Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2002, 7 - DESIGNATION OF THE CITY AS THE TENANT OF THE PALM-MORRO PARKING/OFFICE STRUCTURE i Council M�dimD" to y 02 j acEnoa Repoat ",N C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B 1 S P 0 FROM: Wendy George,Assistant CAO Q'� Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF THE CITY AS THE TENANT OF THE PALM-MORRO PARKING/OFFICE STRUCTURE CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Confirm Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure consistency with City policies and goals. 2. Approve occupation of office space in the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure by City Departments upon purchase of the Structure by the City. 3. Approve modest remodel to City Hall upon relocation of Community Development Department to office space in the Pahn-Morro Parking/Office Structure. REPORT-IN-BRIEF This report focuses on use of the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure by the City,which is part of the Copelands Project now undergoing development review. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Copelands, the City has already agreed to purchase the Palm- Morro/Office Structure from them after its completion. However, no decision has been made yet regarding how the office space (about 16,000 square feet) in this structure would be used. While all or a potion of this space could be leased to another governmental agency,we recommend that it be occupied by the City. The office component of this project presents a unique opportunity for the City to accomplish one of our Major City Goals for 2001-03: the construction of civic offices. If the City is the tenant of the office space, increased organizational efficiency and productivity will result from an improved work environment. Equally important, the public will realize improved customer service. To place this recommendation in context, this report also includes a chronology of the Copelands Project, which provides an overview of how the Project has gone from concept to reality. This chronology and subsequent discussion of the Parking Management Plan and other circulation policies illustrate how the Project is consistent with City policies. DISCUSSION A.Background Downtown San Luis Obispo is the heart and soul of our community. It is a vital commercial district,the focus of local and regional government, a center for cultural activities and a place to go to socialize, enjoy entertainment and dine. As a result, many City goals and polices focus on 7-1 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 2 Downtown in an effort to assist its continued success and vitality. The Copelands Project is consistent with the City's policies and goals for Downtown. The following overview of how the Project has gone from concept to reality illustrates its consistency with City policies and goals, highlights the public process that has occurred for the Project, and provides a refresher on some of the Project's details. B.Copelands' Project Chronology February 1999—The Kotin Report In response to Council's request to analyze the impacts of retail development on Downtown San Luis Obispo in connection with a proposed retail development project in the Madonna Road area, PCR/Kotin produced an economic analysis of the impact of such development on Downtown (the "Kotin Report", a copy of which is in the Council Reading File). The Kotin Report concluded that Downtown is in need of available retail spaces in the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot range, and would benefit significantly from additional commercial space of this kind. Such, new retail opportunities would meaningfully enhance Downtown, allowing it to compete better with outlying areas as well as adjacent communities. Assembling the properties into one ownership and the reuse of land were suggested as one way to accomplish this recommendation. September 1999—The Copeland's Concept is Presented to the Community In September, 1999 Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC (the "Copelands') presented a conceptual proposal to the City, and the community, entitled Chinatown-Court Street:A Vision for the Future of Downtown San Luis Obispo, California, Inspired by its Past(a copy of which is in the Council Reading File). This concept described more active uses for two surface parking lots owned primarily by the Copelands or the City. When complete, the project promised to satisfy many community goals. October 1999—Council Authorizes Exclusive Negotiations with the Copelands The Council authorized staff to enter into exclusive negotiations with the Copelands in October 1999 to outline the terms of an agreement (a Memorandum of Understanding), which would provide the basis for various property transactions. The negotiations were exclusive because each party owned properties that the other was interested in acquiring. During the negotiations, the Copelands held three very well attended public meetings that were facilitated by planning expert,Peter Calthorpe,to elicit public input in their final development concept. August 2000—Initial Negotiations Completed The negotiations involved many complexities and were not complete until August 2000. During the negotiations, the Council was updated in closed sessions and,provided staff with feedback and direction throughout the process. September 19,2000—Council Approves MOUs The Council approved two MOUs with the Copelands on September 19,2000(copies of which are in the Council Reading File). Two MOUs were necessary because of the complex nature of the transaction and the City's desire to have more time to determine the size of a building it would construct on the Palm-Morro surface parking lot. 7-2 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 3 February 2001 -Problems with the Original Project Identified The Council received correspondence from the Copelands on February 14, 2001, identifying several problems that would prevent the Copelands from performing under the tenns of the MOUs. Dramatically higher than anticipated costs for the underground parking garage and engineering difficulties (including the need to remove groundwater) caused the Copelands to propose modifications to the MOUS. May 2001 — Council Directs that Changes to the MOUS Could be Made if a Parking Solution is Presented On May 15, 2001, the Council rejected the Copelands proposed modifications to the MOUS. Instead, the Council directed staff to request that the Copelands return with a strategy that resolved the parking issues created by the development of Court Street prior to amending the MOUS. As a result of this direction, the Copelands worked for several months to develop a feasible parking solution. In the fall of 2001, the Copelands presented the concept for the use of their property at Palm and Morro streets as a Parking/Office Structure. City staff worked with the Copelands to assist them in the analysis and refinement of their concept. November 2001 Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Is Presented as a Parking Solution The Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure was formally presented to the community by the Copelands on November 2, 2001. The Copelands mailed hundreds of letters to interested parties in the community and businesses in the Downtown. Extensive media coverage on the new concept also occurred. November 2001 -Council Authorizes Further Negotiations When the new concept was presented, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the terms of an amended MOU and return to Council with the new terms for final review and consideration. December 11,2001 —Council Approves Amended MOU On December 11, 2001, the Council entered into an Amended MOU with the Copelands (a copy of which is in the Council Reading File). The Amended MOU,like the original MOUs,is a non-binding agreement. Its purpose is to provide both the City and the Copelands with an outline of their respective commitments and requirements necessary to complete the project. Pursuant to the terms of the Amended MOU, the Copelands will construct a Parking/Office Structure at Palm and Morro Streets fora guaranteed maximum price(GMP)that the City will ultimately purchase. The Court Street surface parking lot will be purchased from the City for fair market value and developed by the Copelands into a mixed-use,retail,restaurant and office structure. December 12,2001 —Development.Review Process Begins On December 12, 2001, an application for the Copelands Project was filed and the development review process for the project began. 7-3 I Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 4 January and February 2002—Conceptual Reviews Occur During January and February 2002, several City advisory bodies conducted conceptual reviews of the project at their regular meetings to provide early feedback. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) did so on January 22, 2002, the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002, and the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC)on February 25,2002. January 2002-Environmental Review Process Officially Begins AMEC, an environmental consulting firm, was selected as the City's environmental consultant for the project. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) workscope has been defined and focuses on evaluation of issues in the areas of aesthetics (visual resources), air quality, cultural resources (archeology), geological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use (consistency with the General Plan),transportation and traffic,and utilities and service systems. February 2002—Archeological Services On February 19, 2002, the Council authorized the CAO to execute a contract with Applied Earthworks for archeological services and approved the Project's workscope for archaeological and cultural resources. March 2002—Public Scoping Session for EIR A public scoping session for the EIR was held on March 12,2002. This was an opportunity for members of the public to provide the EIR consultants with areas of importance to them for analysis in the report. Over 1,000 public notices were sent inviting citizens to participate in this scoping session. April 2002—CHC Further Review and Continued.Staff Work on EIR On April 22, 2002, the CHC reviewed and commented on the Archeological Mitigation Plan. The CHC also found the project to be consistent with the historic Downtown District. During April 2002, staff continued to assist AMEC with the compilation and drafting of the project EIR. May 2002 — Planning Commission Zoning Discussion and Administrative Draft EIR Publication On May 8, 2002, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to rezone the Court Street property to remove the unused Planned Development (PD) zoning. This PD zoning was a remnant from a prior, more intensive development proposed for Court Street in the early 1990's and was never "cleaned-up" when the development application expired. On May 20, 2002, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was published and circulated for public review. C. Public Input and Project Consistency with City Policies and Goals 1. Overview of Public Input The Copelands Project has had a great deal of public interest and input. As described above, there have been numerous public meetings of either the Council or advisory bodies to discuss the project conceptually, provide policy direction and make necessary regulatory decisions during the development review process. In addition to the City process, the initial corfpt4was Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 5 the subject of three very well attended community workshops conducted by the Copelands and planning expert, Peter Calthorpe, in an effort to take input on the public's desires for the project. There has been considerable outreach in advance of key meetings and extensive media coverage. Z.Consistency with City Parking and Circulation Policies As previously stated, the Copelands Project is consistent with many of the City's policies for the Downtown as set forth in the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the vision of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center for both the Palm-Mono area and the Court Street area. In addition to being consistent with the social, cultural and economic goals for the Downtown, the Copelands Project is also consistent with Circulation Element policies for public parking structures. At its April 2, 2002 meeting, Council directed staff to review the policies and programs of the 1994 Circulation Element and the 1995 Parking Management Plan(PMP)to determine if there was a need to update the PMP prior to constructing any new parking structures in the Downtown. Although the City is not constructing the Palm-Monro Parking/Office Structure, it intends ultimately to purchase the Structure and a discussion of the new Structure's consistency with the above mentioned polices is relevant. a) Update of PMP Not Necessary Policies 4.1 through 4.4 of the 1995 PMP address parking issues and implementation of policies. None of these policies establish a need to update the PMP prior to the Council contemplating a new parking structure. Furthermore, the 1994 Circulation Element does not require an update of the PMP prior to considering new parking structures. There is one "program"within the Circulation Element that relates to new parking structures being built in the Downtown that is discussed in the following paragraph. b)Detailed Discussion of Circulation Element Program 1 Z.7 Circulation Element Program 12.7 states:.additional parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study (that includes evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completed and its results considered. In April 1996, the Council initiated the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) to satisfy Program 12.7. However, the PDAP evolved and became much more than the technical study originally called for. It achieved the objective of Program 12.7 by creating a technical assessment of Downtown parking issues and alternative transportation strategies. It also proposed to significantly expand and update the 1995 PMP. Several of the programs in the draft PDAP, including the promotion of alternative transportation have been pursued as "Tier 1 and Tier 2 activities" However, since the PDAP has not been completely adopted, it cannot function as the update to the existing PMP. Nonetheless, it has fulfilled its role in satisfying Program 12.7 because it was completed and was considered by Council in May 1999. In addition, Program 12.7 only requires that a comprehensive parking study should be considered prior to constructing new garages. 7-5 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 6 Thus, adopting the PDAP or an update of the PMP is not required prior to Council pursuing parking structure projects in the Downtown. c)Additional Policy Discussion Supports Location of Structure Further discussion of two other policies also bears mentioning. The Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure is consistent with PMP Policy 4.1 that states "Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and patrons of government and private offices" as it is located within the downtown core and will serve the described user groups. Additionally, the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure is also consistent with PMP Policy 4.4 which states, "Parking structures . . . should be located along the periphery of the commercial core". The Structure will be along Palm Street, which is defined as a bordering street on the north side of Downtown. When compared to the retail uses found on Monterey, Higuera and Marsh Streets, the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure, adjacent to governmental, parking and theatre uses, is on the periphery of commercial activity. 3. Major City Goal 2001-03 One of the Major City Goals for 2001-03 is the construction of additional civic offices. The original goal, when adopted in 2001, was consistent with the original Copelands concept and original MOUs. Although the project has changed, the intent of the goal has not. It has been the longstanding intention of the City to retain the City Hall location in the Downtown area. In 1991, it was recognized that City Hall was becoming increasingly crowded. When a subsequent space needs assessment was conducted, a significant need for additional "City Hall" space was identified for the immediate present and in the future. Eventually, a detailed project was developed with a conceptual design for an addition to City Hall. The concept of the addition to City Hall was suspended in the mid-1990's due to financial constraints. During Council goal setting for the 1999-01 Financial.Plan, it was determined that anew space needs assessment for City Hall should be conducted. Concurrently, in conjunction with the Copeland/French MOU approved by Council in September 2000 (which provided two options for property for the City to acquire), a staff task force was formed to evaluate City space needs and make a recommendation to Council as to which parcel the City should acquire under the Copeland/French MOU. The task force concluded an office building in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 square feet would meet the long-term space needs and should be constructed on the Palm-Morro site along with underground parking. The Copelands Project has quite obviously evolved while the goal of having additional office space for City services in the Downtown has remained. When complete, the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure will have approximately 16,000 square feet of office space. Although this amount is less than what was previously identified as needed in the long-term,it would-still provide much needed space and improved work efficiencies; and as such, could still be considered as meeting the Council's original civic office goal. 7-6 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 7 4. Summary of Policies and Goals In summary, while some members of the public have expressed the opinion that the Palm- Monro Parking/Office Structure is a "new idea" it clearly is not. In addition to the extensive policy foundation for such a project, the construction of an office building at this location is a Major City Goal (2001-03) — a goal established through a very extensive public process. Parking in this particular block, and adjacent to it, has been included in the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center since 1993. . . albeit underground rather than an above ground mixed-use structure. More recently, an early version of the Draft PDAP identified parking easterly of the Palm garage location as a high priority for public parking expansion purposes. D. Civic Offices 1. Why the City Should Occupy 919 Palm Street Since 1991, it has been acknowledged that there is a need for additional City Hall space in the Downtown. If the City were the tenant of the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure, we would have the opportunity to accomplish the following objectives: a. Increased organizational efficiency and productivity as a result of an improved work environment. b. Improved customer service through the consolidation of Public Works administration and engineering (including inspectors now located in trailers at the corporation yard) and co-location of departments whose development review services complement one another(Community Development and Public Works). c. Increased opportunities for meeting space. d. Need to relocate Public Works to facilitate the redevelopment of the Palm Street surface parking area as a part of the conceptual Chinatown Historic District Project (that Copelands has an option for in the Amended MOU). e. Flexibility for the future use of 955 Morro Street; short-term lease opportunities; and ability to sell to facilitate redevelopment of the Palm Street surface parking area. f. An opportunity to vastly improve very cramped and inadequate workspace for the City Clerk,Administration staff, and Council members. From a pragmatic standpoint, if the City leases the newly constructed space at 919 Palm Street to another tenant, it will be very difficult for the City to occupy the space in the future. Although a short-term lease (for example, for 5 years) could be entered into, in all likelihood the tenant would be another governmental agency, or non-profit and it would be very challenging to effectuate a change in tenancy once a use pattern by the public was established. Finally, as discussed in more detail in the Fiscal Impact section of this report,the City can debt finance a significant portion of this project. Smaller, annual payments are more feasible given current financial uncertainties rather than a large up front lump sum payment. r�/ 7- / f Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 8 2. Impact of City Occupying 919 Palm Street—In Particular to City Hall If the City is the tenant at 919 Palm Street, it will trigger needed changes to City Hall when space from Community Development's relocation becomes available. There are innumerable options and reconfigurations that could be pursued. A comprehensive, and ideal remodel of City Hall could easily exceed $1 million. However, given the current financial uncertainties facing us, it would not be fiscally prudent to pursue a major remodel of City Hall at this time. A more modest "within our means" approach is recommended, with a modest reconfiguration and remodel of City Hall undertaken as a phased project. The most bare bones approach could be undertaken for about $80,000 or $5,800 per year as debt financed. This bare bones approach however,would really only allow for staff members to move into existing spaces and provide for the costs of re-cabling computers. Because this bare bones approach would not allow for even a modest remodel, and subsequently, more efficient use of existing space,.and performing needed life cycle replacement maintenance in City Hall, staff recommends in an amount not to exceed $350,000, or $25,500 per year, pursuing the following objectives as Phase 1 of a City Hall remodel: a. Use the added City Hall space upstairs, for Administration and the City Clerk to increase efficiencies for storage and workspaces, and provide the Council with improved workspace. b. Relocate and consolidate most of the. Finance Department into the space previously occupied by Community Development. c. Consider moving the Natural Resources and Economic Development Programs upstairs to join the rest of Administration. d. Use the modest remodel of City Hall as an opportunity to take care of needed life cycle replacement maintenance in City Hall (such as flooring, carpeting and electrical systems). e. If money is available, consider the relocation of other City services from the old Library, and work with the Little Theatre to help facilitate their goal of providing and coordinating the use of the old Library for additional theatre and public meeting space. 7-8 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 9 FISCAL E%IPACT Attached is a detailed schedule of project acquisition costs, funding sources and ongoing net costs for the Parking and General Fund components of this project, summarized as follows: Project Cost and Funding Summary Parking General Fund Fund Total ProjectInitial . Project Cost Summary_ 8,481,400 4,615,800_ 13,097,200 Acquisition per guaranteed maximum price contract 7,135,100 2,782,700 9,917,800 Land 843,000 329,500 1,172,500 Furnishings/electric,telephone&computer cabling at 919 Palm 760,000 760,000 Reconfiguration and life-cycle maintenance @ 990 Palm Street 350,000 350,000 Construction management,archaeology,contingencies&other costs 503,300 393,600 896,900 Pro'ect.Fundiri .Summa _ 8,481,400 1 4,615,800 13,097200 Parking in-lieu fees from Court Street project 512,000 512,000 Proceeds from sale of Court Street property 1,471,500 490,500 1,962,000 Proceeds from sale of bonds 6,497,900 4,125,300 10,623,200 Ongoing . Additional Ongoing Costs and Revenue Losses 756,700 . 401,100 1,157,800 Parking structure operations and maintenance 84,200 19,600 103,800 Office space maintenance for 919 Palm 81,800 81,800 Debt service on bond proceeds 472,100 299,700 771,800 Loss of meter and fine revenues from the Court Street lot 200,400 200,400 Additional Ongoing-Revenues and Cost Reductions 153,400 163,700 '317;1;00 Structure revenues from 212 spaces (130,800) (130,800) Surface lot meter and fine revenues from 17 spaces (17,200) (17,200) Lease revenues from 955 Morro (133,200) (133,200) Reduction in office space maintenance @ 955 Morro (30,500) (30,500) Court Street lot reduced operations and maintenance (5,400) (5,400) N.et Annual Cost_____ __ $__ 603,300._$____237,4001 $ 840,700 A more detailed analysis of project costs and funding sources is provided in the Parking Fund Review, which is being presented to Council on the same evening as this report. Included in the Parking Fund Review is a CIP request for funding that includes the timeline and tasks associated with the purchase of the completed Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure, occupancy of the structure by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments and modest remodeling of City Hall. Initial Project Costs. As reflected above, the initial project cost is $13.1 million, of which $8.5 million is allocated to the Parking Fund for public parking spaces and $4.6 million is allocated to the General Fund for office space and related dedicated parking spaces. Of this cost, $2.5 million will be funded from land sales and parking in-lieu fees; and the balance of$10.6 million will be funded from the sale of bonds. Net Ongoing Costs. After accounting for debt service on the bonds, offsetting new revenues and operation and maintenance costs, net ongoing costs will be $555,000 in the Parking Fund and $237,400 in the General Fund. These costs will be incurred beginning in 2003-04. 7-9 l Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 10 Funding Availability Parking Fund Based on our review of projected revenues and expenditures, the Parking Fund should be able to fund these costs within existing the existing rate structure. However, new projects after this—such as the North Area Regional Facility—will require an enhanced revenue based. It should also be noted that under the Amended MOU, this project has less of an adverse impact on the Parking Fund that the original MOU. General Fund Given the challenges and uncertainties facing the General Fund, the fiscal impact of this project on the General Fund is not as rosy. However, this is our best opportunity in the foreseeable future to address our civic center space needs; and at 16,000 square feet, this is a much more affordable options than our original goal of developing 20,000 to 30,000 square feet of civic center office space. Fortunately, the additional net annual cost of$237,400 will not be incurred until 2003-04. This means we will be able to plan for this expense and place it in the context of our overall 2003-05 Financial Plan. And while this cost is certainly significant, we should also recognize that it represents about 0.7% of total General Fund resources. So, while it would obviously be preferable to avoid this cost altogether, it should be manageable in the context of our overall General Fund resources. This is especially true given the high priority assigned to this goal by the Council, and the unique opportunity facing us to accomplish it. An accomplishment that will meet our Civic Center needs for perhaps another 20 years or more, and set the stage for a future Chinatown Historic District Project in the future. ALTERNATIVES Council could decide not to proceed with the occupancy of the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure by the City. We do not recommend this alternative. This new office space represents a unique opportunity to satisfy one of our major City goals. Because conveniently located office space is at such a premium in the Downtown, and because our need for additional space is significant, the City should occupy the new space. Increased organizational efficiency and productivity will result from this improved work environment. The public will realize improved customer service through the consolidation and co-location of departments whose services complement one another (development review in particular). There will also be increased opportunities for internal meeting space. Finally we will have flexibility for the future use of 955 Morro Street. ATTACHMENTS Project Costs and Funding Sources: Initial and Ongoing 7-10 Council Agenda Report: Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure Page 11 COUNCIL READING FILE 1. The Kotin Report 2. Chinatown-Court Street: A Vision for the Future of Downtown San Luis Obispo, California, Inspired by Its Past 3. September 19, 2000 MOUs 4. December 11, 2001 Amended MOU 5. Parking Management.Plan 6. Circulation Element Q:Council Agenda Reports/Office Space—June 4 7-11 ATTACHMENT Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SUMMARY Initial and Ongoing Structure Office Space Parking Fund General Fund Total PROJECT • Project Cost Summary Acquisition per guaranteed maximum price contract $7,135,100 $2,782,700 $9,917,800 Percent of Total 71.9% 28.1% 100.0% Land 843,000 329,500 1,172,500 Construction management 213,500 83,500 297,000 Archaeology at Court Street site 78,000 26,000 104,000 Contingencies @ 5%of acquisition contract 356,800 139,100 495,900 Total Acquisition Cost 8,626,400 3,360,800 11,987,200 Dedicated City parking spaces(4 net spaces @$36,245 per space)* (145,000) 145,000 - Furnishings/electric,telephone&computer cabling at 919 Palm 760,000 760,000 Reconfiguration and life-cycle maintenance @ 990 Palm Street 350,000 1 350,000 Total Project Cost $8,481,400 $4,615,800 7,200$13,09 Note: The General Fund will acquire 45 below-grade parking spaces in the new building from the Parking Fund. The General Fund will buy outright 4 spaces at a cost of$36,145 per space. The General Fund will swap a credit for 14 spaces in the old Kozak Garage for 14 spaces in the new building. The General Fund will also swap 9 spaces at the Old Library and 8 spaces at 955 Morro Street for 17 spaces in the new building. Two below-grade spaces will remain in possession of the Parking Fund and be used as public recharging stations for battery-powered vehicles. Three below-grade spaces will remain in possession of the Parking Fund and be used as dedicated parking for the City/County Library staff. Project Funding Summary Parking in-lieu fees from Court Street project(128 spaces@$4,000 each) 512,000 512,000 Proceeds from sale of Court Street property 1,471;500 490,500 1,962,000 Proceeds from sale of bonds see note below) 6,497,900 4,125,300 10,623,200 Total Project Funding $8,481,400 $4,615,800 $13,097,200 Note: The Parking Fund will end 1001-03 with $4.3 million in working capital above its policy minimum. This could be used to reduce the use of debt financing. However,given planned land acquisition and other capital costs in the near term,this is not recommended. b0tRATIoNs, AND DEBT SERVICE Additional Ongoing Costs and Revenue Losses Parking structure operations and maintenance @$436 per space 84,200 19,600 103,800 Office space maintenance for 919 Palm @$0.42 per square foot per month 81,800 81,800 Debt service on bond proceeds:6%interest rate for 30 year term 472,100 299,700 771,800 Loss of meter and fine revenues from the Court Street lot 200,400 200,400 Total Ongoing Costs and Revenue Losses 756,700 401,100 1,157,800 Additional Ongoing Revenues and Cost Reductions Structure revenues @$617 per space from 212 spaces 130,800 130,800 Surface lot meter and fine revenues @ 1,070 per space from 17 spaces 17,200 17,200 Lease revenues from 955 Morro @$1.85 per square foot per month 133,200 133,200 Reduction in office space maintenance @ 955 Morro 30,500 30,500 Court Street lot reduced operations and maintenance @$50 per space 5,400 5,400 Total Ongoing Revenues and Cost Reductions 153,400 163,700 317,100 Net Annual Cost Net change in ongoing costs and revenues $603,300 $237,400 $840,700 7-12 ' 1 MEETING s AGENDA- DATE Q ITEM # MCMORAnaum June 2002 TO: Mayor and Council Members ouNCIL G CDD DIR PACAO FIN DIR C FIRE CHIEF FROM: John Ewan ORNEY ❑ PW DIR RK/ORIG G POLICE CHFSUBJECT: Desi atio of the Ci as the Tenant of the Palm-Morro7 HEADS 0 RTC DIR ur � ❑ HR DIR Parking/Office.Structure. ❑_ HR DIR Agenda Item 7 at the 6/4/02 Council Meeting I wish to express my support of the CAO recommendation for item 7 on tonight's agenda. Due to a family obligation, I may not be at our meeting to discuss this item in person. 1. As per the staff report, the location of the garage does fit our long term planning. It is actually much smaller than the original concept plan, and the initial Copeland proposal. While some concern has been expressed about the location, I believe the current size is within reason, and respect the PDAP findings that a garage in this area should be our next parking enterprise fund goal. 2. It would be a terribly wasted opportunity to not occupy this office space with our City offices. A lease to another party would most certainly cause problems down the road as we seek to accomplish the goals of expanding housing.opportunities in the Downtown on the Palm Street parking lot. We all know of the need to ease communication between Community Development,Public Works and our citizens. This, coupled with the chance to alleviate the crowded conditions within City Hall, can only lead to the conclusion that we must grab the brass ring being offered by this new construction. 3. A modest remodel would obviously be needed to reorganize spaces to better suit our needs. My only caveat would be the consideration of whether we should keep Natural Resources &Economic Development with Community Development or with Administration. More thought will be needed on this relocation question. RECEIVED JUN 4 200.) SLO CITY CLERK 4W,.ard Schmidt 'Q 5444247 M6/3/2 02:05 PM. , . ❑3/4 _PING WNW RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu June 3, 2002 COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR ,,� ❑ FIN DIR E ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City Council, City of San LUIS Obispo ATTORNEY ❑ PW Dip 990 Palm St. VIA FAX OfLERK/ORIQ Q POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ DEPT HEADS 0 AEC DIP 0 UTIL DIA HAD 10 Re: Item 7, June 4 Agenda -- City as tenant of Palm-Morro Parking monster Dear Council Members: This item is way premature. Why is it even before you? What is driving this obscene process to circumvent long-term plans for a parking garage north of Santa Rosa as the city's next parking garage? A number of concerns: 1. You've done no CEOA work yet so it's premature to be making any sort of commitment on this project. (And, if staff responds it's not a commitment, then just what is it —just what is the point of bringing this item before you?) 2. The preliminary CEQA work suggests the project is incompatible with adopted city plans, policies and goals. It is therp erogative of the Planning Commission, by state law. to make a determination of the compatibility of a project with adogi`e_d Ip ans policies and goals. So why is the council making this determination in advance of its ever going to the Plannina Commission for its legally-required determination? Are you trying to tell the Plannina Commission they're lust so many gnats whose determinations don't matter and whose process you don't res ep_ct? 3. Given the city's alLeged precarious financial position, why is such a huge amount of bonded indebeteness -- especially the portion for the offices which will have to be paid from the General Fund — being undertaken? What future possibilities will this long-term indebeteness foreclose? It makes no sense to undertake this sort of debt for what is essentially a firvolous project. 4. The Palm-Morro Parking Garage location is fps the worst conceivable location for the city's nextparking-gage. This location shows up in no adopted city plans as a desirable or earmarked location. This new garage simply adds to the parking congestion of Palm Street-- the existing garage, the existing huge surface lots, and now this new location. There is no good reason to have so muchap rking concentrated in one location 5. The next in lineap rkina a�,ar�ge was to have been the north of Santa Rosa option, which is needed, and would provide an alternative to the Palm locations. Ripard Schmidt_ / 'W 5444247 M16/3/2 02:07 PM ❑4/4 6. Now, we learn from the staff report, the costs of building the unexpected Palm-Morro gage will deplete theap rking fund to such an extent the city will have to scramble to find funds to build its next legitimate gage the one north of Santa Rosa. This is very poor planning; it is inexcusable. When the public figures this out, and learns that parking rates will "rise again to subsidize the Copeland boondoggle, this political boondoggle will haunt those council members up for re-election next fall. So, you need to put this item back on the shelf, and make sure your public process on the whole Copeland thing doesn't become even more fraught with controversy_than it already is. Failure to do wo invites citizen retribution. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt RECEIVED JUIN 3 2002 SLO CITY CLERK ING /,, , AGENDA. i bWE ITEM council mEm01aan6um- : _ CDD DIR May 31, 2002 CfF2AO = FIN DIR 0 = FIRE CHIEF TO: City Council C}ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR OK'[CERKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D ?T EADS ❑ REC DIR FROM: Ken Hampian6t/ ❑ r _ M UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ HR DIR SUBJECT: June 4`h Council Meeting: Questions Regarding Palm/Morro Building and Parking Fund Issues (Item 7 and 8) Councilwoman Mulholland called expressing some concerns regarding Items 7 and 8 on the June 4th City Council agenda, The purpose of this memorandum is to provide some added information regarding at least some of her questions, which in general express concern with the process associated with these items: 1. Why weren't these items scheduled as public hearings, instead as business items? While some Council actions legally require public hearings, other matters do not. Therefore, there can be some discretion used in terms of whether or not a matter is listed as a public hearing or a business item. In the case of Business Items 7 and 8, Item 7 primarily deals with City office space, a matter that we would not typically schedule as a public hearing. With regard to Item 8, a public hearing is not a legal requirement. Therefore, in order to keep these "companion items" grouped together (since one follows the other), we judged that it would be easier for everyone to follow if both were scheduled together as Business Items. As a practical matter, in San Luis Obispo there is no difference in the way the Council takes testimony or makes decisions between public hearings and business items (in some cities, there are differences). As is our usual public notice practice, both Items 7 and 8 will be printed in the newspaper in a display ad this weekend. 2. However, if we are considering policy (CAO Recommendation 1, No. 7), shouldn't the matter be scheduled as a public hearing? The purpose of CAO Recommendation 1 in Item 7 is not to create or modify policy; it is simply to confirm that the Council's prior action to identify the Palm/Morro location for a future building/parking facility is allowed under existing City policy. As Council might remember, during an April 2"a review of parking policies, a question was raised as to whether or not the Parking Management Plan needs to be updated (or a PDAP adopted) prior to siting any future parking structures. Staff responded by saying that such a requirement is not current City policy and that we would follow up with a memorandum outlining this point in more detail. This memorandum was provided to the Council on April 22"d While Recommendation 1 is not a required action for Council to take (Council does not need to take formal action to confirm existing City policy), I felt that it would be better to include this information for public review in an agenda report and provide the Council with an opportunity to more formally discuss the staff s analysis (rather than allow the less-formal April 22nd memorandum to suffice). Palm-Mono 3. How can the Council approve a project prior to completing the CEOA process for the Palm/Morro parking structure? (Recommendation 2 of Item 8). The Council is not being asked to approve a final project on June 4h; instead the Council is establishing a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for inclusion in the 2002-03 budget. According to City policy (page B-15 of the 2001-03 Financial Plan), establishing a CIP is a necessary prerequisite to the funding, study, design, and construction of any capital project. For example, in adopting the 2001-03 Financial Plan, the City Council established dozens of new Capital Improvement Projects, in addition to the 225+ already on the books (see attachment for 2001-03 CIP project list). However, prior to actual construction, each of these projects must proceed through a number of formal steps, including study, design, complete CEQA review, and so on. Since the Council has taken a number of actions establishing the-goal of constructing a building at this location in the fall of 2002, then it is appropriate to establish a formal CIP as part of the Parking Fund rate review and budget adoption for the 2002-03 fiscal year. 4. Has there been enough public discussion regarding the plan to sell and develop the Court Street lot along the line of the present proposal? The staff.report attempts to detail the public process that has been followed in this regard dating back to September 1999.. However, public discussion regarding the long-term use of the Court Street parking lot dates back much further — well over a decade. In fact, after the demise of"Court Street I" in the early 90's, a comprehensive process was undertaken to redefine the concept for the property. This process involved much community discussion and debate, with ideas ranging from the intense development of the property to converting it to a public park. Advisory body recommendations were a part of this process, and ultimately the Council supported what is now depicted in the Conceptual Physical Plan for the Downtown, which is a less intensely developed property that includes more open, public areas. As with the Downtown Center project, the developer used the Downtown Plan as a starting point in conceiving his proposal —a proposal that the Council has, on two occasions (with the initial MOU in September 2000 and with the amended MOU in December 2001), designated as "... the highest priority private development project in the City. " Therefore, in the opinion of staff, few properties in the City have received as much public input over the years as Court Street. However, whether or not the public input process has been extensive enough is a matter for the Council to ultimately judge. I hope this memorandum has been helpful in answering some of the questions that have been raised. G:S taff/Hamp i an/Memos/Palm-Morro 2001-03 Financial Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Section 4 ROD,UCMON PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS se and Scope 1 Public Safety Org * tion Status f Current CIP Projects 1 Police Protection Project valuation 3 CIP Hi ights 4 Police Facilities Master Plan 45 Debt F cings 7 CLETS System Conversion 47 Polices an Objectives 7 Evidence Storage 51 Fiscal Outl k 7 Police Station Office Furnishings 56 CIP Prep 'on Process 9 Fleet Vehicle Additions Patrol Sedan 59 Section 2 General Purpose Sedans 61 CIP Y Vehicle Replacements Patrol Vehicles 63 Motorcycles 66 Summary of Expe itures b Function 10 General Purpose Utility Vehicle 68 Summary of Expen s y Source 11 General Purpose Pickup 70Passenger Van 72 Project Detail and Pha in General Purpose Mid-Size Sedans 74 Public Safety 12 Public Utilities 13 Fire&Environmental Safety Transportation 15 Vehicle Extrication Tool 76 Leisure,Cultural ocial Services 19 Radio System Improvements Community Dev op nt 22 Radio System Upgrade Design 78 General Gove at 23 Radio Console and Off-Site Dispatch so Project Elxpendi by Sourc Portable Radio Replacements 85 01 Capital Outlay and 25 Main Radio Infrastructure 87 CDBG Fund 28 Secondary Communications Parkland De Iopment F 29 Infrastructure 89 Transportati Impact Fees d 30 Paging System Terminal 91 Open SP otection Fund 31 Thermal Imaging Camera 93 Equipment eplacement Fund 32 Pump Test Pit 95 Enterprise d Agency Funds 33 Refurbish Fire Station No.4 97 Vehicle Replacements Section 3 Fire Engine 99 STATUS 0 CURRENT CIP PRO CTS Training Services Van 101 General Purpose Sedans 103 COnstructi or Purchase in Progress 35 Public Utilities Ready for nstructiOn or Purchase 37 Under ign 38 Water Services Pre Work Completed 40 PSource of Supply re Work in Progress 41 COMPI ProjectsWater Reuse 105 42 Groundwater Development 108 (a) i 2001-03 Financial Plan - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN j TABLE OF CONTENTS Water Treatment Plans Streets—Pavement Master Plan Implementation 110 Reconstruction and Resurfacing 188 I Reservoir No. 2 Floating Cover Repair 113 Vehicle and Equipment Replacements Water Distribution Street Sweeper 190 System Improvements 115 General Purpose Pickup 192 I Downtown Fire Sprinklers 119 Backhoe And Loader - 194 Polybutylene Replacements 122 Special Purpose Trucks 196 Master Plan Implementation 124 Traffic Signals and Street Lights Administration and Engineering Traffic Signal Improvements 198 Vehicle Replacement Morro-Santa Barbara Signal 199 Utility Vehicle 128 Traffic Signal Master Plan 202 I New Signal Installation 204 Wastewater Services Downtown Street Light Pole Painting 206 Wastewater Collection Flood Protection I Collection System Improvements 130 Johnson Underpass Lift Station 208Tank Farm Road Bridge Silt Removal 210 I Voluntary Service Lateral Rehabilitation 134 Tank Farm Lift Station& Laguna Lake Prefumo Arm Silt Removal 212 Sewer Improvements 136 Storm Sewer Construction Reclamation Facility Bridge Street: Beebee to Higuera 214 Major Facility Maintenance 139 El Cerrito 216 Master Plan Implementation 142 Monterey at Morro 218 Johnson Avenue at Bishop 220 Whale Rock Reservoir Murray-Santa Rosa to Chorro 222 Valve and Meter Replacements 144 Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths Vehicle Replacements and Additions 146 Railroad Safety Trail-Phase 3 224 Railroad Safety Trail-Phase 4 227 Transportation Montalban Street Bridge 230 Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail 233 Sidewalk/Tree Replacement: Streets and Flood Protection Oceanaire-Huasna Area 236 Streets—General Higuera Street Mid-Block Crosswalk 238 Street Name Sign Replacement 153 Mission Plaza: Broad Street "Dog-Leg" 240 Los Osos Valley Road Medians 155 New Sidewalk Construction 242 Orcutt Road-Bullock Lane Improvements 158 Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements 244 Foothill Boulevard Bridge 161 South Higuera Street Sidewalk 246 Broad Street.Bridge 164 Sinsheimer Park Bike Bridge 249 Bridge Maintenance 167 Downtown Pedestrian Improvements 253 Marsh Street Bridge Repair 170 Mission-Style.Sidewalks 255 Prado Road Interchange 173 Prado Road Bridge and Roadway Widening 175 Parking Los Osos Valley Road Interchange 178 North Area Regional Facility 258 Neighborhood Traffic Management 181 Parking Facilities GIS Application 260 Santa Barbara Street Widening: Palm Street Garage Glare Deflectors 262 High to Broad 183 Palm Street Garage Lighting Replacement 264 South Street Widening 186 Marsh Street Garage Painting 266 Marsh Street Garage Lighting Replacement 268 2001-03 Financial Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Parking Lot Lighting Replacement 270 Vehicle and Equipment Replacements Parking Lot Resealing 272 Full-Size Pickup Trucks 355 Parking Meter Housing Replacement 274 Special Purpose Vehicles 357 Parking Meter Software Upgrade 276 Swim Center Swim Center Chemical Storage 359 Transit High Rate Sand Filtration 361 Short Range Transit Plan 278 Swim Center Painting 363 Capital Maintenance 280 Golf Course Emission Reduction Equipment 282 Bridge Repair 365 North Area Regional Facility 284 Tree Removal and Replacement 369 Wheelchair Lift Replacement 287 Roof Replacement 371 Bus Replacements 289 Vehicle and Equipment Replacements 373 Fairway Mower Leisure,Cultural and Social ServicesTractors Pick Up Truck Parks and Recreation Utility Truck Recreation Programs Cultural Services Lighted Softball Fields 291 Jack House Foundation Repairs 377 Damon-Garcia Feld Lights 293 Jack House Roofing 379 Recreation Center Remodel 295 Jack House Fire Sprinklers 381 Community Center/Therapy Pool 297 Public Art 383 Neighborhood Gymnasiums 299 Laguna Lake Park Improvements 301 Community Development Laguna Lake Park Playground Equipment 304 Santa Rosa Park Renovations 306 Natural Resources Protection Laguna Hills Playground Replacement 308 Rodriguez Adobe Neighborhood Park 311 Open Space Preservation 386 Las Praderas Park Improvements 313 Playground Equipment Upgrades 315 CIP Project Engineering Sinsheimer Park Improvements 318 Vehicle Replacement:Mid-Size Sedan 389 Neighborhood Park.Improvements 322 French Park Playground Equipment 324 Community Promotion Santa Rosa Park Climbing Wall 326 Marsh-Santa Rosa Streets Mini-Park 329 Downtown Visitor Signage 391 Registration Software 333 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement General Govermnent Full-Size Pickup 336 Parks and Landscape Public Works Administration Laguna Lake Dredging 338 Vehicle Replacement: Mid-Size Sedan 394 Laguna Lake Park Pole Replacement 341 Mission Plaza Creek Information Systems Walkway Stabilization 343 Sinsheimer Tennis Court Resurfacing 345 Frleserver,Tape Backup and Firewall 396 Johnson Park Picnic Area Renovation 347 Technology Management Improvements 398 Parks Asphalt Resurfacing 349 Strategic Systems and Software 401 Park Turf Installation 351 Technology Infrastructure Improvements 403 Downtown Trash Cans 353 (c) 2001-03 Financial Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS GeoData Services Aerial Photo Revisions 406 Buildings City Hall Window Replacement 408 I City-County Library Painting 410 Civic Offices 411 # City Hall Entrance Renovation 415 I Vehicle Replacements 3/4 Ton Service Trucks 417 Fleet Management GD'9 `G,%.. "A/� e/S�� " I Vehicle Replacements—Operations 3/4 Ton Service Truck 421 J Vehicle Replacements: City Hall Vehicle Pool / Mid-Size Sedans 423 C /P , Minivan 425 CIP Reserve Contingency Reserve for ' General Fund CIP Projects 427 Section 5 ' POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES aN nt iw- -.y.,`� ya� J`r "1 G.G r"�' ' Y .y `* °u�*�'S3,` Introduction 428 Budget and Fiscal Policies 432 ' Summary of Major City Goals 452 Status of 1999-01 Major City Goals 453 Section 6 CIP PREPARATION PROCESS Overview 459 Budget Glossary 463 Preparation Guidelines 467 , CIP Budget Calendar 469 (d) cc: Bochur,I Sanville, George, Stanwyc' � J. Mandeville, Whisenand, Ricci MEETIN AGENDA council MCMOIZffl ITEM if —E 77j. To: City Council 'rb m ti. Officer Via: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer 1 m lr-15110ea M1 M P lic W From: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Wor 0 ate: April 22,2002 Circulation Re: Council Request—Information on ment Plan Update and City C Element Policies OVERVIEW 1. It will take approximately four (4) months to return to Council with an amended Parking Management Plan(PMP)that includes,as directed by Council on April 2, 2002,the aspects of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan(PDAP)that have already been adopted, and 2. The City has already satisfied the Circulation Element program that relates to new parking structures in the Downtown, and there is no other policy requirement saying that the PMP must be updated,or the PDAP adopted,prior to developing a new parking structure. DISCUSSION At its April 2nd meeting, the Council asked staff to review the policies and programs of the 1994 Circulation Element and the 1995 Parking Management Plan (PMP) to determine the need for updating the PMP prior to constructing any new parking structure in the Downtown. Council also asked that staff estimate the time it would take to update the PMP to reflect recent decisions made by Council regarding the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan(PDAP). Attachment A is a M staff analysis of pertinent policies and programs contained in the PMP and the Circulation Element. A. Do we need to Update the Parking Management Plan? 1995 Parking Management Plan Policies 4.1 through 4.4 of the 1995 Parking Management Plan (PMP) address expansion of parking issues and Action 4.5 gives direction on implementation of these policies. However, none of these policies establish a need to update the PMP prior to the Council contemplating a new parking structure. WCOUNCIL COD DIR RECEIVED JRCA0 a FIN DIR G;PACAO C] FIRE CHIEF VA7TORNEY C3 PW DIR E3 POUCE CHF sLo Ion CLERK H 3 Ll REC DIR Page 1 1 Circulation Element—Parking Management Policies and Programs There are no "policies" in the 1994 Circulation Element that establish a need to update the PMP prior to considering a new parking structure. However, there is one "program" within the Circulation Element that relates to new parking structures being built in the Downtown: 12.7 Additional parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study (that includes evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completed and its . results considered. As described at the recent Council meeting, in April 1996 the Council initiated the draft PDAP to satisfy Program 12.7. However,the PDAP project became much more than the technical study called for in that program. It not only achieved the objective of Program 12.7 by creating a technical assessment of Downtown parking issues and alternative transportation strategies, it also proposed to significantly expand and update the 1995 PMP. Several of the programs in the draft PDAP, including the promotion of alternative transportation, have been pursued as "Tier 1 and 2 activities." However, since the PDAP was not completely adopted, it cannot function as the update to the existing PMP. Nonetheless, it has fulfilled its role in satisfying Program 12.7 because it was completed and was considered by Council in May 1999. In addition, Program 12.7 only requires that a comprehensive parking study "should" be considered prior to constructing any new garages. Thus, adopting the PDAP or an update of the Parking Management Plan is not required prior to Council pursuing parking structure projects. B. Parking Management Plan—An Update Schedule Program 12.4 of the Circulation Element states: The City will periodically update its Parking Management Plan. While the Circulation Element does not direct an update to the Parking Management Plan at this time, Council asked staff to estimate the time needed to update the plan to reflect recently endorsed programs and activities recommended by the draft PDAP. There are two possible scenarios for updating the PMP. Administrative Update Only(Council direction provided at April 2,2002 meeting) As recently directed by the City Council (see Attachment B), this update will only include changes and updated verbiage to reflect current parking management practices and Council-endorsed parking demand management strategies. Staff believes that this update can be completed and submitted for Council consideration within 4 months. This schedule assumes that only issues that have been resolved or adopted by Council to date would be incorporated into the plan,and that processing of the update would not wan-ant advisory body review (i.e. DA Parking Committee and Planning Commission)because Council has already enacted these provisions. Staff time to complete this PMP update will be diverted from the Railroad Bicycle Trail and the Bob Jones Bicycle Trail projects. But hopefully this diversion would not substantially delay these projects. No new funding would be required for this effort. Page 2 1 An Update of Parking Management Plan to include all of the PDAP Elements. If Council wishes to pursue updating the PMP to include all remaining components of the draft PDAP (including Third Tier level programs and parking supply elements) it would take at least 9 and more likely 12 months because of their controversial nature and the need to conduct additional environmental review. In essence,this option would take advantage of technical information provided by PDAP but would require another major effort to solicit input from various stakeholders and then update the PMP. Additional environmental review will be necessary because the PDAP EIR is more than 3 years old, was never certified by the Council, and did not consider the scope of land use changes that are occurring and may occur at the eastern edge of the Downtown (the "Freemont Quadrant). Substantial staff time will need to be diverted from other projects to complete an update of this magnitude. These projects or programs have not been identified at this time. Additional funding for updated environmental studies will be required. A full review by all advisory bodies (Planning Commission and Downtown Association Parking Committee) would be necessary prior to Council consideration. If a Council member desires to pursue this course of action, then that member needs to raise it as a "Communication Item" to be considered by the full Council. This protocol is necessary since the Council has already directed staff to pursue only an Administrative Update. CONCLUSIONS o Neither the Circulation Element nor the Parking Management Plan requires an update of the PMP before the City Council considers a new parking structure. The draft PDAP meets the requirements of the Circulation Element's Program 12.7 regarding Council consideration of alternative transportation possibilities prior to pursuing new parking structures. An administrative review and update of the PMP can be accomplished within four months, assuming only the City Council formally considers the update. However, meeting certain other Council goals and objectives will be somewhat delayed. Q Completing a comprehensive update of the PMP would take up to a year and would be controversial,require extensive review,and be expensive. In general, the City attempts to update each of its various plans every five years(Short Range Transit Plan, Information Technology Plan, etc.) Therefore, an update of the PMP should take place sometime soon.If the Council feels a comprehensive update of the PMP is a higher priority than some of its other goals or objectives, staff can return with a cost estimate for that work and begin as soon as directed. A better alternative would be to include the PMP update in the next City Council Goals setting process for the FY 2003-05 Financial Plan. Page 3 Attachments Attachment A: Staff Policy Analysis Attachment B: April 2,2002 Council Action Update G:\TrmisW azion\Ttanspo�=cn Proj=\Pwking\Ctntent Ptojects\Parking Dwntwn Access Plan\CC Memo on PMP Update.doc Page 4 i ATTACHMENT A: Staff.Policy Review Does the Parking Management Plan (PMP) need to be updated before additional downtown parking garages are built? No. The PMP would only need to be updated if a parking project was found inconsistent with policies and programs within the PMP or its parent document, the 1994 Circulation Element. Staff has reviewed both of these documents and has found that new parking structures may be found consistent with each,based on the following analysis. Pertinent Policy or Program Findings of Consistency Circulation Element Policies 12.7 Additional parking structures In 1996 the City hired a consultant to comprehensively analyze should only be built after a downtown parking and alternative transportation possibilities and comprehensive parking study(that prepare a plan entitled the Parking and Downtown Access Plan(PDAP). includes evaluation of alternative This draft plan and support documents as well as a draft EIR were transportation possibilities is published and reviewed by the public and the Council. The Council completed and its results considered the plan and its support documents at various hearings, but considered. decided not to adopt them. Instead the Council has taken a more incremental approach toward implementing both parking and parking demand management activities. Finding: Council consideration of the PDAP fulfilled the policy requirements of 12.7. This policy does not call for adoption of a plan before acting on parking structures. 12.4 The City will periodically There is no specific timeframe in which the City must update its Parking update its parking Management Management Plan. The City Council has full flexibility in determining Plan the appropriate timing and priority of any update activity. Finding: Neither the Parking Management Plan nor the Circulation Element mandate a relationship between building parking structures and updating pertinent plan documents. Therefore, the timing of updating the PMP is at the Council's discretion and is not tied to parking projects. Parldng Management Pian Policies and Programs 4.1 Parking should be provided in Parking projects currently in the design stage (e.g. the Palm-Morro the commercial core for shoppers, parking structure) are located within the downtown core and are tourists,employees and patrons of designed to serve the user groups described in Policy 4.1. The City is government and private offices. exploring the development of parking east of Santa Rosa Street (the NARF projects). However, even this effort is within the "commercial core"as defined by the General Plan Land Use Element(map and Policy 4.1). Finding: development of future parking structures, as currently envisioned,will be consistent with Policy 4.1 of the PMP. Page 5 4.4 Parking structures and surface The downtown core) identifies Palm Street as a bordering street on lots should be located along the the north side of the downtown. It is fronted on both sides by periphery of the commercial core mostly government and public uses and private offices. When as a means of eliminating traffic compared to the location of the retail areas along Monterey, Higuera congestion and enhancing and Marsh Streets, the Palm-Morro garage can be considered on the pedestrian activities. periphery of commercial activities. Depending on the result of the NARF parking studies, parking may be more integrated with retail and office uses than pushed to the periphery. However, until the NARF analysis is complete and a specific site identified,no specific consistency finding can be made. Policy 4.4 enables some flexibility by its use of the action word"should" and recognizes that it may not be possible, base on past land use decisions,to find"perfectly-peripheral"locations for parking structures. However, the concept of avoiding parking sites that are surrounded by pedestrian-oriented retail activities is a guiding principal that continues to apply to all projects. Finding: The current Palm-Monro parking projects can be judged consistent with Policy 4.4. Projects located east of Santa Rosa street will require their own consistency finding once a focused site is identified. How much time would it take staff to update the Parking Management Plan (PMP) to reflect recent Council decisions regarding implementation of PDAP programs? The time required will depend on the scope of changes to the Plan and the desired review process. Administrative Update Only If the update is limited to changes that reflect past Council actions, modify out-of-date language, and describe current parking management practices, then staff can complete this work and submit a plan for Council Consideration within four months. This schedule is dependant on the limited scope described above and assumption that no Environmental Impact Report(EIR)would be required. Advisory bodies would not review the Administrative Update of the PMO since the City Council has already enacted the updated provisions. Comprehensive Update: If the Council wishes to pursue a comprehensive update of the PMP to include all components of the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (including Third Tier of demand management and parking supply components), then this effort would take nine to twelve months and probably more based upon experiences with the PDAP. This time frame may be conservative given past experience with controversial parking supply and financing issues. Also, the PDAP's EIR will need to be updated and republished to specifically include the Palm-Morro Parking Garage project or the NARF sites. Since both the Palm-Morro garage and the NARF will involve their own site-specific analysis, it would be easier to defer a comprehensive update of the PMP until after the City Council considers these projects and studies. Page 6 Attachment B council agcnaa CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 9 9 0 PALM STREET Tuesday, April 2, 2002 ACTION UPDATE 2. SECOND TIER IMPLEMENTATION AND INVESTIGATION OF THIRD TIER COMPONENTS OF THE DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN (PDAP). (MCCLUSKEY / BOCHUM / OPALEWSKI—45 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive a progress report on completed Second Tier parking and downtown access activities. Review and endorse implementation of remaining Second Tier strategies and programs. 2) Review and endorse staff recommendations for implementation, or deferral, of Third Tier parking and downtown access activities. 3) Receive status report and approve recommendations.for modifications on the differential rate Proxcard and Gold Pass Programs. ACTION. 1)Report received. 2)Second Tier strategies and programs approved. 3) Third Tier activities deferred. 4) Gold Pass Program continued, as recommended. 5) Staff directed to return with an amended Parking Management Plan that includes aspects of the Parking Demand and Access Plan that have been adopted. Staff to include suggestions on programs or policies where no action has been taken. Staff to provide Council with a proposed completion date within a week (5.0) Page 7