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