A dimensioned Concept Plan (site plan, with sample elevations as needed) of the site ATTACHMENT 1 area showing all improvements in plan view at a scale that is suitable for public presentations and discussion. E. A complete Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC) project application, presentation and all requisite accompanying materials necessary to achieve final schematic level approval from the ARC and PC. F. Prepare an Environmental Assessment and all ancillary technical reports for inclusion in the schematic level design tasks and for dissemination at the public workshops. Specific Services m G. Schedule all meetings and presentation of plans to groups, individuals, the CHC, the ARC, City Council and County. H. Modify initial sketch plan concepts as a result of public review and the City's own internal plan review process. I. Coordinate efforts to prepare a design for the NARF Parking project with other public and private activities that may affect the site area (e.g. such as the expansion ofthe new 'Co un Government Center building and the NARF Transit Facility); J. Conduct any other special studies (such as traffic circulation) that may be needed to validate the functionality of the proposed design and arrangement of improvements within the site area. (Since the need for special studies is unknown, they have not been identified in this RFP; however, based on their knowledge, the consultant may identify the need for special studies as part of their proposal and stipulate special study costs.) WORK SCHEDULE It is the City's intent that the following schedule be met: CALENDAR ACTION DAYS AFTER EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT Preliminary Work Plan& Schedule As part of Proposal Begin preparation.sketch drawings and Phase 1 Hazardous Material 1 stud Initial Stakeholder Meeting and conduct initial site assessments. 14 Revised Work Plan&Schedule if necessary) 21 Submit sketch Plans, narrow project alternatives and prepare schematic 45 level drawings for public workshops. Conduct proiect workshops 60 Revise schematic level drawings and make Council and County 90 presentations to determine preferred site. Submit Preferred site for ARC, PC and CHC applications. Make CHC, 110-150 -12- 9 ATTACHMENT PC and ARC presentations Finalize Schematic drawings based upon Council and County input and 160 recommendations. Seek final Council and County approval (Complete Phase A Begin Phase B: preparation of the Environmental Assessment. EA _ 161 Submit administrative draft of EA 200 Com Tete EA(Complete Phase 13) 230 CONSULTANT EXPERIENCE AND SELECTION CRITERIA The general selection criteria that will be used for determining the best proposal are: 1. Experience in solving parking problems with smaller, less than ideal sites for parking structures. 2. Knowledge in design and construction cost estimating of standard concrete parking garage structures—moment frame and shear wall designs 3. Knowledge in design and construction of robotic parking garage structures 4. Proven ability to impartially present the pros and cons of both types of structures 5. Demonstrated experience.in techniques to blend structures architecturally with an older downtown environment. SELECTION PROCESS 1. Submit eight copiesof a Proposal by 3:00 PM on April 12, 2002 2. Provide a Statement of Understanding—how well do you understand the needs and constraints of this project? 3. Provide a Statement of your Approach to the Project — how will you go about satisfying the Scope of Work described above? 4. Provide a Statement of your Qualifications describe similar related project analysis experience? What experience do you have with robotic garages? What makes you impartial to either system and will guarantee the best recommendation for the City of San Luis Obispo? Why are you the best firm? 5. Provide a Statement of your Time and Consultant proposed fee. 6. Provide a Statement indicating the Personnel that will actually be working on this project and their personal qualifications — what makes yours the best team this project? PROJECT BUDGET The City and County have earmarked approximately $150,000 to cover consultant services for this project. STANDARDS TO BE USED -13- �b ATTACHMENT I In performing the services and providing the products described in the preceding section, the Consultant shall, as a minimum, use the following standards: ❖ Metric Engineering Construction Standards & Metric Engineering Design Standards, City of San Luis Obispo Pubic Works Department, Engineering Division. Consultants should note that project is within the portion of the downtown area where Mission Style sidewalks (salt textured tan concrete with tile trim) are required. ❖ San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines and application materials. All ARC materials are available from the San Luis Obispo Community Development (Planning) Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, 93401. ❖ CAD Drafting Standards, San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, Engineering Division. ❖ Pertinent plan documents including the 1994 General Plan Circulation Element and the 1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for City's Center. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY The digital map data listed on Exhibit B is available from the City of San Luis Obispo Geodata Services section. Contact Alice Carter at (805) 781-7167 for questions about the form and content of the data sets. The City will provide this data to the selected Consultant at costs established by the City's GIS Division. The Public Works Department Engineering Division maintains a variety of mapped information sources that may be helpful in developing this project. Contact Christine Comejo at (805) 781- 7216 with specific questions. Parking inventory information is available from the Public Works Department, Parking Section office. Contact.Keith Opalewski at (805) 781-7234 for more information. The Public Works Department Transportation Division will undertake traffic counts if they are needed by the consultant to address traffic issues that arise during the project's development. ATTACHED Exhibit A: Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission application checklist Exhibit B: Digital map data list Exhibit C: Excerpt — FY 2001-03 City of San Luis Obispo Financial Plan, Major Goals — North Area Regional Facility G:\Transportation\Transportation Projects\Parking\Current Projects\NARF-Parking\Ciity-county parking study\Schematic RFP\Narf RFPv3.1.doc -14- ATTACHMENT 2 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACUITY OBJECTIVE need to be pursued through internal and external sources. Work with other agencies to acquire land for a multi-modal transportation center and parking 3. Operating the new parking garage will generate structure, northeast of Santa Rosa Street between additional revenues, and there are already Monterey and Higuera Streets. schedule rate increases for parking meters and other revenues. However, it is unlikely that these will offset increased debt service costs to DISCUSSION finance land acquisition and construction. As such, we will need to develop a funding Background. This project creates a major program for this, which will probably require transportation center in the Downtown area of the new revenue sources or rate increases. These City. In March 2001, the Council adopted the area costs may be partly offset by contributions from north of Santa Rosa between Monterey and Higuera the County. The total number of parking spaces Streets as the preferred location to develop the needed will drive the overall cost of the project. North Area Regional Facility (NARF) project. The ultimate project will include development of a 4. Financing costs (and overall costs) of the multimodal transit transfer center, a transit plaza parking component of the project will be higher and a public parking garage that will house much of if office space for private use is included in the the necessary employee parking for the Downtown overall project area On March 13, 2001, the Council approved $70,000 toward the Transit portion of the site for 5. Achieving consensus on the concept for uses on i the parking portion of the site will be difficult. 1. Phase}S hazardous material investigation. The more amenities that are added to the 2 Property appraisal of the Shell Station property. concept(such as day care center,offices, senior of conceptual laps for the transit center and public restrooms), the fewer parking 3. Preparation �P P spaces will be available to meet the demands project. and a higher cost per space will result. Additionally, the complexity of consensus is The Council also requested that staff return with magnified by adding necessary stakeholders recommendations for preliminary development, such as SLORTA. Ride-On/TMA and taxi i investigation and appraisal work for the parking companies. ' component of the NARF project as part of the 2001- 03 Financial Pian 6, Parking expansion in the Downtown has always been controversial and the parking component Challenges We Will Face in Achieving this Goal. of this project is anticipated to receive much This project will face many challenging and difficult scrutiny from the public. tasks before achieving its goal: 7. Participation of other public agencies such as 1. Property owners on the identified block remain the County will be necessary to complete the opposed to the development of the NARF project. project and as such, eminent domain will probably be required to pursue the project. 8. The transit project will require grant or voter- approved funding. 2. Funding for the transit facility, beyond the $70,000, has not yet been acquired and will BAA c� as ATTACHMENT 2 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES • MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY ACTION PLAN RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Task o • I. Public Works. Take lead role in managing the project through the Transportation Planning and 1. Pursue discretionary grant 2001-03 Engineering Program, including working with funding for property acquisition contract attorney on eminent domain and construction proceedings if needed. The CIP Project 2. Begin negotiations-for"right of 8/01 Engineering Program will contribute entry"to the Shell Station engineering oversight and assistance in all tasks property to conduct Phase 11 of the project. hazardous material testing 3. Begin conceptual design phase 11/01 2. Community Development. Assist in • for the Transit Plaza processing environmental review of the project, 4. Receive right of entry approval 11/01 Architectural Review Commission and Cultural for Shell Station property;begin Heritage Committee review and approval, and Phase 11 hazardous material study with any Planning Commission findings if 5. Complete appraisal of the Shell 01/02 eminent domain is required. Station property 6. Complete draft conceptual design 04/02 3. Finance Department. Assist in implementing and environmental review;begin necessary project financing. hold public workshops and advisory body meetings on 4. City Attomey. The City Attorney will assist proposed plan Public Worsts in property negotiations and 7. Council approves implementation 10/02 acquisition as required. Plan 8. Secure funding for property; 01/03 FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES Jbegin negotiations REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL 9. A 06/03 Staf}sng Impar 1. Pursue County financial 2001-03 participation in the project The bulk of staff support for this project will be 2. Hire parking design consultant 1/02 borne by Public Works. Given current and team to develop preliminary projected workloads, significant time by staff will project conceptual Pte;begin be spent administering consultant contracts in order property appraisals for all to achieve the above listed goals. It is doubtful that remaining properties on block; the current staffing levels will be able to conduct begin environmental review of these tasks without affecting delivery of day-today ' conceptual design transit and parking service. As such,significant use 3. Complete draft preliminary 10/02 of consultant contract services will probably be project conceptual plans, necessary to complete,individual project tasks. This appraisals,environmental review is projected to cost$50,000 in 2002-03. and financing plan 4. Begin holding public workshops 10/02 Financial Resources and advisory body meetings on proposed plan Transit Plaza. The Council approved $15,000 from 5. Council adopts implementation 6/03 the Transit Fund in the 1999-01 Financial Plan to plan pursue a transit center study. That study was B45 C16 ATTACHMENT 2 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACIIdTY completed, and in March 2001 the Council unknown at this time what amount may be authorized an additional $70,000 from the General contributed for the project. Fund to prepare conceptual plans, property appraisals and hazardous material studies for the No detailed funding estimates have yet been Shell Station property to be used for the transit plaza provided as to the total cost of the entire parking component of the project. Staff will be pursuing project. However, based upon early parking space outside funding sources for the remaining portions demand numbers, this is roughly estimated at $15 of the transit project but these sources are not million for design, land and construction. The guaranteed. Parking Fund will be responsible for all acquisitions (any contributions from the County would be Limited grant funding (requiring a small match of deposited into the Parking Fund). Over the next two Transportation Development Act revenue, if years, $240,000 from the Parking Fund will be available) in the amount of$100,000 is assumed in required for conceptual studies, and environmental 2001-02 for planning purposes.. This will result in review of the project once the Council adopts a an approved Transit Plaza conceptual plan and conceptual plan for staff to analyze. environmental documents that will provide the City with the foundation for purchasing land and GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL proceeding with construction when sufficient our Downtown vital,construction finding sources can be found to do so. By helping keep these of facilities will indirectly contribute to the While the Action Plan shows purchase of the fiscal health of the Downtown,which is the City's property in 2002-03(estimated at$1 million), this is largest sales tax producing area' contingent upon securing new funding for this. OUTCOME--FINAL WORK PRODUCT We estimate that the entire project could cost about $2.6 million for design, land and construction. Achieving this two-year Action Plan win result in However, these figures will need to be refined as the following final work products: part of the 2001-03 work program. Staff will be pursuing FTA and TDA grant funding for property 1. Conceptual plans, property appraisals and acquisition, design, environmental work and hazardous material investigation for both the construction of the actual Transit Plaza facilities. It NARF parking and transit components. is important to note that the anticipated transit funding sources will be highly competitive and 2. Long-arm financial plan for the parking might not materialize. Ultimately, funding may be component of the NARF project to be used in necessary from new voter-approved financing future financial plans. revenues if no other means of finding the project materializes, 3. Contingent upon securing new, unidentified funding sources for this, purchase of the Transit Parking Structure. The funding of the parking Plaza site. component of the project is a complex one. The City's parking in-lieu fee and parking enterprise funds normally are earmarked for providing additional public parking in the Downtown area. However, because the County is proposing a major expansion in the Downtown area, it is anticipated that some form of financial participation will be forthcoming to the NARF parking project- It is B-46 �� - ATTACHMENT 3 M_EMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San Luis Obispo Relating to the Creation of Additional Parking Facilities in the Area Northeasterly of Santa Rosa Street August 2000 The General Situation 1. It is mutually agreed between the two parties that there is a parking shortage in the northeastern portion of the downtown. 2. This parking shortage is caused by a lack of adequate parking facilities and a large parking demand caused by the shoppers and users of the downtown, the employees of the downtown, the employees of the County, and others seeking parking in this area. 3. The result of this shortage creates a negative impact on the residential and commercial neighborhoods in the northern end of the downtown, as commuters/all-day employees fill parking spaces that residents and shop owners would like to preserve for family/friends and customers. The Present and Forthcoming Situation The County is currently facing certain situations: 1. The County is in the process of planning a new County Administrative Building in the area north of the Fremont Theater(former Mel Smith Chevrolet and the present Sunshine Donuts properties), and their tentative conclusion is that the building would function best if primarily used for administrative office space,with at least part of the parking to serve the building to be placed at another off-site location. 2. If a major parking facility is to be jointly planned and financed northeast of Santa Rosa, the County would require that a specified portion of the facility be dedicated for exclusive County use. 3. The County is interested in pursuing an idea set forth in the City's Downtown Plan that it be appropriate to have a different surface treatment for Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets and for the County or the City to use this area on special occasions for ceremonial; civic or community purposes. The City shares this interest and desires to work with the County on this issue. C11-3 - ' ATTACHMENT 3 The City is facing certain situations: 1. The City has earlier produced and approved a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center ("Downtown Plan"),which sets forth a desired future for the downtown, which plan extends northeasterly to Johnson Avenue. The County was invited to and fully participated in this downtown planning process. 2. The plan recognizes that both the County and the City are major employers within the downtown, and that their continued growth and expansion should take place in this area. The plan also calls for intensification of commercial and governmental uses in the downtown, and for a series of peripheral parking facilities surrounding the downtown, leaving the "downtown commercial core"free of surface and structural parking facilities.. 3. The City has spent a great deal of time investigating and attempting to improve the parking situation in the downtown over the years. The City completed the Wilbur smith Downtown Parking Study in 1977, the IBI Group San Luis Obispo Downtown Parking Study in 1986, the Meyer Mohaides Downtown Parking Report No. 1 in February 1997, the Progress Report No. 2 (same authors) in June 1997, the Draft Parking Downtown Access Plan(same authors) in December 1997, and the EIR for the above draft plan by the Parsons Group in 1999. The City built the Palm Street.Garage in 1987, with County financial assistance,built the Marsh/Chorro Garage in 1992, and plans to commence expansion of the Marsh/Chorro garage in the near future: The City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987, and updated the document in 1990 and 1995. 4. The City is on the threshold of performing a"Downtown Strategic Plan"which will look at where downtown San Luis Obispo is today,what its shortcomings and opportunities are, and how best to achieve its appropriate role and future potential. This study is most critical to the future vitality of the downtown. Parking is not the core purpose of this study; however, it is recognized that.a limited parking supply which fails to meet the downtown parking needs will act as a constraint to achieving the downtown's future potential. 5. The City Council has authorized negotiations with the Copeland family regarding their proposal to develop the Court Street parcel.and the Palm/Morro area. The latter, the "Chinatown area",would have-a semi-subterranean(underground at the Palm Street level) parking structure,with a mixed-use development on top of the parking structure. While the outcome of these discussions is not fully known at this date, it is assumed the project will proceed. While the project would undoubtedly increase the attractiveness, intensity and vitality of the downtown, it will also increase parking demand in the area, and call for an increase in the parking supply above what can be satisfied on site. 6. The City, like the County, is facing its own office space shortage, and has been in a planning process for the eventual enlargement of City Hall, which,with increased office space use, will also create the need for an additional parking supply. While there are options available for doing this, none are necessarily easy or economical to accomplish. 011-4 c6-as ATTACHMENT 3 7. The City is presently engaged in an analysis to determine the location, cost and feasibility to serve both the City's and the County's regional (SLORTA)bus system passenger transfer needs. At the Council's request, the City is also exploring the feasibility/desirability of establishing an allied parking facility. This study is planned for the near future. Related Planning Concepts Calling for Further Analysis 1. A concern has been expressed that previously-developed and to-be-developed parking facilities "south"of Santa Rosa be primarily reserved for the customers of the downtown commercial core, and that"north"of Santa Rosa is the more appropriate place for commuters into the City, County employees, Court system jurors, and downtown employees. 2. If it were deemed to be more appropriate to relocate Court system juror parking to a"north of Santa Rosa"parking facility, then it is recognized that an appropriate financial accommodation would have to be made between the City and the County. Conclusion Because of the above considerations, it is increasingly apparent that there is an interdependence between the County's and the City's plans and expansion efforts in the northeasterly end of the downtown as it relates to the creation and utilization of parking facilities. Recommendation: It is therefore proposed that the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recognize the potential mutual benefit of the two general purpose local government units working together in a cooperative fashion, and authorize the County Administrator and the City Administrative Officer and their respective staffs to work together to analyze the feasibility of a location for a parking structure in the northern part of the downtown that can accommodate additional parking spaces,with appropriate cost sharing between the two parties. Any further plans that are developed as a result of this process would be brought back to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council for further consideration. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By By C11-5 C6-C2,6 Mtt I GNU, AUENUA - DATE a _ ITEM# _ Council Meeting February 191h, 2002 C5, C6: NARF with parking Dear Council Members: We would ask you to please not put out these two items to consultants before some basic planning issues have been cleared. In our opinion, the function of this new transportation facility should first be discussed with the transit committee and planning.commission. Reasons: 1. The NARF must be a real attractive facility and must contain the Qreyhound f buses as well as the Amtrak bus. The Greyhound buses historically were always ll in town and the Amtrak bus already serves Cal Poly. An example transit center icontaining all of the above can be seen in Santa Cruz, CA. In the future,more or different buses may be needed. 2. The pedestrian connection from the NARF to the downtown is extremely --� important because we are actually moving the buses further away from downtown than they are today. This is contrary to the normal planning principle thatup blic transportation belongs in the middle of downtown or to the immediate edge of it ,� and not the parking garages, as we have been doing so far. U_ M: This pedestrian connection can be made by narrowing Santa Rosa Street between C2 C Monterey and Hi era,b making it one way or blocking it off completely and n " :3 0=9 . - Y � Y g � Y Y g � P Y z o 0� _ using it for bus bays. The latter solution was developed by Michael Sallabeny in 000 ®� his Senior Project of September 1998,which is available in City Hall as well as in the Cal Poly microfiche library. Attached is a sketch of how the new road system between S. Higuera Street and Johnson Ave. could work. Other students, mainly � from City and Regional Planning, have developed a"Uptown"plan which focuses FJ _ ¢o . �', mostly on land use and the pedestrian connections. This plan can be shown at the : . . � E-v o Q Ln� i .council meeting by Denyelle Riguer, if so desired. All this work by the young i generation shows that we still have considerable chances in our L� downtown/uptown,but that a comprehensive specific transportation plan for this area must be developed urgently. This is needed not only from a pedestrian point of view but in order to find out where the buses should enter and leave the facility and where the entrance to the parking garage should be. Cities like Santa Monica, CA and Portland, OR have developed such specific plans, showing each bus stop, a long time ago. 3. If in doubt it must be clear that the NARF was always the main idea and that the parking garage was only an afterthought. In order to be flexible the whole ground floor between Santa Rosa Street and Toro Street should be able to accommodate --� buses, if needed. This should be incorporated in the RFP conditions. U 4. Need for the parking component of the NARF: A comprehensive access analysis �� Z W a should be made for the whole area of the attachment including modal split L 0 scenarios and the proof that we are not violating the main goals set out in the W Circulation Element on pages 6-8. This parking component can make sense, WCO especially if it is geared to visitors and not commuters for whom we have other LU solutions. If this is the emphasis then a mechanical parking garage makes less —i sense than a conventional ramp garage,because mechanical parking garages work W best for long-term parkers. They also produce long entrance queues. RECEIVED FEB 15 2002 SLO CITY COUNCIL Eight hundred random interviews in downtown have shown that a majority do not want two garages along Palm Street(as now proposed!) or a Marsh Street garage expansion(as now under construction). If the proposed garage at the comer of Palm and Mono Street is replaced by a more productive land use,then a reasonably designed parking component of the NARF probably makes sense. 5. Flexibility in case we cannot purchase all the land we want: Other solutions for the multimodal center are indeed possible as can be seen in the attachment or in the staff proposal. Other parking solutions are possible too, if transportation demand management measures are more fully explored. Conclusion: Please give us the"helicopter view"of uptown/downtown before we design the gutter for$300,000. San Luis Obispo February 15th, 2002 Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation.Engineers, 665 Left St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2 any uo9u4op 31 m ® :: go ' r a g 3W i0 �na3 � d 0 1Q � � --- '-•- -- ---- . i5 001 w I � 930a GUB3 m IS eq%SluSS C C C -isso8p $ 0 e 908 IJ 7S Vnoo 15�0W OJObO 0000 33 ouo4� 0 -1S ouoy0 �g uep�9E iS p9agI Fl _ G.� G Pm8 .o � .J � rl 73 ouuxi.N owod'N I Nr M ra CD 1z I C O) C G O a a m o o O ® q .31 1 ail I)