HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1993, 2 &3 - CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THURSDAY NIGHT ACTIVITIES/FARMERS' MARKET & HOUSING AUTHORITY ISSUES & HOUSING ISSUES "Lmo:es Action ❑ FY1
FZCwncil ❑ CDD DIR. RIM Council has
R CAO ❑ FIN.DIR. received this doc mwd
CAO ❑ FIREaiIEF MEETING AGENDA
�-1ORNEY ❑ FvVDIR DATE �/- ITEM #� Peggy Koteen
CLERK/OZIC. ❑ C'OLICECR 253 Via San Blas
F-1 MGMIT VA U P.EGDM San Luis Obispo, ;,CA 93401
aKFADF. E ❑ LMLD11 544-1580 - ` •`
March 22 1993
Dear Thursday Night Activities Committee: CITYCCU;;C;.
SAN LJ.S CE:;SF.?. CA
I Nould like to address a few points which were brought up when I
visited your March 3rd meeting. (Vo
A%W"
)
1. . You suggested that only 2 non-profit information groups have
discussed their unhappiness with the fee structure. More specifically,
in the current "Council Agenda Report" your recommendation states,
"Since the new fees were implemented, the BIA received notice from
three non-profit groups stating that the fees would prohibit them from
continuing to participate. "
I don 't doubt that only three groups have directly contacted the
BIA. (I presume that the three groups are Atheists United, Action for
Animals' Rights, and the Socialist Party. I am- coordinating the booths
of the first two. ) I spoke to representatives of *ore than a dozen
groups Nho have expressed discontent Nith the fee structure. These
groups are: Planned Parenthood, N.O.W. , Right to Life Group, Bahai
Faith, , Eco SLO, Sierra Club, Big Mt. Support Group, Planetary
Survival , Green Party, Zero Population Growth, Socialist Party,
A.F.A.R. , and AU of SLO.
I would venture to say that the reason that the BIA wasn 't directly
contacted is that ; we non-profit groups felt so disconnected from you
after your current fee structure was passed by the City Council on
September 1 , 1992. There wasn 't any timely "notice of hearing" given
to the information booths prior to the September City Council meeting.
We read about the fee increase in the Telegram-Tribune. This contrasts
with your February 5, 1991 City Council Agenda Report where you state,
"The fee schedule has been reviewed and approved by the Thursday Night
Committee and Thursday Night participants are fully aware of the
proposed changes. Thus, because we had been disenfranchised from the
BIA, we groups did not come to you with our distress about the 100%
information booth fee increase versus the 5/. BBQ booth fee increase,
but rather we talked among ourselves during the next few Thursday
nights.
Emotions were heated during these discussions. Finally, a number
of us went directly to the City Council meeting on October 6, 1992, to
state our displeasure over the inequity of the new fee structure and
the hardship it was placing upon us. A representative from PP, AU,
A.F.A.R. , Planetary Survival , Right to Life Group, and the Socialist
Party each spoke, while a member of the Bahai Faith was in the
audience.
Thus, it is not correct to imply in your current Council. Agenda
Report that the information booth volunteers accept your fees. We do
not. We will work hard to establish a more equitable fee structure.
2. The TNA Committee Chairman said that it is not fair to just look at
the low per square foot fees paid by the BBQs because the members of
the BIA (including the BBQ restaurants) pay an extra business license
tax which supports the BIA and thus TNA.
I realize that in past years, your business taxes did help defray
the costs of TNA, but the VAST majority of those funds went to other
than TNA events such as Christmas Meters, La Fiesta, Beautification,
Promotion, Newsletter, Garden Street, Employee and Office Expenses
(approximately half of all expenses) , and Office Lease. Well , this
year TNA is fully self-supporting and NONE of the tax goes to fund
Farmers ' Market.
3. You briefly mentioned that it didn 't seem right that I was
questioning your $10 per night booth fee when the city charges $25 at
Mission Plaza fairs. Firstly, I haven't yet had the pleasure of
manning a booth at any of those fairs. So, I hadn 't known the precise
fee charged by the city. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, Farmers'
Market lasts from bpm to 9pm, while a daytime fair usually lasts from
loam to 4pm. Thus, one must take into account the time period, never
mind that we are comparing tangerines and naval oranges, or vice
versa.
4. At the meeting, I wanted to let you know what direction I was
heading with my proposals for the fee structure to the City Council . I
would like to reiterate them now.
It is my intent that the TNA have an equitable fee structure. For
simplicity's sake I am concentrating on the BBQs and non-profit
informational booth fees. Currently:
The BBQs are paying 16 cents/square foot, which depending on the
size of the BBQ would be somewhere between $25 (Nothing But the
Best BBQ) and $125 (McLintock 's BBQ) per booth. The non-profit
booths are paying $10 for an 8 foot long by 4 foot booth, which is
31.25 cents/square foot ($10 divided by 32 square feet) or 62.5
cents/square foot for those booths which are only 4 feet in
length!
In your 92/93 budget you have estimated that you will receive
revenues of $20,838.55 -from the BBQs and $9,922.00 from the
Info. /Non-Profit booths. This is a total of approximately $31 ,000.
Thus, I have taken into consideration your need to retain this total
level of funding from the two groups. Any figures which I propose will
take this into account.
I feel that similar units of measurement should be utilized for
both types of booth space. The non-profit (N.P.) booths should also
pay their fees on a square foot basis. But, it is my intention that
you have no more work in measuring booth space than currently. So, I
propose having only two choices of booth size for the N.P.
organizations-- 4 foot long or 8 foot long (by 5 foot wide-- which
seems closer to reality if you include table and chair space) .
Also, it would be more equitable for the N.P. booths to pay 75% or
50% of the per square footage fees than the commercial for-profit BBQs
pay. My reasoning for a lesser percentage of fee for the N.P./info.
booths is that they collect few dollars in their contribution jars (or
no dollars as do the Bahai who do not take contributions from the
public) while offering to the public a variety of free literature.
The following include my three scenarios for your fees:
CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE
BBQs--ILcents---total=$20,838 N.P.--$10booth--total=$9,922
Total : $20,838 + $99922 = $30,760
20 CENTS/SQUARE FOOT & 100% PARITY
BBQs---=$26,047 N.P.---8by5feet=$8.00/booth =$79938
4by5feet=$4.00/booth =$3,969
Total : $26,047 + $7,938 = $33,985
$26,047 t $3,969 = $30,016
20 CENTS/SQUARE FOOT & N.P. PAYS 75% OF. COMMERCIAL BBQ FEE
BBQs---=$26,047 N.P.---8by5feet=$6.00/booth =$5,954
---4by5feet=$3.00/booth =$2,977
Total: $26,047 + $5,954 = $31 ,999
$26,047 + $2,977 = $29,024
20 CENTS/SQUARE FOOT & N.P. PAYS 50% OF COMMERCIAL BBQ FEE
BBQs--- =$269047 N.P.---8by5feet=$4.00/booth =$3,969
Total : $26,047 + $3,969 = $30,016
Obviously, these are just a few of the multitude of options
available so that you can retain your current level of revenues. Each
of the scenarios yields revenues near to the $31 ,000 mark. One would .
have to assume that some N.P. booths would opt for the longer table
while others would not, and so their totals would fall somewhere
between my estimates. On the other hand, with the size flexibility,
there may be more booths which partake in TNA, and these totals may be
low.
How did I arrive at the 8 foot and 4 foot long booth sizes? I
based the 8 foot size on your own 8 foot maximum size and 4 foot is
closer to the size of a card table which many booths use: I realize
that you have allowed two sets of N.P. groups to share 8 feet of booth
space these past few months, but it is cumbersome to coordinate which
Thursdays people are available to man both booths. Thus, two booth
sizes would cleanly clear up this difficulty.
5. I would now like to address other issues which I did not have the
opportunity to discuss with you on March 3rd.
One issue is pertaining to changing the fee structure for the
Farmers. I am curious how you initially arrived at the Farmers' fees.
It is my understanding that they pay 10% of the total TNA expenses
(approx. $4,500) plus 1% of their gross sales. You have listed in your
92/93 budget anticipated deposits by the Farmers of $6,421.73.
The Farmers may be the largest crowd-pleaser on Thursday nights,
which in turn helps to bring persons to the other booths, but do they
require reduced rate booth space? Let us presume that you receive
$6,500 from the Farmers this year. If there are 45 Thursdays of
markets, then that is $145 per night. If there are two dozen Farmers'
booths, then on average each booth is paying $6 for the evening.
It is not my desire to place a heavier burden on farmers who may be
struggling during these hard times. But is it fair that they pay $6
for space which is 2, 3, or 4 times larger than a N.P. group who pays
$10 a night? Most, if not all , of the N.P. booths are struggling also
(and possibly many of the BBQs and Merchants who have booths) .
I am just looking for the most equitable solution to your fee
structure without undue burden to any one group.
Other issues which need review are two of your reasons given last
year when you raised the N.P. fees to $10. One reason was your
comparison of other Farmers ' Markets to our own. The other is your
claim that the information booths are a major cause of the garbage and
therefore should be burdened with much of the garbage clean-up costs.
(This claim was in the September Tribune article and repeated to me in
a meeting with Jenni , Lynn Block, and Betsey Lyon on October 27,
1992. )
On page two of the September 1 , 1992 Council Agenda Report, you
state, "The BIR researched the fees charged by comparable markets in
other cities and found SLO was well below the average in the above
categories EInfo. and N.P. groups, Media, BBQs7. " In attachment "E" of
the current Council Agenda Report, the TNA Cost Questionaire does not
indicate how many N.P. groups participate in the TWO applicable
Farmer 's Markets. Could there be very few groups because their fee
schedule has priced them out of the Vista and Santa Rosa markets? Even
if other cities have an inequitable fee structure, do you need to
replicate it? San Luis' Obispo is forward thinking and this should be
reflected in an equitable fee schedule.
Secondly, the N.P. booths generate very little, if any, garbage.
When persons come to our booths, they look, ask questions, and they
CHOOSE to take literature which interests them. This literature is not
thrown on the ground.
Some other literature which is pushed on passersby is discarded on
the ground. Much of this literature is passed out as fliers by
NON-PAYING groups, such as for band/concert events, religious pocket
calendars, or general announcements. Admittedly, sometimes a
participating N.P. information booth does stand in the middle of the
street to push its literature. This usually happens in the case of
future fund raising events or from political parties.
In any event, the amount of fliers on the streets is minuscule when
compared to the discarded BBQ wrappers on the streets. Please
discontinue distributing misinformation about from whence the garbage
comes.
Thirdly, if downtown businesses benefit from the TNA, then maybe
they should be helping to support it as in previous years. On page two
of the current Council Agenda Report you state, "TNA/Farmers's Market
was designed to promote downtown and, while it has grown into a
tremendous public relations tool . . . " Possibly the business community's
previous help to defray TNA costs was appropriate and a small
percentage of the BIA general funds should be contributed to TNA.
Lastly (can you believe it?) , the TNA/Farmers' Market belongs to
the people of San Luis Obispo. I feel that the BIA treats TNA as a
tool to maximize downtown profits , rather than as a service to the
community. The N.P. booths offer the public a broad base of
information. The free-flow of information is a requirement to the
proper operation of our democracy. Therefore, your encouragement of
N.P. information booths would be an enhancement to our entire
community.
Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,y,
Peggy Koteenn
cc: Mayor Pinard, Council Members Rappa, Roalman, Romera, and Settle,
and City Attorney Jorgensen.
h,rETING AGENDA
DATE— :�. ITEM #
40.
13-Dmo:
O• Awaa, ❑ FYI
San Luis Obispo Chamber Of Commerce Lz ; ❑ CDD DUL
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 ,_,,�AO ❑ F¢v.Dip-
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 1 CAO ❑ FIRE OW
David E. Garth, Executive Director �'ITI= ❑ FW DIIL
CLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE CK
❑ MGIvrr.TEA?,i U &EC Da
❑�CEREA DFII.'c 0jUFILB1It
March 26, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-8100
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Chamber of Commerce is very concerned about the future of Downtown's Thursday
Night Activities/Farmers' Market.
As you know, TNA/Farmers' Market is one of our community's most distinctive and
enjoyable events. This activity has been copied nationwide because it provides so much
community and business benefits. It's fun for the locals, brings huge amounts of sales
tax revenue to the city, expands our bed tax base by extending many tourists'weekends
to four days, and helps keep many downtown businesses afloat.
The B.I.A. has done an excellent job administering this complicated activity. Because of
their budget situation, they need to raise TNA/Farmers' Market fees modestly to make
the event self-supporting. Even though we are one of the non-profit organizations who
would be affected, we strongly support their proposed fee increase; it's fair, equitable
and necessary. If the B.I.A. is not allowed to recoup their costs, they might someday
decide that they can't afford to continue to sponsor the event. This would be a
community tragedy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David E. Garth
Executive Director
1993
ACCREDITED
CMAYBER OF CONKEKE
� AMHI'R 0!COMMERCE
UI III 11 11 110 SIAIIt
I`I�^lunl�lllll^� II MEETING OAT.:
city o san LaIs oBtspo 3-30-.9s
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER
FROM: Arnold Jonas, ommunity Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff H
Associate P er
SUBJECT: Study session on housing issues with the San Luis Obispo City Housing
Authority.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the housing issues and by motion, provide direction to staff as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
At their February 18, 1993 meeting, commissioners of the Housing Authority requested a joint
study session with the City Council to discuss various housing issues facing the City. Below is
a summary of the issues which the Housing Authority would like to discuss:
1. The role of the Housing Authority and its affiliated non-profit corporation in planning
for and meeting the City's affordable housing needs.
2. Inclusionary zoning, including the payment of in-lieu fees, management, and use of in-
lieu fees.
3. Mixed-use development projects involving residential and commercial uses.
4. Techniques that the City can use to make housing more affordable:
A. Fee waivers for affordable housing.
B. Expedited processing for affordable housing projects.
C. Density bonuses.
5. Establishment of a housing trust fund.
6. Preparation for Community Development Block Grant Funding.
A. Establishing a funding formula for affordable housing projects.
B. Possible programs, eg. low-interest loans for first time homebuyers.
DISCUSSION
This is a comprehensive list of housing topics, and any one of the topics could occupy an entire
meeting. It is hoped, however, that this meeting will provide the foundation for a closer
working relationship between the City and its Housing Authority. To help focus discussion and
provide some background on the issues, staff has prepared a brief overview of each topic. All
11110►1Ill111IM11111 city of san L-ais oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
of the topics are addressed in the City's draft Housing Element, and features of the relevant
programs are discussed.
Housing Authority Role
Established by the City Council in 1968, the Housing Authority is a quasi-independent public
agency authorized under Section 34200 of the California Health and Safety Code. Governed by
a seven-member Commission, the Authority is charged with broad powers to prepare and
implement housing programs for low and moderate income persons. The Housing Authority
advises the City Council on housing issues and needs, and administers housing programs for
seniors, handicapped persons, and low- and moderate-income persons. Specific powers and
duties under State law include:
1. Acquire, lease, build, operate, repair, expand, and maintain housing for low and
moderate income persons;
2. Provide housing counseling, referral, and advisory services to low and moderate income
households.
3. Make and execute contracts, agreements, or other instruments; own, hold, or improve
real or personal property;
4. Sell, transfer, auction, exchange, assign, or dispose of real or personal property, and
may acquire property by eminent domain;
5. Invest reserve funds in property or securities, purchase bonds, procure mortgage
insurance, and make housing loans; and
6. Undertake housing studies and investigations, and make recommendations on issues
related to housing conditions, slums, and affordable housing.
Housing Commission members are appointed by the City Council, and meet monthly at the
Housing Authority administrative office at 487 Leff Street. Five of the commissioners serve
four-year terms, and are appointed by the Mayor subject to Council confirmation. The other
two commissioners are two-year appointments made by the Mayor from the Authority's tenant
population. The Housing Authority is funded by State and Federal monies, program income,
and investment income. Its affiliate, the SLO Non-Profit Housing Corporation, develops and
manages affordable housing countywide.
11111%IIIIIJJJJWJJJII City Of San L AI S OBISPO
Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Inclusionary Housing
In its review of the draft Housing Element, the Planning Commission endorsed several new
policies and programs to promote affordable housing. One of the key policies would establish
an inclusionary housing requirement to ensure that new residential and non-residential projects
include affordable housing, or contribute fees toward the development of affordable housing.
The City's 1991 Mundie report evaluated the effects of affordable housing requirements on the
costs of new development. The proposed affordable housing requirement is based on the reports
findings, and on an evaluation of other communities' experiences with similar programs. The
program concept is shown in Exhibit "E."
Mixed-use Residential Development
The City recently enacted a new mixed-use (MU) zone designation which, in combination with
any other zone, permits combining uses which would otherwise not be possible. In creating the
new overlay zone, the City's objectives were: 1) to permit combining residential and
commercial uses on the same site; 2) to provide additional housing opportunities; 3) to reduce
auto travel by providing services,jobs, and housing in close proximity; 4) to provide additional
security and safety in residential areas; and 5) to promote a more compact urban pattern. A
good example of this type of development is in the Crossroads commercial center at Broad Street
and Orcutt Road, which includes six one-bedroom apartments and about 23,000 square feet of
office and retail space.
Affordable Housing Techniques
Fee waivers, expedited permit processing, density bonuses and other incentives were endorsed
by the Planning Commission and are included in the draft Housing Element as recommended
programs. Chapter 17.16 of the Municipal Code already allows the City to negotiate a density
bonus or other benefits in exchange for provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-
income persons.
Housing Trust Fund
The draft Housing Element recommends the establishment of a housing trust fund to be used to
develop affordable housing units, provide low-cost loans for fust-time homebuyers, acquire land
for affordable housing projects, and to fund public improvements like utility extensions or street
improvements to serve affordable housing projects. It is anticipated that funding would come
primarily from Community Development Block Grant funds and from the payment of in-lieu fees
under the inclusionary housing program.
�� ►�IIIIII�Ip° 111 City of San LjIS OBISp0
MiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Community Development Block Grant Program
As part of the CDBG application process, the City and/or County will need to prepare a
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy which documents community housing needs, and
a five-year strategy for how block grant funds are to be used. CHAS preparation will involve
public hearings and working meetings with the Housing Authority and other local housing
agencies, interest groups, and institutions.
Attachment: Exhibit E - Affordable Housing Requirement Diagram
EXHIBIT E
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Build 3%low-or 5%moderate-cost ADU's, Build 1 ADU per acre,
but not less than 1 ADU per project. but not less than 1 ADU per project.
v or or
z
Pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% Pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%
zz of building valuation. of building valuation.
U
w Build 10°k low-and 20%moderate-cost ADU's,
Build 1 ADU per acre,
a but not less than 1 ADU per project. but not less than 1 ADU per project.
z
0 or or
W
z
XPay in-lieu fee equal to 15% Pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%
uJ of building valuation. of building valuation.
ADU: Affordable dwelling unit
?J -S