HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2023 Item 6b, Otto
From:Garrett Otto <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:6b - 1166 Higuera
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Please don't spend another $5M on parking. The parking structure already has a huge cost, and after last week's
meeting it's probably time to put the brakes on spending more money on parking when you are currently bleeding
money from the parking fund as is.
First, the roundabout way of purchasing the property using a loan from the IIF funds, then replenishing the IIF with
unallocated General Funds, appears to be manipulating the intent of the parking fund being self sufficient and not being
paid for by the General Fund. It seems like a sneaky loophole way of trying to get around current policy.
Second, the optics and timing are really bad. We are currently experiencing the deadliest year for people biking and
walking in SLO's history, but we are spending an outsized proportion of money trying to accommodate vehicle storage
instead. It really does feel like there is little care given to the urgency around this deadly epidemic. This Thursday the
ATC will discuss the 2024 roadway sealing project and the priority for ATP routes and elements to use the minuscule
$200K to implement. The ATC has to prioritize, because like many previous years, there "just isn't enough funds" to pay
for it all. If there is $5M in unallocated funds sitting around that can be used for more parking, shouldn't we also be
prepared to provide $5M for transit and bike and ped improvements to match our mode shift goals as indicated in our
general plan (7.1.4 In order to increase support for non‐automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation
funding across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035). It will be pretty terrible
if we can't fund the safety improvements identified in the ATP because we already earmarked any available funds for
parking. To put things into perspective, this parking lot would cost 23.6 times the money being spent on the ATP
elements.
Third, parking in this area is fairly plentiful. Nearly all of the buildings were required to provide off-street parking when
they were built. If you look at an aerial photo in the vicinity, a high percentage (maybe 50%+) is already used for vehicle
storage. Demand in the area would likely not make paid parking something someone would choose over attempting to
find free parking nearby.
Fourth, even if you purchase the property for future use as something else like a transit center, there are no immediate
plans to do that and may sit as parking for 3, 5, 10, 20 years. We all know that once you provide parking, its nearly
impossible to remove it without causing a fuss. And if this particular lot gets purchased and developed into something
different, isn't there value to the City in other forms such as adding additional commercial space, housing inventory, or
some other unmet community need?
I see little urgency in trying to make this purchase and you all should probably take some time to see how things pan out
with the parking rate study and getting parking payment systems worked out before you consider dropping more money
1
on parking. Let's start spending a proportionate amount of transportation alternatives, and let's give some more urgency
to an actual life or death issue.
Garrett Otto
San Luis Obispo
2