HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1995, 5 - VERBAL STATUS REPORT CONCERNING MEETING WITH BIA PARKING COMMITTEE DATE:
E:
city of San Luis OBIspo o -9s-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMB
From: John Dunn, City Administrative ice
Subject: Verbal Status Report Concerning Meeting With BIA Parking Committee
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a verbal update from the CAO concerning issues to be discussed with the BIA Parking
Committee at a meeting of October 12th.
2. Direct staff to schedule a future joint City Council-BIA study session to further review these
issues.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a letter from the BIA and an agenda for a meeting to be held with the BIA Parking Committee
on October 12, 1995. On October 17th, I will provide the City Council with a verbal report on the
outcome of this meeting. In addition to my verbal update, it is anticipated that the BIA will also wish
to make some comments on the 17th.
You will note that the BIA letter requests that we hold a joint study session with the BIA Board of
Directors to more formally discuss these matters. Staff concurs that such a study session would be
productive, and recommend that Council schedule a study session when all five Council members are
present, and after staff has had a reasonable opportunity to further consider these issues and prepare an
appropriate staff report.
ATTACHMENT
BIA Correspondence
4 October 1995
Mayor Allen Settle and City Councilmembers
San Luis Obispo City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
As you may be aware, a special meeting of the Business
Improvement Association Parking Committee and members of City
departments has been scheduled for Thursday, 12 October 8 AM in
the City Council Hearing Room. The purpose of this meeting is to
review parking committee goals and concerns and to obtain
suggestions for moving forward with projects that will deliver much
needed parking in the Downtown core.
The parking committee led by chairman Mike Spangler, believes that
the issues facing the parking committee are urgent in nature and
require not only review by city departments but by the City Council
as well.
On behalf of Mr. Spangler and the parking committee, I'd like to
request that the City Council, during the communications section of
its 17 October council meeting, direct staff to arrange a study session
for BIA and City Council. This session will review BIA parking issues
and provide an overview of the 12 October meeting.
We are anxious to move forward with our goals, and anticipate
meeting with you soon.
Sincerely,
Peter Terhune
President RECPEEIVE®
OCT 1995
cm COUNCIL
P.O.Bax 1402•San Luu Ohio•CA.93406-8051541-0286 [��
011i
OCTOBER 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: BIA BOARD&PARKING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: MIKE SPANGLER
BIA PARKING COMMITTEE CHAIR
544-1740
RE: PARKING COIVIlVIlTTEE MEETING
THE FUTURE OF PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WILL BE DISCUSSED
AT OUR NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 12, 8:00 A.M. AT CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOM.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING WITH JOHN DUNN (CITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER)AND HIS STAFF. WE WILL BE DISCUSSING
ITEMS THAT WILL HAVE A MAJOR EFFECT ON OUR FUTURE PARKING
NEEDS.
WITH PROJECTED INCOME OF$2M AND A 1995 FUND BALANCE PROJECTED
TO BE$2.6M,WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO FORWARD WITH NEW PARKING
PROJECTS OR HAVE OUR FUNDS DIVERTED FOR OTHER SPECIAL INTERESTS.
DURING THE PAST YEAR$1M HAS BEEN SPENT ON LAND ACQUISITION AND
NO MONEY HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT FOR SOME TIME.
THIS IS OUR PROBLEM. WE HAVE NOT EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATED OUR
CONCERNS TO STAFF AND COUNCIL. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET THE BALL
ROLLING. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND.
P.O.Bar 1402.&m jj&01,*•C4.9,'406•R051541-0296 s3
o �
Downtown Business Improvement Association
Parking Committee Meeting
12 October 1995 8 AM
City Council Hearing Room, City Hall
Agenda
1 . Call to Order Spangler
2 . Public Comment: At this time, members of the public may address the
committee about those items not on the agenda. Please come forward and state
your name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes. Any item
raised is generally referred to staff and if action is required by the committee it
may be scheduled for future meetings.
3 . Consent Agenda Spangler
A. Approval of minutes from 7 Sept 1995 meeting
4 . Business Item
A. Parking Committee Goals and Concerns .
Update on recent acquisitions and current projects
1 . Purchase of 860 Pacific (current site of
Parks & Recreation admn. offices) Statler
2. Purchase of properties corner Nipomo
and Palm streets McCluskey
3. Proposed public art at the Palm Street
parking structure Statler
4. Currently approved capital improvement
plan (CIP) for 1995-99 Statler
Future Improvement Projects
5. Purchase of the Wells Fargo parking lot McCluskey
P.O.Bar 1402•San Lair Oh"•G4•93406•905/541-0296 S
6. Expansion of the Marsh Street structure McCluskey
7. Use of outside resources (project manager)
for expediting garage expansion Spangler
(oral report)
Financial policies and plans
8. Future of the enterprise fund concept for
parking programs and projects, Statler
9. Developing a model for financing future
parking system improvements Statler
10. John's notorious "five-legged stool" Dunn
11 . Protection of the parking fund from
future proposals to use it as funding
source for transit Spangler
(oral report)
12. Removal of parking meters Spangler
(oral report)
Parking policies and plans
13. Status of the Parking Management Plan
update and the need for any changes in
plans and policies to be consistent with the
Downtown Physical Concept Plan McCluskey
14. Decision-making authority on the expansion
or elimination of parking inventory McCluskey
15. Private control of metered spaces by
adjoining business owners Spangler
(oral report)
16. Controlling historic loss of parking
spaces (i.e. bulb-outs, transit programs) Spangler
(oral report)
.S' s
17. Liquidation of existing surface parking
lots in the Downtown core Spangler
(oral report)
Background materials
• Appendix A. Overview of parking fund sources and uses-
where it comes from and where it goes
• Materials provided to the BIA Parking Committee at its
August 11, 1995 meeting regarding parking fund
financial operations
5 . New Business Spangler
6 . Administrator's Report Holley
A. City Council meeting of 19 September
B. Holiday meter bag program
C. Marsh St. Makeover update
7 . Future Agenda Items .
8. Adjourn
Next parking committee meeting: Friday 3 November 1995
8 AM Cuesta Title Conference Room
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /o /7- S ITEM #S.—
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 16, 1995 8-COUNCIL _❑ CDDDIR
. -CAO C-FIN DIR
RECEIVEDJ113FIRECHIEF
TO: City Council 'B-ATTORNEY 9-PWDIR
OCT 1 6 wo B'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
FROM: John ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
,.,,.CITY.COUNCIL ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTILDIR
SUBJECT: Staff Meeting with the BIA Parking Committees_ o PERS MR
On the morning of October 12th, City staff met with members of the BIA Parking Committee.
The BIA Parking Committee is chaired by Mike Spangler, and there were approximately twelve
people from the DowntownBIA Parking Committee in attendance. City staff members attending
were Mike McCluskey, Bill Statler, Keith Opalewski, and myself.
The meeting was quite positive and productive and, though differing perceptions were fully
discussed, we arrived to a point of essential agreement: that there is a shared perception of the
need for increased parking in the downtown, and shared thoughts on the best location to develop
additional parking. This would indicate that the BIA, staff, and City Council can work together
to expedite the staff level study, the buying of land, and the construction of a third parking
facility. Though we all recognize that more discussion and study needs to take place, there is
unanimity of opinion that the best way to increase the parking supply in the downtown in a
suitable location is to expand the existing Marsh/Chorro garage by adding an "L-shaped"
extension along Pacific Street. This would require purchasing of the San Luis Medical Clinic
lot and the Post Office lot (though for the latter, aerial development rights might also be
workable).
Background
At the beginning of the meeting, nine letters from downtown merchants/property owners were
distributed; six of these letters spoke to desirability of increasing the parking supply and/or the
expansion of the Marsh/Chorro structure, and the other three were longer letters, also agreeing
with these objectives, but offering further commentary on the forthcoming downtown parking
management plan or the downtown parking system.
I'll divide the background for the meeting into the longer term background and the more recent
background. The longer term situation dates back to the fall/winter/spring of 1990-91. This was
after the completion of the Palm Street and Marsh/Chorro parking structures. At that time, there
were was a less intense use of the two garages, there were questions about the operation of a
downtown parking system but, as the most pressing matter, the parking fund was operating at
about a $300,000 per year deficit. A combination of BIA representatives, community
representatives, and City staff met for five or six months on every other Friday morning and,
despite considerable differences in perspectives, hammered-out a longer term downtown parking
management and financial plan which was subsequently reviewed and approved by the City
Council. The main features of that plan established 90-minute free parking for the two parking
structures, set appropriate rates for both the parking garages and the downtown meters, including
some agreed-to future increases, and developed the downtown trolley and parking programs as
complimentary efforts. Since that time, and until fairly recently, the BIA Parking Committee has
been less active and the staff has been implementing the results of that earlier approved plan.
More recently, the BIA Parking Committee has been holding regular meetings under the
chairmanship of Mike Spangler. While I have not attended any of these meetings, my
understanding is that many of them have been lightly attended, not producing a quorum, and that
different people have shown up at different meetings. However, in these meetings there has been
a series of questions about the operation of the downtown parking system and the finances of the
parking fund which had been discussed at length, but which the Committee felt were not brought
to a conclusion. It has been my point of view that there was little likelihood of moving forward
on the basic issue of increasing the downtown parking supply, unless these unresolved issues
were openly discussed and brought to a resolution, since their unresolved nature seemed to detract
from trustworthy communication and relationships. Keith is normally the City staff person at
BIA Parking Committee meetings, unless an explicit invitation is extended to another person (for
example, Bill Statler recently spoke to the Committee).
Therefore, Mike Spangler and I agreed some weeks ago that we would hold this downtown
parking "summit" meeting involving the full Downtown Parking Committee and other interested
parties, and all relevant City staff.
Overview of Items Discussed
As you are aware, the agenda for the meeting consisted of 17 different agenda items. I will not
so much report on each agenda item as to give an overview of the discussion (Deborah Holley's
more detailed minutes are attached). Fourteen of the seventeen agenda items dealt more with
background issues on which there were different perspectives or inadequate communication items
which just needed to be discussed fully with a larger audience and brought to a sense of
resolution. It was agreed at the beginning of the meeting that we would spend sufficient time
dealing with these more recent background issues, but that we wanted to preserve enough time
to talk about the real issue, which is increasing the parking supply in the downtown, by adding
a third structure.
There was only one issue on which, after discussion, a vote was taken: whether the parking fund
should be used to pay $10,000 for public art on the southern end of the Palm Street structure;
the vote was 2-2 and it was agreed that this item would be deferred to a future discussion and
resolution.
BIA Parking Committee Concerns
Use of Pwiung Funds. There was a strong feeling from the Committee that, without constant
vigilance by the BIA Parking Committee, and with the growing fund accumulation, that the
parking fund would be subject to various "raids". As an example, Chairman Spangler was
worried that advocates of alternative transportation or transit would attempt to obtain funding
r
from the parking fund, syphoning aside money that had been intended for purchase of land and
increasing the parking supply. Other Committee members strongly shared this concern.
Use of Recently Purchased Properties. Relative to the recent purchase of properties at Palm and
Nipomo, the BIA Parking Committee also expressed their concern that there were no current
,plans for an interim parking use of the site. Staff concurs with this concern, and we plan to
prepare a mid-year budget request to develop this site into a surface parking lot. In preparing
this request, we will identify construction costs, analyze the fiscal impact on the parking fund and
ability to finance future projects, and evaluate whether this should be a metered or monthly pass
lot.
Removal of Parldng Meters. While the removal of parking meters was discussed, there was
perhaps begrudging acceptance of the fact that the meters do provide the primary revenue to the
parking fund and that without this revenue, and with the continuing desire to add to the parking
system, then the only way to replace this revenue was with a merchant or property owner
contributions. While it was realized that it is fairly easy to discuss property owner or merchant
contributions to the parking system (as I did), in the final analysis these are very difficult
objectives to achieve as witnessed by the 20 or 25 year history of the downtown parking
program.
BIA Paridng Committee Authority. There was also concern about the "authority" of the BIA
Parking Committee vs. that of the staff. I explained the relationship between the BIA Parking
Committee, as advisory to the BIA Board, which is in turn advisory to the City Council, and the
staff as advisory to the City Council, with both the staff and Council working within the policy
framework of the downtown parking management plan, the enterprise fund concept,the approved
physical concept plan for the downtown, etc. Mike McCluskey shared a matrix, prepared some
months ago, which better defined the working relationship between the Committee and the staff,
and it was briefly discussed. It was agreed that the authority issue is only important in cases of
different recommendations, and that it was best to work closely together in a shared
communication process, and to attempt to develop a mutual approach, which would make the
City Council's job a lot easier.
Consensus on Need to Expand Chorro/Marsh Garage. While the majority of discussion on the
fourteen agenda items related to interpretations and perspectives of past actions, there was a
strong concurrence that we needed to work together in a cohesive way, toward the goal of
developing additional parking in the downtown area. Most of that discussion centered around
the need to expeditiously add a third structure, and general agreement that the L-shaped extension
of the Marsh/Chorro garage would probably be the best location to do that. While the
Marsh/Chorro expansion was decided upon as the highest priority, there was also agreement on
the desirability to acquire the Wells Fargo lot. Initially, given sufficient money (as there should
be) the Wells Fargo lot would be improved as a paved surface lot, with the potentiality that in
a 5 to 10 year period, a parking structure could be built at this location. It was recognized and
discussed that the 1987 parking management plan did call for the third structure to be located in
the southern end of the downtown, but the BIA stated they had done a survey which showed
large support for expansion of Marsh ahead of a southern structure.
t
However, while there was essential agreement on the desired program, there was a differing
perception on the timeline of the project, which is considerable. City staff, consistent with the
program set forth in the adopted budget, has a multi-year time frame to accomplish a third site
acquisition, while the Parking Committee has an expeditious "do it now" program of both
acquisition and expansion. This difference in time schedule,I gathered, is one of the major items
that the BIA Parking Committee/Board of Directors wishes to discuss with the City Council at
the forthcoming joint meeting.
Alternative Transportation - Transit There was also discussion that there will be a community
perspective which will argue for the use of alternative transportation, transit in particular, to
reduce traffic and hence to either reduce the size of the third structure or eliminate it entirely.
While the members of the BIA Parking Committee strongly disagreed with this perspective, it
was recognized that this view would be heard during the process. As the letter from John French
indicates, there is some thought that this perspective should be "invited to the table" and be dealt
with. Staff reminded the Committee that the need for such a study, prior to garage expansion,
was directed for elimination from the Circulation Element, which will require subsequent
Planning Commission and City Council action. Bruce Frasier also reminded the group about the
need to proceed only after a complete environmental analysis was completed.
Summary
In summary, as earlier stated, the meeting was very positive and productive, allowing us to
transcend the "cobwebs" that were complicating and bogging down the process, and giving an
improved opportunity to work toward the main objectives of studying the downtown parking
needs and moving forward in addressing them in an expeditious way. For the Council's
information, I have given Mr. Spangler an opportunity to read this report in draft form, and he
concurs with its contents. He and others representatives of the downtown desire to make
supplemental comments to the City Council, and it is agreed that certain of these topics will be
further discussed in the joint study session between the BIA Board and the City Council, which
the Council is establishing this evening.
l
AGENDA
BIA PARKING COMMITTEE MEETING - OCTOBER 12, 1995
GOALS AND CONCERNS
A. Parking Committee Goals and Concerns Facilitator Page
Update on recent acquisitions and current projects
1. Purchase of 860 Pacific (current site of
Parks & Recreation administrative offices) Statler 1
2. Purchase of properties at the comer
of Nipomo & Palm McCluskey 1
3. Proposed public art at the Palm Street structure Statler 2
4. Currently approved capital improvement
plan (CIP) for 1995-99 Statler 2
Future improvement projects
5. Purchase of the Wells Fargo parking lot McCluskey 11
6. Expansion of the Marsh Street structure McCluskey 12
7. Use of outside resources (project manager)
for expediting garage expansion Spangler Oral report
Financial policies and plans
8. Future of the enterprise fund concept for
parking programs and projects Statler 13
9. Developing a model for financing future
parking system improvements Statler 13
10. John's notorious "five-legged stool" Dunn - 13
11. Protection of the parking fund from future
proposals to use it as a funding source for transit Spangler Oral report
12. Removal of parking meters Spangler Oral report
Parking policies and plans
13. Status of the Parking Management Plan update and
the need for any changes in plans and policies to be
consistent with the Downtown Physical Concept Plan McCluskey 23
r
14. Decision-making authority on the expansion
or elimination of parking inventory McCluskey 23
15. Private control of metered spaces by
adjoining business owners Spangler Oral report
16. Controlling historic loss of parking spaces
(ie, bulb-outs, transit programs) Spangler Oral report
17. Liquidation of existing surface parking lots
in the downtown core Spangler Oral report
Background materials
■ Appendix A. Overview of parking fund sources and uses - where it comes from and
Where it goes
■ Appendix B. Materials provided to the BIA Parking Committee at its August 11, 1995
meeting regarding parking fund financial operations
■ Appendix C. Letter to the City Council from the BIA dated April 3, 1995 regarding
the Parking Fund budget and objectives for 1995-97
■ Appendix D. Letter to the City Council from Mike Spangler dated September 11, 1995
communicating BIA Parking Committee concerns
r
Memorandum
DATE: October 16, 1995
TO: John Dunn
FROM: Mike McCluskeyV�
RE: Parking Meeting of 10/12/95
You asked for a summary of my statements at today's meeting of how the marsh street parking garage
expansion and purchase of another site could be expedited. Although not exactly as stated,I have
embellished as appropriate to approximate what will actually occur. They are as follows:
1. Process One: Expedite current policy and expand Marsh Garage and buy Wells Fargo site
• Hire consultant to assist staff in parking needs and location study
• Study concludes that highest needs site is in/near the existing marsh street structure;the
second highest need is in/near the Wells Fargo parking lot.
• Council adopts results of study and directs staff to proceed to begin negotiations on both
sites. Simultaneously,Council amends 95-97 CIP to include marsh structure expansion
along with third site purchase.
• After reasonable time for negotiations on property,and only if negotiations fail to be
productive, Council acts to condemn Wells Fargo site,and SLO-Med site(cannot condemn
Federal Gov't property). Ownership shifts to City of the two sites after court proceeding and
sales price is determined by courts at a later date.
• During negotiations with Federal Government when results look promising, Council acts to
authorize design of new structure. Upon completion of negotiations,Council authorizes
bidding and construction of the expansion of the Marsh Street structure.
2. Process Two: Amend current policy and expand Marsh Garage and buy Wells Fargo site
• City Council directs staff to entirely eliminate Program 12.7 of the Circulation Element
calling for parking study prior to construction of additional structures. (note: the Council has
previously directed that staff amend the Circulation Element to eliminate from the study the
need to evaluate alternative forms of transportation as they would relate to the need for
additional structures.)
• City Council deletes Action 4.4 from the Parking Management Plan which calls for a
parking needs study prior to determining where additional parking facilities should be
located.
• City Council determines that expansion of the Marsh Street structure is the highest priority;
that purchase of the Wells Fargo site is second highest priority;amends the 95-97 CIP to
include the Marsh Street structure along with the third site purchase.
• City Council authorizes retention of contract project manager to expedite property
appraisals,negotiations,design and construction.
s '
• After reasonable time for negotiations on property,and only if negotiations fail to be
productive, Council acts to condemn Wells Fargo site,and SLO-Med site(cannot condemn .
Federal Gov't property). Ownership shifts to City of the two sites after court proceeding and
sales price is determined by courts at a later date.
• During negotiations with Federal Government when results look promising, Council acts to
authorize design of new structure. Upon completion of negotiations,Council authorizes
bidding and construction of the expansion of the Marsh Street structure.
Comments:
Method 1 offers the City Council the a fast and rational basis for all site based decisions described above.
Due to the time constraints on existing City staff method 2 will allow a faster process to occur as the sole
function of the contract person would be the completion of the two projects. Also the elimination of the
study would cut approximately 4-6 months from the total time frame. (Note: this assumes the standard
consultant retention process is hired and the consultant can immediately begin work.) The current
direction is for staff to perform the study,however given current workload levels it is doubtful that staff
could improve upon the time frame of the consultant.
Assuming that speed is of the essence,the City Council will need to address the long standing policy of
not using eminent domain for property acquisition purposes. Given the current history of property
negotiations(3-5 yrs.per property)so-called fast tracking of either site will not be possible within the
desired time frame. In either scenario,I anticipate that negotiations with the Federal Government for
either land or air space purchase will be arduous and time consuming.
2
Downtown Business Improvement Association
Parking Committee . Meeting
12 October 1995
City Council Hearing Room
Minutes
Present
John Dunn, City Administrator
Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Bill Statler, Finance
Keith Opalewski, Parking
Peter Terhune, BIA President
Mike Spangler, BIA Board/Parking Committee Chair
Beth Law, Parking Committee
Pierre Rademaker, Parking Committee
Ken Schwartz, Parking Committee
Dan Gardner, Parking Committee
Correne Cotta, BIA Board
Al McVay, Vintage Properties
Rick Porter
Tom Copeland
Stephen Patrick
Pat Veesart
Bruce Frasier
Dick Cleeves
Howard Carroll
Deborah Holley, BIA Staff
Peter Eberle, BIA Staff
Letters from those unable to attend were distributed.
Meeting called to order at 8:07 by Mike Spangler
No Public Comment
Approval of minutes of 7 September 1995
Motion: Rademaker
Second: Gardner
P.O.B=1402•San Lair Ohu]m•G4•94406.805/541-0296
r
PAIF
New Business: Parking Committee Goals and Concerns
Dunn offered preliminary comments regarding the outcome of the
discussion as focusing on long term commitments to increase parking
supply. He added that the City of San Luis is blessed with the
financial capability to go ahead and build a third structure without
having to first figure out how to obtain the funding. Further, he
suggested that historical concerns need to be cleaned up before
moving on. Items 5 and 6 on agenda will be moved to the end of the
discussion.
Spangler said that time constraints kept some people from attending
the meeting; however, many of these had submitted letters to be
distributed at the meeting expressing their views about parking
issues.
Porter indicated he'd spoken to a number of merchants/
businesspeople Downtown who said they feel Downtown cannot
continue to compete unless more parking is made available.
Statler capsulized financial plan: the purchasse of parks & rec bldg
(Pacific St) was approved by City Council in 94-95 budget review. A
new park & rec bldg is under construction at old Emerson School site.
The Pacific St. location is a natural extension for Marsh Street
Parking Structure (hereafter indicated as MSPS). The purchase price
of the site w/ building was $485,000 which came in under the figure
given by an independent appraisal. The sale and transfer won't be
finalized until park & rec relocates. The general fund is paying the
debt service at this time on the loan.
Spangler advised that on this particular transaction, there was no
input from the parking committee solicited. While the parking
committee was aware the Emerson property needed to be purchased
as it fits in with long range conceptual goals, the parking committee
is uncomfortable that the transaction proceeded without their input.
Statler returned to discussion of the Pacific Street site/building. He
offered the best solution is to find someone who wants to move it
and turn the site into short term surface parking (a couple of years).
s
McCluskey agreed with Statler--that ownership of the building is not
desired as it is not ADA accessible and the City would have to sink
major money into the building for remodel to comply with standards.
He suggested actively pursuing selling it as a private home.
Spangler offered that many people don't understand how the City
could let an asset sit dormant--he suggested analyzing the project
and turning it into an income-producing asset. Spangler said that an
enterprise fund should be run on enterprise principles.
Dunn responded that the City will make every effort to work closely
with the BIA on alternatives in this situation.
Porter informed the group that the First American Title lot has been
purchased and will be converted into office spaces resulting in a loss
of 32 parking spaces.
Spangler said that he believes putting a plan in place• is a simple
issue.
Dunn returned that as it gets closer to May, the City will work with
the BIA to take plan to City Council for final approval.
Statler suggested it is best to move the building on Pacific Street and
use it for short term surface parking.
McCluskey noted that once the City acquires a site with a building,
it's typical to be approached by non profits who want to lease the
property for a $1 a year. Debated the value of putting money into
upgrading for this purpose.
McCluskey also recounted conditions surrounding purchase of
property at Nipomo and Palm--he and Dunn saw the property for
sale, spoke with Opalewski and Ken Hampian, assistant CAO, and
agreed it was in keeping with Downtown Physical Concept Plan.
Contacted parking committee for their input, parking committee
stated that it was concerned about using $ for the project if it would
affect moving forward with the 3rd parking structure site; the City
offered positive feedback that enough money was available for both
options. Then, because it was general knowledge that the City was
interested in the property, it was more difficult to negotiate a lower
price however; a lower price was secured on the second property.
The existing house has been sold and it will be relocated. The metal
s
shed will be used by the fire department to house an antique engine
that is going to be restored. No plans for the site for two years. This
property could be used to expand the adjacent surface lot (as a pass
or metered lot)--looking to today's committee meeting to establish
this as a priority.
Porter inquired why the property will be vacant for two years.
McCluskey responded that it depends on the direction obtained--
currently the City has a full plate including determining and
purchasing 3rd site and upcoming MSPS expansion. Need to use
available $ for this first. If Nipomo/Palm is determined to be of
higher priority then that could change. Nipomo and Palm was a
fortuitous situation--the City has a history of not taking advantage of
imminent domain--and these properties just. happened to come
available.
Spangler stated that this priority is probably 6th or 7th on the list.
While Spangler stated he was upset that the 2nd site was purchased
without communicating with the parking committee, he said he
believed it was the appropriate decision and he also believes
finances are available to go ahead with short term plans.
Dunn informed group that parking committe members Rademaker
and Schwartz were involved in originating the current Downtown
plan and that this property was a key parcel in that plan.
Rademaker added that the Nipomo site could be incoming producing
in the short term--can the parking fund afford to allocate it?
Statler moved on to item 3 re public art mural on Palm Street
Parking Structure (PSPS). When the structure was approved it was
contingent on having a public art project on the site. To fasttrack the
parking structure, $10,000 was allocated and the entire process was
followed to procure the art except that the Cultural Heritage
Committee did not approve the palm tree as it did not appear to fit in
with the image of Chinatown. The project did not proceed. Now a
project has been proposed that meets all the criteria and it is the
finance director's recommendation to remain consistent with the
previously approved funding plan.
Spangler said that enterprise parking fund dollars should be used for
parking only. In 1991, the parking fund was in the red, the
r
committee advised changes and we have pulled out of it. Also, it was
his understanding that 1% of public project monies was designated
for public art.
Statler agreed that any construction projects by the City are built to
SLO concepts and structures need design components.
Rademaker reminded that the PSPS has a zero setback and any
public art on the structure should be removeable.
Dunn offered that the parking committee will be given an
opportunity to look at this--hopefully the BIA and City will have a
single recommendation.
Spangler said the parking committee has not had a chance to address
this but is probably not opposed to it--it's a matter of timing--the
perception is that if we have money for art, why don't we have
money to move forward with parking?
Rademaker made a motion to approve $10,000 for funding of public
art project on PSPS from parking fund; Law seconded.
Discussion followed--Copeland stated he thinks priorities need to be
discussed.
Spangler stated that the parking committee is a fault for failing to
state specific wants and needs to the city council--priorities have not
been established--there's no long range vision and now we're
piecemealing together. He said if money is available for public art in
the general fund, then it could be completed without parking fund
money.
Further discussion indicated that public art should not be priority in
this meeting.
Statler said that sometimes you need to put lower priority items first
and deal with them to leave more discussion for other issues.
Public art funding vote: 2 in favor, 2 against, 1 abstention. Did not
pass; will be readdressed at next meeting.
Item 4. Statler discussed that there is frustration regarding the
development of a third parking site but the City is on time with its
r
plan. Wells Fargo site looks like a possiblity but this decision has not
been made.
Item 8. Major sources of revenue--meters
parking fines
structures
interest on investments
in lieu fees
leases
Statler indicated that debt service has been reduced but the City
does not have to change basic financing structure to accomplish goals.
Porter asked if the Downtown could be more meter friendly on the
streets and charge more in the structures?
Statler responded that he does not recommend changing the
financing structure but goals need to be accomplished first.
Dunn explained that the financing structure can be changed; however
it is a lengthy exercise and there is a constituency in the community
for the 1 and 1/2 hr free parking as established. If meters go, there
needs to be a couple of conditions which will be discussed later.
Spangler said that parking structures don't pay for themselves.
CityBIA needs to look at long time financing in the near future
because there's only two other sources of income meters and fines.
Statler said it's not a perfect system but it has generated resources
for 2 addt'l projects without looking for outside money. 6.8 million
dollars is available for improvements.
Item 8. Enterprise fund. Statler reminded that parking revenue
goes straight into parking. The general fund does not subsidize the
.parking fund.
Dunn said that there is no borrowing between various funds.
Regarding future parking improvements, the City has a strong .
commitment to parking fund general health and meeting current
obligations. There is an ongoing process of reviewing all enterprise
funds with a 4 year snapshot. How to finance parking is something
the City takes seriously.
J
Dunn's 5-legged stool: customers, property developers, City/Co
equity contributions, property owners. San Luis Obispo is different
from many other cities--sometimes we're more like a one-legged
stool. Dunn indicated that we can go through the next stage on
present financing but this is a clarion call to take the burden off the
customer and share the burden among the other interested parties.
Proposing assessments on property owners/developers hasn't
worked in the past however; in the longt term, a fairer plan is
needed. It is possible to remove meters if revenue is replaced by
gov't, property owners and merchants.
Spangler discussed that an enterprise fund pays for itself and will
eventually create money for the City when parking caps out. Will
have a cash cow.
Dunn responded that when the debt is paid off and money is still
coming in--it will be more than 30 years from now.
Spangler said the City ultimately becomes the benefactor.
Statler replied that the gov't runs the operation because private
business won't--it's not a moneymaker. Rates should be able to come
down.
Dunn then stated that as a practical matter, no one in this town
wants to change the customer supported operation, but ultimately a
more equitable system needs to be devised.
Rademaker said existing businesses pay less than new businesses.
Spangler stated that there's no future in an in-lieu fee program and
asked when the enterprise fund was established?
Dunn responded that it was approximately 25 years ago by Ken
Schwartz for sewer and water--a necessary step.
Item 11. Spangler asked that the City assist the BIA in protecting
parking funds.
Future agenda item: Discuss long term parking meter removal. Need
to move forward with projects with current financing.
J
Item 13. McCluskey stated that action 4.4 requires a study for the
3rd parking site (jumping to items 5 & 6). The City did decide (when
it adopted the current budget) that a study will be done to show
where to establish the site. Then another meeting will direct
negotiating--knowing the process could take 1 and 1/2 years of
negotiations--to actually purchase. City has a history of not using
eminent domain and negotiates instead. City needs an appraisal but
there are certain time lines that drive ability to move fast. City/Co.
agreed not to use a consultant for study and do this in-house instead.
Focus is to do the study to determine where 3rd site should be.
Items 15-17: Spangler said a possible solution would be to build
surplus parking--if parking were turned over to private enterprise it
would become a creative process. Parking fund also needs to be
compensated for any removed spaces. There needs to be a long term
plan for existing surface lots.
Item #5. Dunn said the most prudent thing for the City is to expand
the MSPS and purchase the Wells Fargo parking lot. (This second
item not a short term structure but perhaps in 5 - 7 years). A
minimal analysis of supply and demand is necessary as well.
Spangler stated that when the documents (of today's session) are
reviewed, they all need to lead us back to the above comment by
Dunn. If not, we have not furthered the process. Our number one
priority is to expand MSPS.
McCluskey added that the study is going to say a 3rd site is acquiring
the lot in back of the post office and SLO Med site; then 4th is Wells
Fargo. If the parking committee calls the MSPS expansion the 3rd
site, it will kill two birds with one stone.
To fast track, it is also recommended to eliminate all studies of
circulation and amend CIP to include expansion of MSPS.
Statler recommended not subordinating efforts to expand with
purchasing.
Frasier indicated he sees two potential killers to moving forward--
EIR and purchasing property you can't use.
Spangler's straw poll: Is appropriate new location/additional location
MSPS?
Yes votes: 17 Nay votes: 0
Spangler congratulated the group. on a consensus.
Holley indicated she would address remaining agenda items at next
meeting.
Meeting adjourned 10:45 AW
Prepared uy ; Holley 10/16/95
mttlift A6tNDA
DATE �7- ITEM # S
oc� /� -
cit ® SA1 tuiS OBIS O
� pOFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 • 8051781-7119
October 5, 1995
Peter Terhune, President
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION BOARD
1026 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Peter:
I am meeting with Mike Spangler this week relative to parking information. I would also like
you to know that staff is working on the parking concerns and will still be in the process of
completing their analysis when the October 17th City Council meeting occurs.
Therefore, in lieu of a staff report, on October 17th, the CAO intends to provide the Council
with a verbal report concerning the progress made at the October 12th meeting. You are also
welcome to provide a similar verbal report to Council. The CAO will also ask the Council to
schedule a future joint study session between the Council and BIA, pursuant to your letter of
October 4th (which will be included in the agenda packet).
I hope you are satisfied with this approach. Hopefully, it responds to your request, given the
scope of the issues, the status of our analysis, and the process we follow to schedule matters
before the City Council.
If you have any questions, please call on me or John Dunn.
Sincerely, j
Allen K. Settle
Mayor
AKS:KH:ss
c: City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Deborah Holley, BIA Administrator
Kim-Condoa, Acting City Clerk
The City of San Luig Obispo is committed to Include the disabled in all of Its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunicatiorjs Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. ��