Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR41-Economic Development Agency l '. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FROM: Gary Van Osdel Executive Director SUBJECT: o i<::..' I.':J~L DOWNTOWN PAID PARKING PILOT PROGRAM DATE: July 10, 2002 SvnoDsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s): On April 18, 2002 the Redevelopment Committee voted to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the 1999 Paid Parking Plan for the downtown area be npdated and upon completion of such update that Staff return to the Council/Commission for consideration of possible implementation, On June 3, 2002, the Community Development Commission voted that the Economic Development Agency provide to the Mayor and Common Council copies of the prior report (1999 Paid Parking Plan prepared by AMPCO System) along with the draft agreement and proposed detailed scope of services for a new study on downtown parking needs. Recommended Motion(s): MOTION: That the Community Development Commission authorize and direct the Executive Director of the Economic Development Agency to execute a Professional Services Agreement with International Parking Design, Inc., to conduct a downtown parking study and to prepare a downtown public parking operational plan. Contact Person(s): Project Area(s) Gary Van Osdel/ Ann Harris CClMeadowbrook, CCS, CCN, CCE Phone: Ward(s): (909) 663-1044 I Supporting Data Attached: [;'I Staff Report 0 Resolution(s) [;'I Agreement(s)/Contract(s) 0 Map(s) 0 Reports SIGNATURE: Source: Tax Increment FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ~03~ Ann Harris, Director of Business Recruitment, Retention & Revitalization Gary 70sdel, Executive . ector .-----------------------------------------.---------------------_._---.------------------------------------."--------------------------------------------- Commission/Council Notes: P:\ClericaISe\'Vic<:sDepc\StephBnie\AgendaICDC2002\7-1S.02ParkingPiIOIProgmm.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 07/15/02 Agenda Item Number: /Ctj / . l.. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT Downtown Paid Parkin!! Pro!!ram BACKGROUND: In recent years, the future of downtown parking has often been a topic of concern discussed by the Common Council, Parking Commission and Downtown Business Community. This concern has been prompted by a number of factors including the completion of the cinema, the increased use of the California Theater and the pending termination of the downtown parking assessment district that will eliminate the City's source of revenue for maintaining existing public parking areas. Furthermore, the prospect for the reuse of many vacant buildings in downtown is remote, as most are under parked and the potential for attracting restaurants to the grassy knoll fronting the cinema is minimized in the absence of adequate parking adjacent thereto. In 1997, a Downtown Parking Study was done by International Parking Design, Inc. The purpose of the study was to determine the availability of public parking to serve a new mixed-use development in Downtown San Bernardino. To determine the impact on the existing businesses and the immediate and future needs for downtown parking. The study area was from 2nd Street North to 7th Street from the 215 on the West, going East to Arrowhead Avenue. The study analyzed the current downtown uses of the existing buildings, the vacancies and future planned development. In 1998, an Operations Plan was designed by International Parking Design, Inc. based on their 1997 parking study. The Operations Plan recommended a Pilot Program of paid parking in certain areas of Downtown San Bernardino. In 1999, Staff contacted Ampco System Parking (Ampco) to evaluate cost and revenue expectations associated with a limited/pilot paid parking system in downtown. Ampco was selected because of their familiarity with the design, operation and maintenance of the paid parking system in downtown Riverside. Staff from the Economic Development Agency, Facilities Management, and Engineering Division met with Ampco representatives to evaluate paid parking alternatives. Factors considered included location of public parking areas, demand, turnover, cost and impact on retail business. For those reasons the areas identified in the attached map were recommended for implementation of a pilot paid parking system in the downtown area using state of the art metering. The recommended area for metering focused around the County Courthouse and Administrative offices together with lots occupied by State and other employees who use these facilities though the day. Areas where retail businesses are predominant were avoided. In July of 1999, Staff prepared and submitted a "Paid Parking Report". At that time, the revenues and cost projections indicated income could fully debt service equipment purchase over a five- year term together with operating expenses. After paying these costs net annual income of $526,234 was projected. It was proposed that Ampco, under a management contract, would P:IClerieal Scr\';ccs DepilStephanielAgendalCDC 2oom.IS-02 Parking PiJot Pmif8ll1.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 07/15/02 Agenda Item Number: R 1/ l.. Downtown Parking July I, 2002 Page 2 supply equipment (finance purchase), enforcement and maintenance. In addition, it was recommended that the monies derived from parking meters be held in a sinking fund for development of additional parking including a future structure in the area behind the California Theater. No further action was taken regarding the "Report" at that time. Most metropolitan cities have paid parking in their central business districts. Riverside, which is proximate to San Bernardino in size, age and downtown issues, has had a successful paid parking program for many years. If the City is to successfully attract interest in the renewal of idle buildings in the downtown as well as the development of vacant lands, downtown parking issues will have to be addressed. CURRENT ISSUE: In as much as neither the City or Agency have the financial resources to develop/maintain parking facilities, and changes in the State Constitution make it more difficult to establish future assessment districts because of referendum requirements, consideration needs to be given to alternatives to assessment district financing as a means of funding both the maintenance and development of public parking in the downtown With this thought in mind, at the Commission meeting of June 3, 2002, Staff requested authorization to secure the services of Ampco System to update the pilot paid parking plan for downtown that they had prepared for the Agency/City in 1999. After much discussion regarding Staffs proposal and the related issues of need, demand, desirability and the potential negative impacts on the existing business, the Mall and the courts, the Commission voiced a desire that the entire issue of downtown parking be revisited through a new study. The scope of such a study would include an analysis of (1) current parking demand/availability (public and private) in relation to existing land occupancy, (2) the impact of the Cinema and increased use of the California Theater on existing parking, (3) the anticipated impacts on existing parking resulting from courthouse expansion, the reintroduction of County offices into vacant office buildings and the possible introduction of new restaurant development adjacent to the theaters, (4) the success of existing "for pay" parking lots and (5) the potential economic impacts of paid parking on existing businesses. Upon completion of the study, a long-range plan to address downtown parking issues would be prepared. To assure that all interests are considered during the proposed downtown parking study/plan process, Staff recommends that the Mayor appoint an advisory committee to work with the Consultant. At a minimum, such a committee should have representation from County Government, the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Association and the City's department of Facilities Management and the Traffic Engineering section of Development Services. P:\ClericalServicaOepl\StcphBnie\AaendaICDC2002\7.IS.02PaOOngPiloll'rogrlm.doI: COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 07/15/02 Agenda Item Number: ~ Downtown Parking Jnly 1,2002 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed parking study plan is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the consulting services to the Agency is $20,000. These funds are available in the EDA 2002-2003 budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the Community Development Commission adopt the Form Motion. ~ Ann Harris Director of Business Recruitment, Retention & Revitalization P:\CIericll Sefvices DepllSlCphonie\AgcndaICOC 2002\7.1SoG2 Pali<ing PilQt PrognIm.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 07/15/02 Agenda Item Number: ./!,!jJ- l '. ATTACHMENT A Scope of Services: The scope of services for this study will include the review of several previously conducted studies, as well as City-provided information. The intent of this study is to reflect the needs of the current users and developments, and present a plan of action for addressing these needs. In an effort to expedite an efficient parking study, the Agency will provide the pertinent information for this study. The previously conducted studies include: 1. A 1997 Parking Study prepared by International Parking Design 2. A 1998 Parking Study prepared by International Parking Design 3. A 1999 Implementation Plan submitted by Ampco System Parking The study areas for these reports included the City blocks bounded by 7th Street on the north, Sierra Way on the east, Rialto Avenue on the south, and the 215 Freeway on the west As previously mentioned, the Agency will provide information regarding any new or modified parking facilities and business(es) within the study area. These businesses will include the planned new courthouse, cinemas, retail, restaurants, and offices. The information provided will include building areas, number of employees, seating, etc., as it applies to each business. In addition, stakeholder contact information will be provided for the consultant to follow up, if need be, on any of this information. An employee of the Agency will be provided to expedite data collection. In the event that the information is not available to the Agency, a one- or two-day on- site visit will be conducted to collect any additional information needed. The parking demand study will be completed through the information provided, and the demand findings will then be used to prepare the operational plan and implementation plan. This study will be submitted in written form and will include updates, summaries, and/or comments regarding the previously mentioned reports. . PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2002 by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, California, hereinafter referred to as "Agency", and International Parking Design, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" . - RECITALS - THIS AGREEMENT is made with reference to the following: WHEREAS, the Agency has a need to retain Consultant to conduct a Downtown Parking Study and prepare a Downtown Parking Operational Plan for the City of San Bernardino ("City") (the "Scope of Services"); and WHEREAS, Consultant has been determined to possess the necessary skills and qualifications to carry out the functions described in the Scope of Services, Section I herein; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director desires to retain the services of Consultant and the Consultant desires to provide such necessary services as set forth herein. - AGREEMENT - 1. Scone of Services: The Consultant shall perform the services described in Attachment A. 2. Services Furnished to Consultant: All information, data, documentation and records existing and available to the Agency as it relates to the Scope of Services shall be furnished to Consultant without charge. 3. Term of Al!reement/Termination: The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the above date and shall remain in full force and effect for a period of twelve (12) months from said date. This Agreement may be -1- . terminated by either party upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the other party or upon the mutual written agreement of both parties. In the event of termination, Consultant shall stop work immediately and shall be entitled to compensation for services rendered to the date of termination. 4. ComDensation: Consultant shall be compensated at the rate of one hundred thirty dollars ($130.00) per hour for principal and eighty-five dollars ($85.00) for field Staff rendered in the Scope of Services. This fee includes all Consultant expenses associated with such Scope of Services including, but not limited to, travel and mileage, supplies, photocopying and/or duplication, telephone calls, etc. Compensation for the Scope of Services rendered hereunder shall be made on a monthly basis, provided that Consultant submits an invoice to the Agency, reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Over the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be paid for such services the sum of not to exceed $20,000. Agency retains the right to challenge all or any part of the invoice. 5. Consultant ResDonsibilities: Upon the request of the Executive Director or designee, Consultant shall perform each element of the work described in the Scope of Services. Consultant commits the principal personnel listed below to the Scope of Services for its duration: Principal: David Vogel, International Parking Design, Inc. 6. ReDlacement of Name Personnel: It has been determined that the individual(s) named in this Agreement is (are) necessary for the successful performance of this Agreement. No diversion or replacement of this (these) individual(s) shall be made by Consultant without written consent of the Executive Director or -2- designee. 7. Release of News Information: No news release, including photographs, public announcements or confirmation of same, of any part of the subject matter of this Agreement or any phase of any program hereunder shall be made without prior written approval of the Executive Director or his/her designee. 8. Indeuendent Contractor: Consultant shall perform each element of the work set forth in the Scope of Services as an independent contractor and shall not be considered an employee of the City or the Agency. This Agreement is by and between Consultant and Agency, and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture, or association, between Agency and Consultant. 9. Successor and Assie:nment: The Scope of Services as contained herein are to be rendered by Consultant whose name is as appears first above written and said Consultant shall not assign nor transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of Agency. 10. Indemnification: Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend (if requested by Agency) and save harmless Agency, its boards, commissions, elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents and employees from and against any and all liability, expense, including defense costs and legal fees, and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury or property damage arising from or connected with Consultant's operations, or its Scope of Services hereunder, including any workers' compensation suit, liability or expense, arising from or connected with the Scope of Services performed by or on behalf of Consultant by -3- '. any person pursuant to this Agreement. The costs, salary and expenses of the city attorney and members of his office in enforcing this Agreement on behalf of the Agency shall be considered as "legal fees" for the purpose ofthis paragraph. 11. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate because of race, color, national origin, creed, religion, sex, marital status, or physical handicap. 12. Insurance: Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of Agency, Consultant shall provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement insurance policies meeting the minimum requirements set forth herein. All insurance maintained by the Consultant shall be provided by insurers satisfactory to the Agency, Certificates evidencing all insurance coverage required herein shall be delivered to the Agency prior to the Consultant performing any of the services under this Agreement. All insurance certificates required herein shall name the Agency, its boards, commissions, elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents and employees as an additional insured and provide for thirty (30) days written notice to the Agency prior to cancellation or material altercation of any insurance policy of the Consultant. A. Comprehensive General Liability and Automobile Insurance- The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability and automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. B. Worker's Compensation Insurance- The Consultant shall maintain worker's compensation insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all workers employed by the Consultant. All policies, with respect to the insurance coverage required above, -4- shall contain additional insured endorsements naming the Agency, and their officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional name insured, with respect to liabilities arising out of the performance of Scope of Services hereunder. 13. Contract Evaluation and Review: The ongoing assessment, performance and monitoring of this Agreement IS the responsibility of the Executive Director or designee. 14. Entire Al!reement: This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the retention of Consultant by Agency and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to such retention. 15. Amendment and Waiver: This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties, and failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of such provision or provisions, nor act to release any surety from its obligation under this Agreement. 16. Notice Notices, herein shall be presented in person or by certified or registered U.S. mail, as follows: To Consultant: David Vogel International Parking Design, Inc. 14144 Venture Boulevard, Suite 100 Sherman Oaks, California 91423 To Agency: Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301 San Bernardino, California 92401-1507 -5- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the giving of notice by personal service. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL PARKING DESIGN,INC. CONSULTANT By: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director By: Ron Saxton, Senior Vice President By: David Vogel, Senior Parking Consultant Approved as to content and legal form: By: Agency Special Counsel P:\CJeriCIIIServicesDepl\StepbanielAJl(!n~\Al'''''menls\7.]S-02Profe5SiOllaIS"coA&nu.PaidParking.doc -6- . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FROM: Gary Van Osdel Executive Director SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PAID PARKING PILOT PROGRAM DATE: May 21, 2002 r I. ,. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_..-----------------------------------------------------+-_.-.-.---- Svnopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s): On April 18, 2002 the Redevelopment Committee voted to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the 1999 Paid Parking Plan for the downtown area be updated and upon completion of such update that Staff return to the CounciVCommission for consideration of possible implementation. -----------------------------------------.------------.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------_. Recommended Motion(s): MOTION: THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AGENCY TO UPDATE THE 1999 PAID PARKING PLAN (the "PLAN"), AS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED BY AMPCO SYSTEM, AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE UPDATED PLAN, TO AGENDIZE THE MATTER FOR MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. -----------------------------------------------------------_.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------~- Contact Person(s): Project Area(s) Gary Van Osdell Ann Hartis CC/Meadowbrook, CCS, CCN, CCE Phone: Ward(s): (909) 663-1044 I Supporting Data Attached: 0 Staff Report Resolution(s) 0 Agreement(s)/Contract(s) 0 Map(s) 0 Reports FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Amount: $ 20,000 Source: Tax Increment Budget Authority: 2001-2002 Budget SIGNATURE: I~) Gary Van Os e Ann Harris, Director of Business '-..: Recruitment, Retention & Revitalization --com(;;issiOn/c;~_;;ciIN;;te~;----t!iZZi(Oc:z.3)----.e::-2Z1~---G73/C;:2----------------------------------------------------_________m______ / , P:lClerical ScNiCCII Dept\Slcphanic\AgcIldoICDC 200216-3-02 Porking PilOl Program.oo.: COMMISSI Vo. ((S( 610/02-- Agenda I .-,-<<-- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update Downtown Paid Parkin!!: Pilot Pro!!:ram BACKGROUND: In recent years, the future of downtown parking has often been a topic of concern discussed by the Common Council, Parking Commission and Downtown Business Community. This concern has been prompted by a number of factors including the completion of the cinema, the increased use of the California Theater and the pending termination of the downtown parking assessment district that will eliminate the City's source of revenue for maintaining existing public parking areas. Furthermore, the prospect for the reuse of many vacant buildings in downtown is remote, as most are under parked and the potential for attracting restaurants to the grassy knoll fronting the cinema is minimized in the absence of adequate parking adjacent thereto. In 1999 staff contacted Ampco System Parking (Ampco) to evaluate cost and revenue expectations associated with a limited/pilot paid parking system in downtown. Ampco was selected because of their familiarity with the design, operation and maintenance of the paid parking system in downtown Riverside. Staff from the Economic Development Agency, Facilities Management, and Engineering Division met with Ampco representatives to evaluate paid parking alternatives. Factors considered included location of public parking areas, demand, turnover, cost and impact on retail business. For those reasons the areas identified in the attached map were recommended for implementation of a pilot paid parking system in the downtown area using state of the art metering. The recommended area for metering focused around the County Courthouse and Administrative offices together with lots occupied by State and other employees who use these facilities though the day. Areas where retail businesses are predominant were avoided. In July of 1999, staff prepared and submitted a "Paid Parking Report". At that time, the revenues and cost projections indicated income could fully debt service equipment purchase over a five- year term together with operating expenses. After paying these costs net annual income of $526,234 was projected. It was proposed that Ampco, under a management contract, would supply equipment (finance purchase), enforcement and maintenance. In addition, it was recommended that the monies derived from parking meters be held in a sinking fund for development of additional parking including a future structure in the area behind the California Theater. No further action was taken regarding the "Report" at that time. CURRENT ISSUE: Most metropolitan cities have paid parking in their central business districts. Riverside, which is proximate to San Bernardino in size, age and downtown issues, has had a successful paid parking program for many years. If the City is to successfully attract interest in the renewal of idle P:\ClericalServiCCllDept\Stophanic~nda\CDC2002\6.3.{12ParkinIlPilolProgram.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 06/03/02 Agenda Item Number: ... Downtown Paid Parking Pilot Program May 20, 2002 Page 2 buildings in the downtown as wen as the development of vacant lands, downtown parking issues will have to be addressed. In as much as neither the City or Agency have the financial resources to develop/maintain parking facilities, and changes in the State Constitution make it more difficult to establish future assessment districts because of referendum requirements, consideration needs to be given to alternatives to assessment district financing as a means of funding both the maintenance and development of public parking in the downtown. An obvious alternative is the implementation of a paid parking system. Thus, staff is proposing that the downtown paid parking plan of 1999 be updated and brought back to the Council/Commission for consideration at some later date. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Updating the paid parking plan is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the consulting services to the Agency is $20,000. These funds are available in the EDA 2001-2002 budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the Community Development Commission adopt the Form Motion. JUC?~ tr ') Ann Harris Director of Business Recruitment, Retention & Revitalization P:\Clerical ScmI:eoDeptlSlepblllic\A&end.a\CDC 2OO2\6.)'{)2 Parking l'ilol Progrun.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 06/03/02 Agenda Item Number: . . ~r. "\1 v " ,~j " , i SAN BERNARDINlEtEIVED"CITY ClER.K DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSqfIATION, INC. . JJ. 12 A9 :37 Businesses working together to make downtown, and all of San Bernardino, the best place to work, visit, and live. P. O. Box 1662 San Bernardino, CA 92402 July 12, 2002 The Honorable Judith Valles Members of the Common Council c/o City Clerk 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: Item #R-41 Council Agenda of July 15, 2002 Dear Mayor and Council: In an effort to better understand the downtown parking situation, I support the preparation of a comprehensive downtown parking study, with maximum input from the San Bernardino Downtown Business Association. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, ~ Salvatore F. Catalano President SFC:rls cc: Gary Van Osdel Councilwoman Esther Estrada # 1(1// 71/5/0~ .1 . . ~ ~'.J JMAL~ CENTRAL CftEtI,YDCOMP ANY I LLC 'IE --CITY ClfRIl 295 CAROUSEL MALL. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 TELEPHONE Ill) 8."12. l/tJ!3'7> 885-6893 July 12, 2002 The Honorable Judith Valles Members of the Common Council c/o City Clerk 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: Item #R-41 Council Agenda of July 15, 2002 Dear Mayor and Council: I appreciate the inclusive approach that the EOA and the Mayor and Council are taking regarding this matter. I support this approach as it provides for maximum input from the downtown business community and should result in a thoughtful and comprehensive study that will minimize negative or unforeseen consequences. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, ~ Salvatore F. Catalano, CSM Generai Manager SFC:rls cc: Gary Van Osdel Councilwoman Esther Estrada =If ((1/ 1115/D~ ~d( Member Of International Council of Shopping Centers ... ,. . INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO .fN> TO: James F. Penman City Attorney i1w' , Huston T. Carlyle, Jr. 51'. Assistant City Attorney FROM: DATE: July 15.2002 RE: Downtown Parking Study (Agenda Item 1ffi.-41) On October 31. 1997, International Parking Design, Inc. ("International"), completed a City of5an Bernardino Downtown Parking Study ("Study"). The Srudy set forth the assumptions relied upon relative to future growth/development in the downtown area and the methodology used in arriving at its conclusions. International compiled a downtown parking space inventory, and estimated the parking demand to be generated by the existing and projected uses. Of particular noteworthiness is the Summary of the Study: "Now and certainly well into the future, it is anticipated that there will be adequate parking available within the study area (7th street on the north, 2nd street on the south, "H" street on the west and Arrowhead Avenue on the east) to serve the proposed development. . . . In consideration of the agreement to provide 1,700 non-exclusive spaces, there will still be a surplus of 1,231 spaces available to the public. In order for street parking to serve cinema patrons during the day, existing time restrictions will need to be modified to allow for a three-hour period or removed." On June 17, 1998, International completed a Downtown Public Parking Operational Plan ("Plan''). However, this Plan was not prepared because of the conclusions of the Study; on the contrary, the Study concluded that the downtown area had adequate parking available "now and certainly well into the future." The Plan that was requested of International was based upon a requested analysis of examining "the effect of charging Cal-Trans employees a monthly fee to park in the Cal-Trans on- A~~ :r: -t~m * (<.- y \ 11ISJO~ .... ; . site facility known as the Superblock Parking Structure on the downtown public parking supply." Although the Study was dated October 31, 1997, the Plan indicated that the Study was being "submitted concurrently with this analysis." It is unclear if the Study was previously distributed in 1997 or simply completed at an earlier date but not distributed until June of 1998. Again. the conclusions of the Study apparently did not, in and of itself, trigger the downtown paid parking Plan. The Economic Development Agency is now requesting that it be authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with International (the same entity as before) to conduct a new downtown parking study and to prepare a downtown public parking operational plan. While it could be argued that both components (Study and Plan) might make sense from a cost effectiveness standpoint, if the Study component was to arrive at the same conclusion as it did in 1997, is there a need for a Plan? Should not the Study be first completed, reviewed by the Community Development Commission, and then it is decided what is the next step of action, including the preparation of a downtown public parking operational plan if the Study so warrants it? Is not the requested two-part motion assuming a conclusion on the first part that might be viewed as either premature or a self-fulfilling prophecy?