HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1996, 5 - APPEAL OF TAXI DRIVER'S PERMIT I���II��I��I�IIIIIIIIIII�IIIVIII city r "'Ap"riI''o san tins oBispo Apf, 1996
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM NUMBER:
FROM: James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Appeal of Taxi Driver's Permit
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution denying appeal and upholding the decision of the Chief of Police.
DLSCUSSION:
On January 3, 1996, Mr. William Charry was denied a taxi driver's permit from Captain
Chelquist. The basis for this denial included the failure to report the full extent of his arrest
record and a continuing history of use of illegal drugs. In denying the permit, Captain
Chelquist acknowledged Mr. Charry's intent to work on his substance abuse problem and
indicated his willingness to review his decision in a year.
On January 24, 1996, Mr. Charry appealed Captain Chelquist's decision to the Chief of
Police. The basis for his appeal was he was changing his life style, he was serving weekends
for his most recent conviction, he was employed by "Ride-on," and he had misunderstood the
application and had not intended to leave out information. During the course of the
interview, Mr_ Charry stated he had not used an illegal substance since his arrest
approximately 18 months prior. Even after being asked the question again, Mr. Charry
adamantly stated he had not used an illegal substance since that arrest. In fact, just six
months prior,Police Department records show that staff at French Hospital called for officers
to respond to assist in controlling Mr. Charry in the emergency room. At that time, Mr.
Charry stated he had been using methamphetamine. This was corroborated at the hospital
by a female acquaintance of Mr. Charry. After reflecting for some time, Mr. Charry
acknowledged this incident. He stated he had "forgotten" the incident.
i
Based on Captain Chelquist's information, Mr. Charry's demonstrated lack of candor, and an
apparent on-going problem with substance abuse, I felt that providing a permit to Mr. Chary
could jeopardize public safety and would subject the City to liability. Therefore, after a
thorough review and consideration of all information, on February 22, 1996, 1 affirmed
Captain Chelquist's decision and denied the permit.
Since this denial, Mr. Charry has been stopped twice by members of the Police Department.
Once was for driving a cab without a permit. The second involved driving without a valid
license. Charges have been filed against him in both cases and are pending in Municipal
Court.
' r/
"11111III1111i�1► MY of San Luis OBISPO
Owme COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CONCLUSION:
Mr. Charry's actions and statements do not lend credibility to his stated intent to improve his
life. Until such time that he demonstrates a longer term commitment to abide by codified
laws and refrain from substance abuse, it is recommended that he be denied a taxi driver's
permit.
Attachments
1. Draft resolutions
2. Appeal by William Charry
3. Letter from Capt. Chelquist dated January 3, 1996
4. Letter from Chief Gardiner dated February 22, 1996
5. Memo from Officer Parkinson dated January 27, 1996
6. Copy of Crime Report DR# 96045018
7. Memo from Officer Kevany dated March 20, 1996
i
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF
POLICE TO DENY A TAXI DRIVER'S PERMIT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Council after consideration of the appellants's statement,
the determination of the Chief of Police, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes
the following findings:
1. William Chary failed to disclose the full extent of his arrest record on his taxi
driver's permit application.
2. William Charry has been convicted for being under the influence of a
controlled substance and was untruthful regarding such use during his appeal
of Captain Chelquist's decision to deny his taxi driver's permit application.
3. Despite assurances to the contrary, based on William Charry's lack of candor
in multiple conversations and his possible racidivism, he cannot be trusted to
refrain from similar activities in the future.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the decision of the Chief of Police to deny a taxi
driver's permit to William Charry is hereby denied.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1996.
ATTEST: MAYOR ALLEN K. SETTLE
ACTING CITY CLERK KIM CONDON
,3 3
Resolution No..
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
- - A _ - - _FF.JORGENSEN .
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO
DENY A TAXI DRIVER'S PERMIT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION.1. Findings. The Council after consideration of the appellants's statement,
the determination of the Chief of Police, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes
the following finding: �/�
W 01
-017
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the decision of the Chief of Police to deny a taxi
driver's permit to William Charry is hereby upheld and staff is directed to issue the taxi
driver's permit.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1996.
ATTEST: MAYOR ALLEN K. SETTLE
ACTING CITY CLERK KIM CONDON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CTTY ATTORNEY JEFF JORGENSEN
�����►���ia��ll►IIIII�IIIII�1°"""u� tuis cit o san o
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of .
Police Chief rendered on 2/22/96
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
(See Attached)
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: _Guillermo Charry P.O. Box 15526' SLO 93406
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
547-0428
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED
Jim Gardiner, Police Chief
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
MAIC 11496
Harry Watson, Transit Manager
Q1TV GLEFIK.. _..
Original in City Clerk's Office
SAN Wis OB1sA0,eA
GUILLERMO CHARRY
EIV I D
P.O.BOX 15526
S.L.O. , CA. , 93406
MAR 1 1"6
To;CountyCity Clerk
San Luis Obispo, Ca CliveLFRK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
On Feb, 19, 1996 I paid $116.00 to S. L.O. , P.D. to obtain a taxi permit.
I interviewed with Captain Chelquist the following day. At the interview
I willingly and truthfully informed the Captain of my previos drug problem
but that I was now clean enough time that I was confident enough to continue
on with my life drug-free . I informed him that I had sought treatment on my
own and the problem was under control . The Captain then asked what country I
was from. I told him I was Colombian. He then replied that I had more than
likely committed drug related crimes which I hadn;t been caught for. I denied
it. But he wen' t ahead and tried and convicted me in his own mind. He further
when to state that "why wasn' t I out selling cocaine like all the other
Colombians . -
He informed that he was denying my permit because he felt I needed
further rehabilitation. The Captain is not a therapist, liscensed counselor, or
doctor to make such a decision. He had alterior .motives !
I then asked him for an appeal and who I would appeal to. He informed
me that I could appeal to the city council but assured me that I would be
wasting my time because the council would back him up regardless of what I said.
The Captain should allow the council to voice their opionlon!
Well I ' m convinced that the Captain did not wan't me to go to the city
.. ancil because at the time of our interview, I informed him that I had recieved
a 90 day sentence for my under the influence arrst on Aug/94 . My sentence was to
begin Jan 2/1996. Thus Captain Chelquist in a timely fashion didn 't send me his
decision in writing until Jan 3, 1996 thinking that on this date I ' d be in county
jail serving a 90 day sentence making:lit impossible for me to appeal his decisio/
But the Captain didn' t know that I had returned to court to ask Judge
Umhufer about letting me serve out my time on weekends so THAT I MAY WORKI I
was granted the request but even though I told the judge that I may driving a
taxi for which he granted me weekends so that I may work, the S.LO. P. D are
using my weekened sentence as pretext not to give me a permit. To this I say
taht if Judge Umhofer doesn't have a problem with me driving a cab why should
they?-.
When I recieved the captain 's decision in the mail, I went to cit*. hall
to inquire about myt right to appeal since the Captain did not send me the infor
mastion like he was s4pposed to! City hall Informed me that I would first have t
to appeal to the Captain ' s boss Chief GARDINER.
At the interview with Chief Gardinee, he asked me when my last arrest was
and i told him Aug/94 . He then asked if I ' d had any furhter arrest I said no.
He proceeded to tell me That I had had a hospital visit relatin drugs and becaus
I din 't inform him of this hospital visit I was lying and he wag"cherfoie ayayin
my permit.
Hospital visits and medical records are privilged information. I din not few
that I neede to tell him of this. For this minute reason he is th denying me
y permit. No ! He is trying to blow smoke over the Captain ' s discrimination! !
S-7
When I complained to %,Chief Gardiner about the Captain ' s discriminatory
remarks he simply ignored me.
It' s only obvious that I 'm being discriminated against. !
What further
es tfiis so obvious is that up to 2 weeksm ago there was A
PERMITTED Sxo taxi`"}'i��river working in SLO. He was giving a permit knowing that
he was an X-convict on parole. Well this driver ' s parole has since been revoked
and is currently inthe county jail under isolation because he is considered a
threat to himself and other ' s ! And this man was issued a permit?????
Furthermore since the Chief informed me that he was Concerned about me
getting hingh and driving a taxi, I OFFERED TO TEST FOR HIM BI WEEKLY AND
I WOULD PAY FOR THE TESTING_HE STILL REBUSED. This indicates alterior motives for'
denying my permit.
IN ADDITION 2 weeks ago Officer Carrasco Of tha SLO, P.D. called the owner o-or-
yellow cab and statesd ' Mr. Romero if you knew what we know about guillermo char'
you would not hire him. ' THIS ACTION IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR SLO, P. D. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
In summary let me state that I AM DRUG FREE! ! ! I feel that I should be
granted a permit I do not pose a threat to society. I have been a driver for
RIDE ON without incident. I also have a truck-a liscence. And most important of
all IHAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR BEING A COLOMBIAN NATIONAL.
I SIGN UNDER PENALTY OF PERGURY THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATIOr)
IS TRUE!
���II��IIUll�llf��l 111111lllllll�
1lflllll �
t
cityof san lues OBlspo
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box,1328 •San Luis Obispo.CA 93406-1328 • (805) 781-7317
January 3, 1996
William Charry
61 N. Broad St., # 319
San Luis Obispo CA. 93405
Dear Mr. Charry:
Your application for a Taxi Driver's Permit is being denied on the following grounds:
1. Failure to note on your application the full extent of your arrest record. A brief check
of just our department files indicates that you have been arrested on at least two
occasions that you did not list. One of these arrests was for lying about your identity
to avoid being taken into custody for outstanding warrants.
2. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
3. Conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Of particular note
is the fact that you have yet to begin the 90 day sentence that was ordered by the
court.
During our conversations you advised me that you had gone through a period in your life
during which you were addicted to cocaine and "crank." You told me that you had since
participated in a program through Mental Health to deal with the addiction and that you are
now clean.
While the above listed reasons justify the denial of your request, I am impressed with what
appears to be a deep desire on your part to stay clean and get on with your life. As you
appear to be making a real effort to deal with your drug problems, I will entertain a request
for a Taxi Driver's Permit one year from now, providing there is no evidence of your
involvement in drug related activities.
ce
Captain Cliff Chelquist
Administrative-Bureau Comm der
"Service, Pride, Integrity"
(� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Q
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410 3�/
�I
c4 of san luis 0131spo
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1328 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406.1328 •(805) 781-7317
February 22, 1996
William Charry
61 N. Broad St., #319
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear Mr. Charry,
On 1-24-96 you met with me to appeal your denial of a taxi drivers permit by Capt. Chelquist.
The reasons for that denial were contained in a letter which you have already received. In
summary, you stated that I should grant you the permit because:
1) That you were changing your life style.
2) That you were serving weekends in the County Jail.
3) That you were currently employed by Ride-on.
4) That the reason you failed to fill out your application correctly was that you
didn't understand the necessity to identify all arrests.
Additionally, in your discussions with Capt. Chelquist, you stated that you had participated in
a program for addiction and that you were now "clean".
In light of the above information and your statements to me, I asked you, "When was the last
time you used a controlled substance?" You stated that it was at the time you were arrested
approximately 18 months ago. I again asked you specifically, "When was the last time you used
methamphetamine?" You again replied that it had been at the time of your arrest 18 months
ago.
At this point I asked you if you. recalled talking to a police officer at French Hospital
approximately 6 months prior. You initially stated that you couldn't remember. I then asked
you if you remembered punching a wall at the hospital. You then stated that you vaguely
remembered the incident. I then asked you if you remembered telling the officer that you had
taken methamphetamine. You stated that you thought you did. The young woman with you
then reminded you that the incident had in fact occurred.
"Service, Pride, Integrity"
nThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
In fact members of this Department did respond to a request for assistance from French Hospital
personnel on June 8, 1995 at 10:29 p.m. You were out of control and had punched a hole in
the wall of the emergency room. You told responding officers that you had been using
methamphetamine and that you had been awake for three days. This was confirmed by the
young woman with you at that time.
The doctor in the emergency room stated that you were being treated for an overdose of a
controlled substance. Due to your extreme agitation and the amount of medication which you
had been administered to counteract the overdose, the emergency room physicians could not
release you for arrest into the custody of our officers.
Additionally, on February 15, 1996 you were contacted by officers of this Department. At that
time you were driving a Yellow Cab and were picking up a person at Signatures bar. You
indicated to the officer that you were licensed in Grover Beach and you were picking up this
person to transport him to the Five Cities area. In fact, the fare reported that he was asking for
transportation to a location within the City of San Luis Obispo. When you were confronted with
this information, you did not deny it. .This is another indication of your lack of truthfulness and
a willingness to violate the law. This will be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and
possible prosecution.
Therefore, based on the above information, I am affirming Capt. Chelquist's denial of your
permit. Your convictions and self admitted use of narcotics clearly constitute grounds which
would make you ineligible to retain a permit if one were issued. It is clear that you were not
truthful about your use of controlled substances and I question whether or not you can be trusted
to refrain from their use in the future.
It is your right to appeal my decision under Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code. You have ten calendar days from the date of this letter to file your appeal in writing with
the City Clerk. Please be advised that this appeal is a public process in:which all material on
which this decision is based may be entered into the record.
Sincerely,
AMES M. GARDINER
CHIEF OF POLICE
JMG:jsb
.S'l
MEMORANDUM
To: Captain Chelquist
From: Officer Parkinson
Date: January 27, 1996
Subject: Contact with William Chang
Following are the details of a contact this Department had with William Charry on 06-08-95.
Sergeant Hubbard, Officer Griffith, and I were dispatched to French Hospital at
approximately 2229 hours regarding an out of control male subject under the influence of a
controlled substance. Upon arrival, I identified that subject as Charry. Charry had punched
a hole in the wall of the emergency room. I contacted the emergency room doctor who
stated that Chary was being treated for an overdose of a controlled substance. The
emergency room staff were unable to control Charry due to his inability to sit still and, at
times, violent behavior. I examined Charry and immediately noted he had dilated pupils,
even though he had already been given medication to counter the effects of the substance.
Chary was extremely hyperactive and paranoid. He would often jump up and flail his arms
around, thereby necessitating the use of soft restraints. Chary admitted to me, in the
presence of Sergeant Hubbard,that he had been using methamphetamine and had been awake
for the last three days.
I interviewed Charry's girlfriend,whom I did not identify,who also admitted Charry had been
using methamphetamine. I concluded, based on his physical symptoms and admissions, that
Chary was under the influence of a controlled substance.
Because of Charry's condition, the emergency room doctor would not release Chary to my
custody for the violation of being under the influence of a controlled substance. Considering
the possibility of potential medical problems, and the fact that Chary had already been given
medication which might interfere with a chemical test, I decided to allow the hospital to
handle the situation and not pursue criminal charges. Prior to leaving, the doctor gave a
second injection of medication which put Charry to sleep.
.,51�
CRIME REPORT
SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
DR## 96045018
Report Date: 02-15-96 Report ID# 9615434 .A33561 IN## 9615434
Date Time
SECTION OFFENSE DESCRIPTION OCC.ON: 02-14-96 23 :50
CO MISC CITY ORDINANCES or BTWN:
REPORTED: 02-1(4)-96 23 :50
FELONY ( ) MISDEMEANOR (X) TYPE OFELD XREPOIT ( } OFFICPHONE ( )
CONNECTING REPORTS: N
DETAILS OF CRIME
MO: DRIVES VEHICLE
Motive: EARN MONEY
Location: PARKER AND HIGH
Type Premises: BAR
Type Property:
Veh used by S/ :YELLOW CAB
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE INVOLVED
CODE: V=Vict, W=Wit, C=Comp, P=Parent, G=Guardian, SUB=Subj , S=Susp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code: W Name: BRITTIN, ROB DOB: DL#
Addr: RT 422 CSZ: SLO
Aqe: Sex: Race: HP: ( ) 541-5676 WP: -
s : Hair: Wt: Ht:
ah/Other:
Emp: AKA:
Code: S Name: CHARRY, GUILLERMO DOB: 03-03-64 DL# :C2471349
Addr:. 60 BROAD #319 CSZ: SLO, CA 93401
Age: 31 Sex: M Race: H HP: ( ) 547-0428 WP:
Eyes: BR Hair: BR Wt: 175 Ht: 5-11
EmP=p/Other: YELLOW CAB AKA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Details can be found on a Continuation Sheet attached to this report.
Supervisor ID# Reporting Officer(s) ID# Assmt. Rep. Off. Signature
English, James H. 33561 P
---------------------- --- - -------------
Assigned to� -
ID# Assmt� Date/Time Processed by iv Clk
-
02-15-96 00:16 ---= - -----------
�, Normal Distribution [] Complaint Request
DISPOSITION: Exception Arrest Unfounded Active Inactive
OTHER COPIES or ACTION REQUESTED
S-/3
SAN LUIS OBISPO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PROMIS WITNESS LIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CASE #: 96045018 D.A. #
------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES
NAME: English, James H. SLOPD 33561
NAME: Dunn, Gregg H. SLOPD 31885
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER WITNESSES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONE
SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
CA0400600
CRIME REPORT
96045018
INVESTIGATION•
Officer G. Dunn & I were on patrol when we observed a Taxi Cab e/b
Madonna from Los Osos Valley Road. The cab appeared to be
speeding. I caught up to the cab at Madonna and 101. I followed
it on Madonna from 101 to Higuera at about 50 MPH. The cab turned
left on Higuera without signalling. It then turned right on South
without signalling. It did signal for the left turn it made on
Parker.
I followed the cab into the parking lot of Signatures Bar. The cab
stopped in front of the door and the driver honked his horn. A
subject came out (later IDed as Rob BRITTIN) . He said he had the
bartender call a cab for him.
I approached the cab driver and recognized him as Guillermo CHARRY.
I knew him from several recent contacts. I knew that he was denied
a cab permit to drive in the City. by Captain Chelquist due to a
history of drug problems. He appealed this action to Chief
Gardiner, and lost the appeal.
In one recent contact, approximately 2 weeks ago, Charry had driven
a cab from Atascadero to SLO, in violation of the City ordinance
that requires taxi drivers to be approved by the City. In that
incident, he gave a ride to a subject, Nadine JACKSON.
I asked CHARRY why he was still driving a cab in the City. He said
it was because he was licensed to drive a cab in the five cities
area, and that this fare (from Signatures) was going to five
cities. I checked with the fare, Mr. BRITTIN. He said he was not
going to five cities, but was going to Buchon and Toro.
I told CHARRY that he could not do any more taxi driving in the
City and did not allow him to give a ride to the fare from
Signatures. I sent him on his way, but advised him that this
matter would be reported, re; violation of the municipal code.
SUMMARY•
Refer this report to the City Attorney for review for a violation
of the Municipal Code by subject, Charry. Refer the report also to
Captain Chelquist for review for administrative action against the
cab company for knowingly permitting a non-permitted cab driver to
operate in the City.
DISPOSITION•
1
SAN' LUIS _OBISPO__POLICE_DEPARTMENT
CA040060.0 -- - -
CRIME REPORT.
960.45018.
Pending.
JHE/je 2-15-96 6005 045018c.jhe :
.2
S/b
GUS. REG Message #330302 (1 of 1) Received at 23:51 on 02-14-96
DATE: 02/14/96 TIME: 23:49
REG VALID FROM: 01/31/96 TO 01/31/97
LICO :4L44148 YRMD:88 MAKE:CHEV BTM :TX VIN : iGIBL5167JR168070
R/O :YELLOW CAE OF SLO, PO RX 629 CITY:OCEANO C. C. :40 ZIR#3:93445
RCID: 11/09/95 OCID: 11/23/95 LOCD:3
TYPE-31 POWR.G AXLE.-2 WGHT:03780 VEH :37 BODY :X CLAS-.Y-)D *--YR.95
REE STATUS:
11/17/1794 RENEWAL NOTICE EXTRACTED
11/15/95 SMOG DUE 01/01/98
01/27/92 ORIGINAL TAXI
CLEARANCE INFORMATION RECORDS:
OFFICE WORN. DATE TECH/ID SECS H VALUE FICHE DATE TTG
67.9 01/27/92 A6 0012 00761. 00 00/00/00 BOO
619 01/19/93 A3 0017 00133. 00 00/00/00 H05
619 01/28/94 22 0004 00125.00 00/00/00 H0;
619 01/25/95 C2 0056 00117. 00 00/00/00 H05
547 11/09/95 08 0071 00131. 00 00/00/00 F00
0'-3/28/1995-ODOh1ETER:. 34, 394 !*TILES ACTUAL MILEAGE
OV. CA0400620. LIC/4L44148
NO HITS
NO NEAR MISS
��►Il�llllllllllllllllf III Illillllilllll
►Illllll a _
I
city of san luis oBispo
SWUNG 111111MISINNON&M
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1328• San Luis Obispo, CA 93408.1328 • (805)781-7317
TO: Chief Jim Gardinerp -
FROM: Officer Colleen Kevany
DATE: March 20, 1996
SUBJECT: Veh stop on Guillermo Charry
On 3/14/96 at about 0930 hours, I heard a general dispatch over
SLOPD radio stating there was going to be a black limousine
operating within the City on this date and that it did not have a
permit to do so. Dispatch advised the information was from an
anonymous source.
On the same date at about 1058 hours, I was n/b on Santa Rosa at
Walnut. While there I saw a black limousine in the #2 lane, also
traveling n/b on Santa Rosa, stopped for the red light at Walnut.
I confirmed with 'dispatch the lic plate of the black limousine that
was supposed to be operating within the City. Dispatch advised the
plate as 3EQP089. I advised that was the limousine in front of me
and I was going to be making a traffic stop on it to the rear of
Jack-in-the-Box on Santa Rosa.
I stopped the limousine as it pulled to the rear of Jack-in-the-Box
and parked in two parking stalls. The driver exited the driver
side door. I motioned him to come back to my police motorcycle.
I told him that he was being stopped because I had information he
was operating the limousine within the City without a permit to do
so. The driver stated that he did not have a fare in the limousine
and that he was just coming to Jack-in-the-Box to get something to
eat. I asked the driver for his driver' s license. He handed me a
paper DMV driver' s license (temporary) that ID'd him as Guillermo
Charry.
I had dispatch run a warrants and driver' s license check on Charry.
They advised that his driver's license was expired as was his
commercial driver's license. I advised Charry of this information
and he stated it was not expired and that DMV had just given him
that paperwork and his license was supposed to be valid. I again
told him that DMV stated it was expired, as did the date of
expiration on the temporary license, which was 3/03/96.
I began to complete a citation, 1438022, for -the expired driver' s
license. While completing the citation, I asked Charry for the
1
3/8"
registration card from the veh. Charry looked in the front
passenger compartment of the limousine and returned to me stating
he could not find the registration card. I looked at the license
plate of the limousine and noted that the month tab had been
scratched off. I asked Charry if he knew what month the
registration expired. Charry responded that he did not know which
month.
I asked dispatch for the registration information and dated
expiration. Dispatch advised the veh expired in April 1996 and
that it was owned by American Limousine out of. Oceano. I added
this information to the citation and advised Charry that he was
going to be cited for the additional two sections. Charry stated
he was not responsible for the limousine or for anything that was
wrong with the registration and that it was the owner' s
responsibility. I advised Charry, that as the driver of the veh,
he is responsible for anything in and about the veh.
I completed the citation for violation of 12500 (a) VC/expired DL,
4454 (a) VC/registration card not in the veh, and 5204 (a) VC/no
current month tab.
Charry signed the promise to appear on the citation and was issued
his copy at this time. I asked if the passenger in the front seat
had a valid CDL and he stated he did. He then returned with the
CDL from the passenger and I confirmed it was valid. I released
the veh to the valid licensed driver.
Prior to Charry leaving the stop, I advised him that he was being
warned of his operation within the City without a permit and that
I was not citing him at this time due to him not having a fare in
the veh. Charry stated he understood the violation. Both subjects
then left the parking lot and went into Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant.
Respectfully submitted,
Officer Colleen Kevany
San Luis Obispo Police Dept
2
POUCE DEPARTMENT—SAN LUIS OBISPO ❑MISDBfr"NOR
NOOOTICE TO.APPEARI� *f Wk e❑Norm M 3 8 0 2 2
Name v
mAnsun°
SDrivart STafe- ClassJVZ
G J
2 H j W Buse ms Addressa7
VeIL Lit Na '// /�w . .
y/ 13C.v.(V.C.15210b)
Yr. mom J ❑ H.M.(V.C.353) . . . .
�0 ❑Sams As Driver - .. . .
Address ❑Sane As Driver
city rdbp
i
i E5gble for Dismissal(V.C.40610) ❑Boakug Required .
9
Yes No V s D seri fon - -
1
0 13
L-
13 13
•i�v
V
'r
❑ ❑ a L P+vii
❑Cont.Fonn Issued
of Slop
LO
WEATHER STREET TRAFFIC Damm ofd ravel
CLEAR W E
FOG ERY EDNM
RAM VY
❑ OFFENSES)NOT COMMITTED M MY PRESENCE CERTIFIED INFORMATION AND BELIEF. -
i 1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT- :• .t .
EXECUTED ON THE DATE SHOWN ABOVE AT SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALF. j. Y.�•'.•:.••. -,:" �y 7;: =.�.'.
ISSUING OFER SERSERIALFICNO '� �•"'•,:.•:_:••..
/-6�
�`
NAMEOFAHKImb ENT FROM ABOVE
°
'3THE TIME AND PLACE CHECKED BELOW
WI THOLIT ADMITTING GUILT I PROMISETO
G .
B AJ ACLEN OF IGPAL CDURT 3
WUNTYGOVERNI@RCENTER ROOM 22o,1oso momfEREY b 5P0,
D COUNTYGOVERNYENT CENTER ROOM 132.10M MONTEREY .SAN OBISPO.CA 00 ..
❑JUVENILE COURT MUST BRING PARENT O
jUVEMLESEWCES CENTER HIGHWAY ONE AMT KAJISAS AVEI&& LWB OBISPO.CA .
TIMY
T
W M N . :L
Form appwd Byer bu wecimdorCsowis
Rev.11-20-OD V.C.AM00(e).Nm (e).1s4=PA a53.9SEE REVERSE SIDE
POOR RICHARD'S PRESS a5 . .
RPR- 2-96 TUE 17 :48 VINTAGE PROPERTIES 8055446593 P. 01
t
MEET AGENDA �
INTAGEDATE 6 STEM #,
P R O P E R T I E S
!J Ir COUNCIL CGU GIR
April 2, 1996 JPCAO
�CiAO ❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF f
ATTORNEY @'1SW DIR
Q'CLERIQORIC ❑ POLICE CHF
To the Members of the City Council ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REG DIR
City of San Luis Obispo, California °�R D TILE ❑ Ur.L DIR ;�
VIA FAX 781-7109 ❑ VERS DIR
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to comment on Agenda Item 1 of the Public Hearing portion of the
Council Agenda for Tuesday, April 2, 1996. Our firm is strongly in favor of
expanding the Marsh Street parking structure in the most expedient way possible.
We support the rationale that as an expansion of an existing facility, that it should
not be.subject to further study requirements under Program 12.7.
The downtown is experiencing accelerated demand for parking, mainly due to the
fact that the downtown is experiencing an economic revival. Projects like, the
downtown center are drawing new retail customers to the downtown. Also, from
our perspective, we see an increased demand for downtown office space, and a
greater utilization of existing office space product. Simply put, there are more
shoppers and more people working downtown than ever before.
We need to increase the amount of available parking downtown as quickly as
possible.
Sin ely,
11�
AI McVay
VINTAGE PROPERTIES
RECEIVED
APR 2 1996
CITY COUNCIL
SAN nPISPO CA
{ Pnct rlffro Rrn 1A>10 . 47q rlcns Street. Suite B-2 - San Luis Obispo, California 93406 • 8051544.6529
S.A � Luis. Ob,�p0 Council. Of governments
Arrovo Grande
Regional Transportation Planning Agency G tascadero
Metropolitan Planning Organization moer Beach
Olay
Paw Robles
Congestion Management Agency San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo Counh
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ;r-P6 ITEM #
April 2, 1.996,.
Allen Settle,_ Mayor
The City of:San Luis Obispo
.. 990 Palni. Street
San Luis. Obispo,.CA.93401.-3249
Rd::, ,Parking Issues; Agenda Item #1, Support for the Downtown Access and Parking. Study
,Dear. Mayor:Settle and Councilmembers:
As the Re gional.Teansportation Planning Agency and Congestion Management Agency, we have
participated in the ad hoc committee meetings comprised of business community and alternative
transportation representatives fo .develop the scope of.work for the Downtown Access and
Parkinq Studv..::.We.support the.sggpe of work and believe. the study should move forward
...regardless of which option is pursued.for the development of additional parking facilities..
The.Council of Governments.supports a balanced multimodal transportation system which is both
economically beneficial and environmentally sound. While it is important to meet the parking
needs inthe Central'Business District, it is also important to make measurable progress towards.
.,the modal shift goals.identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
We support the study because it will: identify how to.better incentivize, parking, determine where
to shift contract lots to metered lots, determine the role of transportation.alternatives (bicycle,
transit, shuttle)that'should.be considered to improve mobility and access. . Which ever policy
alternative is selected by your Council tonight, we support the approval of the Downtown Access
and Parking Study.
::Please do not.hesitate to contact.me if you should have;questions or concerns.
Sincerely,., .
Ronald L. De Carli
Execu ' e Director ...
ti COUNCIL Td CDD DIR
VCAO ❑ FIN DIR
Pe er,Rodgeis TAO. ❑ PWFIRDiR CHIEF
Associate:Transportation Planner - l�TTOANEY C�PW DIR
® .. LERKIORIG - 11 POLICE CHF
y ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR.
APR 2:.1996 ; 0/CE iLE. ❑ UTILDIR.
i'�1 ,
O PERS DI
CITY CLERK• O a
SAN LUIS OS1SPO.CA
1150 Osos St..Suite"202;Saii Luis Obispo, CA 934014 Tel. (805)781-4219 Fax. (805) 751-5703
BUSINESS IMPROV ASSOC TEL :805-781-2647 Apr 02 96 13 :07 No .004 P .01
c
MEETIN,� AGENDA
DATE '2- f 4 ITEM #
2 April 1996
To: Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members
From: Deborah Holley,Administrator
Re: The RIA would like to offer the following as its position on the proposal
recommended by Allen Settle on 29 March:
Motion:
I. The Council will retain the General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7
wording without change. The Council hereby determines that the processing of the phase
two expansion of the Marsh Street Facility, and the Wells Fargo surface lot acquisition are
consistent with Program 12.7 because Program 12.7 is permissive and is intended to apply
to new free standing parking structures.
2. Direct staff to proceed on the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion project and
the Wells Fargo lot(acquisition only), with property negotiations,all remaining design
work, EIR update, and hiring a project manager. Approptiatc $720,000 from the Parking
Fund as follows: Purchase the San Luis Medical Clinic parking lot and the rear portion of
the Post Office property or acquire air rights($450,000); Final Architectural Designs
($40,000); and ($225,((x)) for plans and specifications; and Project Manager
3. Approve the Scope of Work(Exhibit B) and authorize the distribution of Request
,for Proposals (RFPs) for a Downtown Parking and Alternative Transportation Study
which includes analysis of utilization of existing parking,alternative transportation options,
and Downtown access with funding as recommended by staff tc> be completed within one
year of today's date.
J�COUNCIt.
f O�q0j ur
P—ACAO 0 F1N DIF?
Q'kT'rORNEY 0 FIRE CHIEF
ERlG �W DIR
O C R kGkr rEgM 0 REC EC
RECEIVED
ED
� wo F,t E Dl
urr�DAPR `L 1996
o 1R RC
0 PaRs Dip
SAN I ITY c0glca0 CA
I!O./!nz 1?02•�'un t.ie ghi.apn•L"A•JiAOG•k05/i4!•02RA t rhr BnSnxl.2Gd7•e-u,na:h;aFrluurr.nrg
___... .. _..-___ ...._�.. '^r'_:. __ -..._. ... y._..��-may.';, ._ ...- _- ._... '• ..--s�-..-__..... --=---._. .
MEETING AGENDA
ITEM #
.,. RQN
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
April 02, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn.: Mayor and City Council
Re: Financing of Parking and Access Study
We want to express our objection to the use of General Fund revenues to pay for the Downtown
Parking and Access Study. This study would require $96,000 with $48000 from the Parking fund
and $48000 from the General Fund. The General Funds are the major source of money for a host
of citywide activities that are currently limited because of a lack of funds, including neighborhood
services. We are concerned about the depletion of this Fund and a further limiting of city services
in order to cover the cost of an enterprise activity that should be paid for by enterprise funds.
The need to protect the General Fund is especially urgent in light of the staff report's statement
that "The General Fund, as discussed at the mid-year budget review, has an impending shortage if
present trends are projected."
Thank you for your attention,
Larry Allen Batcheldor
Secretary
`�UNCIL CDJ UIR
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
PJ4CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Ur
C ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM D REC DIR RECEIVED
1 ❑ C READ RLE ❑ UTIL DiR APR 1 1996
` �� ❑ PERS DIR
�� I• SANCITY COUNCIL,C-A
TRiAN IwEsl-I4ENTS, :INC. MEETING - AGENDA
DATE
_ fie ITEM #
w POLINCIL
April 1, 1996 ;_ a ca c;R '
I�/CAO ❑ FIN DIR
>!J ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
EATTORNEY
B'5WDIA
Mayor Settle and Members �0 °RIG c] POLICE CHF.i
of the City Council ❑ MGMT TE4M ❑ REC DIR
❑ READ FILE
City of San Luis Obispo �/y�,,. C1 UT1L DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 —_" � ❑ PERSDIR- -- �— .
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the Council:
My family and I support the position of the Downtown BIA with
respect to the immediate expansion of the Marsh Street Garage. As
owners of two downtown business and several major pieces of real
estate located in the downtown core, we constantly are confronted
with the inadequate, inefficient and inconvenient parking
arrangements in the central downtown.
The City's Downtown Plan and Land Use Element allude to the special
quality of the Downtown, not only as a historic and traditional hub of
the County and environs, but also as essential to fulfilling the goal of
developing SLO in a Compact Urban Form. The Downtown is a critical
part of this goal to control urban sprawl and help maintain the rural
character of the lands surrounding the City.
The proposal to expedite the expansion of the Marsh garage.seems to
have raised the discussion beyond the expansion of the garage into a
much bigger debate over mf-the car as opposed to alternative
transportation.
In this debate, some urge increased use of mass transit, i.e. 40 plus
,passenger buses. Others favor increased bike use. While still others
push an increased emphasis on car pooling and restrictions on
parking. When the discussion is about alternatives, it seems that the
alternatives are always restricted to big buses or bikes. Meanwhile,
other communities have broadened the discussion to include an
expanded list of alternatives.
Some communities.have decided that government should lead by
example and have elected to test alternative parking programs on
570 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781.3838 FAX (805) 544.2742
government employees first, before making imposing restrictions on
a wary public. Some local residents have asked, how many of the
parking spaces in downtown are reserved for government
employees?
Why must government always view situations dealing with parking,
the car or alternative transportation, as either/or and not all of the
above. I believe that nearly all merchants, property owners and
visitors to the Downtown will say a hearty yes to an expanded range
of alternatives. Because these efforts will enhance the success of the
downtown and add vigor to programs to build on the potential of the
downtown.
But, these measures are notan alternative to providing the
additional parking in this location that is sorely needed. The
alternatives merely expand the mix and increase opportunities to use
the Downtown.
San Luis Obispo is a community that has an environmental
conscience. Politically, It can be very appealing to experiment with
policies that force social change, without assessing or addressing any
of the consequences if the changes do not work. This is particularly
risky when dealing with the car and parking, for you are dealing
with an issue that is at the core of peoples definition of personal
freedom. Particularly risky when the Council stands to alienate a
large portion of the population for questionable social gain; a no on
the.garage expansion.
Very sensitive and concerned people can act totally out of character,
when actions are taken that impact that individuals freedom to
travel at will. Convenience is a key factor, especially in a county not
faced with traffic congestion. Alternative transit is not convenient,
nor adquate to meet the needs of an active populace or workforce
functioning in the regions urban center, the downtown.
I believe that the City has three major goals it wishes to accomplish.
It wants to contain growth to the Urban Core and preserve the areas
outside the urban reserve line. It wants to reduce car trips and with
it the pollution that is created and it wants the downtown to fulfill its
destiny as the heart of the City. Deferring the expansion of one
garage will not make a difference. If the Council wants to make a
difference, then it needs to think Big and BOLD.
Craig Anderson, in his recent article in New Times used an aerial
photo of the downtown to show how much downtown ground area is
utilized for parking. Craig believed that he was making the point
that too much land area is wasted serving the auto. I believe that he
proved that the City has an underutilized resource in its downtown
core, ground level parking lots that could continue serving the auto
and through the imaginative use of air rights, be used to support the
development of new housing. City owned parking areas could
provide desperately needed affordable housing and privately owned
parcels, housing for singles and mature couples.
What a great benefit. Streets, utilities and other public services
already in place. More people living in the heart of the commercial,
governmental, retail and service center that is downtown SLO. An
expanded use of the downtown in evenings and weekends. New tax
revenue, increased social and business activity, decreased crime and
a reduced dependence on,the auto and increased use of alternatives,
including mass transit. Just what the supporters of alternatives want.
This is an opportunity for the City to live up to what its has preached
for years. That urban areas are for people and rural areas for
animals and humans living in harmony with their environment.
Structured parking is in itself an efficient use of land. Particularly in
respect to the Marsh Street Garage. The present garage is small and
difficult to access, but because of its location is heavily used.
Expansion will use underutilized public land, including the post office
site. It puts parking spaces where the public wants the spaces
located, near the Downtown Center, a development that the City
encouraged as necessary to the life of the downtown itself. The
expanded garage could be used as an offset in the night hours for
additional parking requirements imposed through development of
air rights by private parking owners.
During my time as a manager or consultant on large commercial
retail and mixed use complexes, I have attended parking seminars,
that have stated that the public views parking in a simple and direct.
manner. It has to be ample, immediate and convenient.
For those proposing the either or solution, its a no risk strategy.
They never have to face the consequences of their actions. Their
only economic involvement is that they may be paid from
governmental or non profit sources and have no financial risk if the
experiment doesn't work. They are insensitive to the investments
that the retailer or property owner has made, and bear none of the
economic downside, if their experiment results in a serious decline in
business.
These proponents of deferring the expansion of the garage, somehow
believe that the Downtown resides in .a vacuum and forget that the
public has other choices.
City Officials in Pismo Beach and Atascadero, Paso Robles and Santa
Maria have had the welcome mat out for those who no longer come
to downtown. These communities use the tax revenues and jobs that
are created from the business they have taken from downtown for
their community's benefit.
If people drive thirty miles past SLO, spewing exhaust its not these
communities problem. They don't have activists debating parking, or
demanding bike lanes. These communities understand tine public's
dependence on the auto and that those who suppor� alternatives
have not developed nor convinced the public that an integrated and
rational alternative to regular use of the auto is vial✓I e j a this county.
Our competitor- communities do provide the parking spaces to
accommodate ti:� public and they are FREE
In closing, I urge the City to expedite the expansion of ;he Marsh
Street Parking st-ucture and use this debate as the:.oppgrtunity to
move forward.in fulfilling its General Plan goals.
Yours trul
Sarg
Advanced ain
CELLULAR • PAGERS • WIRELESS
MEETING AGENDA /
March 28, 1996 DATE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mayor Allen Settle
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Parking is critical. As a Downtown business owner and member of the BIA, I ask
you to start the immediate construction of the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion.
As this city becomes more of a magnet for shoppers, the parking situation is
critical. Without proper parking this will restrict downtown viability and business. Please
do not allow economic depression by not acting or directing this solution.
More parking is needed immediately.
Sincerely,
//jA 15-COUNCIL ❑ COL,tjirl
❑CAO ❑ FIN DIR
13_ACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Dan Rudnick 13�ATTORNEY 13-PW DIR
(1-CLERYJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
4� ❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
RECEIVED
APR 2 1996
CITY COUNCIL
SAN ^ nairm rA
2315 Meredith Lane, Suite M • Santa Maria, CA 93455 ♦ 805-922-2252 ♦ Fax 805-928-3828
1001 Higuera, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ♦ 8Q5-541-3111 ♦ Fax 805-541-0563
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #=
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Mayor and councilmembers
As a Downtown business person and member of the BIA who feels that the parking
situation has reached a critical point, I urge you to direct staff to move forward with the
immediate construction of the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion on April 2.
You are certainly aware that the lack of parking availability has caused many of us great
concern and anxiety about the future of Downtown. Without parking,customers, tourists
and employees find it difficult to access the core of the City and we fear their frustration
will eventually lead to economic devastation.
More parking is needed immediately. We realize that the expansion will offer small relief,
but it is the most obvious solution and we urge to you support us in this request by making
it a reality.
Please consider this very necessary addition.
Respectfully,
tg-COUNCIL ❑ CDD U!R N
9-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
I-tCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
O-ATTORNEY 9?W DIR
❑-CMRIUORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ,
❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR i RECEIVED
❑ MiZPLL.i
U
l , APR 2 199.6
l�Q/LLC�Lup�' Crit COUNCIL
SAN ^ n 11t6n. eA
T0'd ldioi
MEETING AGENDA
' DATE 1L-1 ITEM #�—
Date: April 1, 1996
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Re: Council meeting for April 2, 1996 Agenda Item #1
Dear Council members,
I write with reference to the current debate surrounding
parking and the building of new parking structures for the
downtown area.
It is my recommendation is that no change is made to
circulation element item # 12.7 and that no money is spent
expanding parking before the circulation and environmental
studies are complete. There's too many cost effective
alternatives to justify going forward with building additional
parking structures as a stop-gap measure before said study's
information is presented and used to make intelligent
decisions.
Sincerely,
Philip Novotny - - CFO
B.O.B TRAILERS INC.
RECEIVED -
APR r 111b "1 t9-eoUNCIL ❑ CDD UIR
G-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
kG-ACAO 13 FIRE CHIEF
UTMS OB SPo.CA C3-ATTORNEY
Cd-PW DIR
0-CLER IORIG O POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ 'C ILE ❑ U DIR
❑ PERS DIR
I�a 4.
3x41 SACRANDOM,#3 SAN LM osa-Po, CAWORMA 934(1 o
TEL(805)541.2554 FAX(805158344 UffERNED Bos TRQAOL.COM
T0'd 0908 E0S 908 S837Ib& a'0'E ZO:ST 966T-TO-ddb
MEE1 ; AGENDA
DATE - _ITEM #
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rrschmid@. — DIR
April 2, 1996 ` ❑-CAO ❑ FIN DIA
D-A= ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Re: General Plan Amendment/Parking Garage n�TTORNEY ❑-PW DIR
9 9 ❑-CLERK/ORIC ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
To the City Council: ❑ C R . p FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
' 13 PERS DIR .I
urge the Council to to the right thing. to
1. Follow the General Plan which states that a parking needs study must be completed
before planning or undertaking further parking garages;
2. Refrain from altering the above provision of the General Plan simply because of a
pressure from a well-orchestrated special-interest campaign of political intimidation and
terror; and
3. Refrain from the sort of subterfuge of the General Plan that would be represented by
upholding the General Plan in theory, while in fact moving ahead with planning, negotiating,
purchasing land, etc. for any more parking garages.
The question before the Council at this time is not so much whether there should be another
parking garage as WHETHER THERE IS ANY INTEGRITY LEFT IN THE PROCESS OF
GOVERNING THIS CITY. This particular episode illustrates once again the tremendous .
degree of corruption of public purpose which has become the hallmark of the Dunn
Administration, and the Council's impotent unwillingness to stand up to him.
Among the unsavory matters this issue brings to the fore:
A. The push for$170 million in new parking garages comes not from the General Plan, but
from the Downtown Concept Plan, an ersatz plan that is the creature of Mr. Dunn (not of the
city's legitimate planning process) and his hand-picked committee of architects. The plan
has not been subjected to the same scrutiny as the General Plan, it conflicts with the
General Plan in many ways, yet it is being used as a rationale for mega-million dollar debt
financed "improvements" ranging from park-like places where the General Plan calls for no
parks to deliberate stimulation of auto traffic where the General Plan calls for reducing auto
traffic.
B. The proliferation of debt financing is another hallmark of the Dunn Administration. The
city had always previously been prudent and very cautious with debt financing. Mr. Dunn
has the council spending like drunk sailors on a binge, passing the costs of their binge
along to future generations..This fiscal profligacy is used to support things Mr. Dunn wants
to support -- hundreds of millions to support parking garages, park-like places,
improvements needed to facilitate development (like building a new bridge across SLO
creek where only a few years ago we were talking about removing the existing bridge due to
Schmidt/Parking Garage, Page 1 RECEIVED
APR 2 IYYo
CITY COUNCIL
RAN I I 1 091SPO,CA
lack of need and the large environmental benefits resulting from removal), a performing arts
center the people have never said they want but which is desired by an arts elite of which
he is a part— yet when it comes to paying for things the people have repeatedly said they
want, like open space preservation, he insists some other new, more cumbersome, less
likely to succeed method of payment must be found.
C. The essence of the problem with Mr. Dunn is that he is a politician -- an unelected
politician at that -- with his own business-friendly, quality-of-life-hostile political program for
the city. This is not the way the city manager system of government is intended to work. The
point of having a city manager is to remove the management of a city from the corrupting
influences of the political realm. Instead of that, today we have the worst of both worlds --
political power being wielded by an unelected politician/manager, and a charade in which
our elected officials surrender political power to him and simply allow themselves to be
manipulated via public spectacle into doing the will of this unelected politician/manager.
D. And so we have manipulation of planning staff decision-making so that nothing is what it
seems anymore. The craven process by which staff has determined that a General Plan
amendment is not a CEQA "project" is a case in point. This is ridiculous, and my excellent
land use attorney agrees. Somebody ought to sue the city over this sort of stuff.
E. In the present instance, we have the spectacle of the BIA, a tax-funded arm of the city,
acting as advocate for a project that conflicts with the General Plan, and staff -- who are
employed by ALL THE PEOPLE of this city for their mutual benefit -- backing them up on it.
We further have the spectacle of the BIA Parking Committee -- a city committee -- being the
sole source of sanctioned citizen input allowed into the official process despite the fact that
all the BIA members of that committee have obvious financial conflicts of interest (FPPC
defines financial interest as $250 per year), and are therefore forbidden by law from playing
any role in influencing official policy. How can the people have any respect for a city
government that is run this flagrantly corrupted way?
F. Mr. Dunn and the governance of this city will be issues in the up-coming election. It is
important for the council to halt his misdeeds before then. I have repeatedly asked you to
fire Mr. Dunn. I repeat that request. The issue will not go away until it is resolved. If the
council will not act, there are numerous things the people, acting collectively, can do to
correct the present situation. We shouldn't have to resort to such means -- you should be in
responsible control --, but if we must, we will.
Sync rely,
is and Schmidt
Schmidt/Parking Garage, Page 2
mtETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
Eugene H. Jud
Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
1228 Palm Street
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1145
545-5919
April 1, 1996 ®'COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
ICAO ❑ FIN DIR
Oa ACAO ❑ RRECHIEF
Mr. Allen Settle, Mayor VATTORNE' A"PW DIR
City Hall eCLEWMRIC; ❑ POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street ❑ MGWrTEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle,
I appreciated our time together last Friday discussing the transportation issues
of concern to our city and to us.
I have enclosed a proposal for a possible motion at the April 2, City Council
meeting. This is the absolute maximum to where we can possibly go. Anything
else appears to be a waste of public funds.
You will also find copies of a letter to the editor of the TT and a summary of the
transportation survey taken by the CalPoly Engineering students.
I hope the enclosed video, Cities in the Balance, produced by the American
Society of Civil Engineers, will be.of interest to many SLO-citizens. I took the
liberty to mention the fact that the video is available at City Hall in my TT letter. (�
If this should not be "politically correct", I apologize. In this case please ask your
secretary to call TT and change the wording at the end of my letter.
Sincerely,
Eugene Jud
enclosures: 2 + 1 video
CC. To Mr. Bill Roalman
1N �e
A�
IN- IN
RECEIVED 4 , �J �
APR 1 19%
CITY couNca
/%A1CP0 CA 1 puVA`r/`n'
r� V-
PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION PROPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE MOTION
OBJECTIVES
1) Conduct and consider results of comprehensive parking and alternative
transportation study.
2) Proceed with cost estimates, preliminary traffic engineering and environmental
impact report for the Marsh Street parking structure expansion project and the
Wells Fargo surface parking lot.
3) Retain existing General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7 wording
without change.
MOTION:
1) Approve the Scope of Work (Exhibit B) and authorize the distribution of
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for a Downtown Parking and Access Stu*, which
includes analysis of utilization of existing parking, alternative transportation
options, and downtown access, with funding as recommended by staff.
2) Direct staff to proceed with:
a) completion of property appraisals of the Marsh Street and Wells Fargo
sites
b) realistic analysis of all fiscal aspects, including finance and displacement
costs
c) preliminary traffic engineering, showing access ramps to the structure,
traffic flow within the structure and traffic impacts on surrounding
streets
d) environmental review for a second Marsh Street parking structure
In addition to the money spent since the City Council decision of January 16,
another $30,000 are approved for these activities.
3) The City Council will retain the General Plan Circulation Element Program
12.7 wording without change.
hia-ETING AGENDA .
DATE
Eugene H. Jud 11-of-96 ITEM #
Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
1228 Palm Street
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1145
545-5919
COUNCIL ❑ CDU DIR
April 1, 1996 aao ❑ RN DIA
WACAO ❑��FIRE CHIEF
CONFIDENTIAL I eATTORNEv Id PWDIR
C!r'CLERK/OR1G ❑ POLICE CHF
City Council ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RECDIR.
City Hall ❑ C REAc 1=1L E [ UTILDIR
990 Palm Street ❑ PERS D;R
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
0a �.
Dear members of the council,
I appreciate your efforts to not let the city be split over parking issues (agenda
item nr. 1 on April 2).
Just for the records: The staff report states on page 1-15 at the beginning of
chapter "6. Concurrences", that the ad hoc committee members "agreed that the
parking supply needs to be expanded". In reality we only agreed, that short term
l?arking should probably be expanded. If, where and when we need new
parking spaces is left to the study, which has to interpret the modal split
objectives of the Circulation Element for the downtown and take into
consideration the trip production of parking spaces and the resulting traffic flow
in the city with all its implications up to the freeway.
My main worry still is, that we (Government and activists of all colors) may
quickly loose credibility in two areas:
1. PROMISES IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT (CE)
Compared to the clear priorities on balanced transportation in the CE, we have
continually cheated the public by doing practically nothing for "alternative
transportation" and instead letting projects with the hidhesr'possible vehicular
trip generation per acre (ITE Trip Generation Manual!)proceed, such as:
- Frume Ranch .54
- Food for less
- CalPoly 1200 space P-garage etc.
Another parking structure iri_ Marsh Street just seems to be the last link in the
never ending chair,of such projects. I am not at all against renewing or
expanding the city in a smart way. However generators of the highest
imaginable vehicular traffic per acre should be judged very, very critically. u
APR 199a
01Ty CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
2. STAFF REPORTS
We have excellent professional staff, who know what they wrote in the CE. Most
of the time they produce clearly grade A reports.
However, looking at the "staff reports" concerning the Marsh Street Parking I
deeply wonder: No reference to the very idea of planning, the general goals of
the CE etc I Instead the report to the planning commission roughly reads like
this:
"- The Council felt, that an addditional Parking Garage in Marsh Street
would be needed
- therefore the staff feels so too (without any statistics!)
- therefore the staff recommends to delete Program 12.7 form the CE!"
Fortunately the Planning Commission did not go for this.
The staff report for April 2 presents the same mostly one-sided arguments. I ask
myself, if staff was really allowed to write as neutral, trained professionals or if
they were ordered by somebody to produce "politically correct" papers. If this
were true and this kind of "staff reporting" continues, then we definitely have
credibility gap nr. 2!
The citizens and taxpayers of SLO have the indisputed right to see neutral,
professional staff work!
For your files I enclose a copy of my letter to the editor of the TT and a summary
of the recent transportation survey taken by CalPoly Engineering students.
Fully with you in the quest for a livable and economically sound city
sincerely yours,
Eugene Jud
enclosures
{
SLO Transportation, March 1996. Fact Sheet
365 random interviews were taken in downtown
by CalPoly Engineering students
mostly between noon and 3.p.m.
RESULTS '
(rounded figures)
A) Among persons interviewed were residents of SLO: 80%
B) They came:
by car 70%
by bike 10%
by bus 10%
on foot 10%
C) They found parking in downtown was:
notdifficult 60%
difficult 40%
D) Their trip purpose was:
shopping 60%
tourism/recreation 20%
business/work 20%
E) Their duration of stay was:
1-2 hours 40%
less than 1 hour 30%
over 2 hours 30%
F) They felt that there was:
too much traffic in downtown 50%
not too much traffic in downtown 50%
G) They walked:
2-6 blocks 50%
6 blocks or more 30%
2 blocks or less 20% AT;. .....:•,
H) They called the following ideas for downtown transportatiomsuch as
more bike facilities(bike racks/lanes) good:80% bad: 20% .
more parking structures good: 60% bad: 40%
rail(light rail/skeei cars) good: 60% bad: 40%
r
The survey may be repeated in May 1996.
For further information call 756-1729 or 545-5919.
jf �
Conclusions
1. The cash flow generated for the businesses appears to come mainly from
SLO residents. Many of them do not need or want more parking spaces.
2. A majority feels that parking in downtown is "not difficult". Two-thirds park for
less than two hours. Therefore, the request for more short term parking is
justified.
3. Fifty percent feel that there is "too much traffic" in downtown.
4. The average _walking distance is more than five blocks. People apparently
like to walk downtown. In fact, many come here just because of the unique
downtown atmosphere.
5. Although a majority of the people interviewed came by car, the "alternative"
transportation modes (bike, bus, and on foot) play a very important role The
improvement of bike facilities (racksAanes) has a high priority for those
interviewed.
March 30, 1996
j AT:;
V7
r
1
w ,
Y +f
March 30,1996
URGENT
TO THE EDITOR OF TT '
Marsh Street Parking: Is Instant "Brick=and-Mortar" the
Solution?
To the editor:
This matter will be decided at the City Council meeting of April 2. I teach
transportation planning at CalPoly and I have been active in transportation
consulting internationally for the past thirty years. Enjoying life in SLO, I would
like to contribute some findings concerning transportation in our city.
In March of this year, 365 interviews were taken in downtown by CalPoly
engineering students, mostly between noon and 3 p.m. The survey results can
be obtained by calling 756-1729. My conclusions from this poll are fivefold:
• The cash flow generated for the businesses appears to come mainly from
SLO residents. Many of them do not need or want more parking spaces
downtown.
• A majority feels that parking in downtown is "not difficult". Two-thirds park for
less than two hours. Therefore, the request for more short term parking is
justified.
• Fifty percent think that there is 'too much traffic" in downtown.
• The average walking distance is more than five blocks. People apparently
like to walk downtown. In fact, many come here just because of the unique
downtown atmosphere.
• Although a majority of the people interviewed came fey rat; the."alternative"
transportation modes (bike, bus, and on foot) play a vbbry important role. The
improvement of bike facilities(racks/lanes) has a high prioripy for those
interviewed.
The consequences for our problem are threefold:
The City Council should sim.ply do what it was elected to do, namely, put the
Circulation Element into practice. This document is the Council's
"Transportation Contract with the Citizens of SLO" and it repeatedly stresses .
the overwhelming importance of alternative transportation. There is absolutely
no need to change any program in this Contract.
f
However, we should know what our disagreements are really about! After all,
every good business organization and every responsible government does
extensive research before committing millions of dollars into a project.
Therefore, acquiring some additional information about a third parking structure
on Marsh Street makes sense. We should proceed by producing the following
five documents:
• for cost estimates: property appraisals, without performing negotiations,
including the Wells Fargo site
• realistic analysis of all fiscal aspects, including finance and displacement
costs .
• preliminary traffic engineering, but not architectural design work, showing
access ramps to the structure, traffic flow within the structure and traffic impacts
on surrounding streets
• preliminary work for a full Environmental Impact Recort .
• innovative concepts for organizational measures to ;;reate more short term
parking.
For practical reasons the project coordination should be performed by city staff.
It seems possible to do this within the remaining budget of the $45,000
allocated for such.work at the City Council meeting of January 16.
Most of all, let us get started on our Downtown Parking ano' Access Study. All
citizens should participate with their ideas for this beautiful town. When the
"Brick and Mortar" discussion is over we can widen our horil-on towards
Balanced and Modified Transportation. By the way, "Cities ir, the Balance" is
the name of an excellent video produced by the American Society of Civil
Engineers addressing these issues. It is available to all interested persons from
the Mayor's office. See you on April 2, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall! You certainly
wili find parking.
Eugene Jud
San Luis Obispo ar
1228 Palm Street
P.O. Box 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Tel. 545-5919
a !
1,
MEETING AGENDA
April 1, 1996 DATE Lot-121Z ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
Revision I
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Allen K. Settle �I�� •
SUBJECT: PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSAL ALTERNATIVE MOTION
OBJECTIVES:
Conduct and consider results of comprehensive parking and alternative transportation study.
Proceed with phase two Marsh Street parking facility and acquisition of Wells Fargo surface
parking lot.
Retain existing General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7 wording without change.
MOTION:
1. The Council will retain the General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7 wording
without change. The Council hereby determines that the processing of the phase two
expansion of the Marsh Street Facility, and the Wells Fargo surface lot acquisition, are
consistent with Program 12.7 because Program 12.7 is permissive and is intended to apply
to new free standing parking structures. No new free standing parking structures will be
considered by the city prior to the completion of the study on parking needs and
alternative transportation strategies.
2. Direct staff to proceed on phase two of the Marsh Street Parking Facility and acquisition
of the Wells Fargo lot, with property negotiations, remaining design work, EIR update,
and a project manager, with funding as recommended Ibytaff.
i
3. Approve the Scope of Work (Exhibit B) and authorize the::�4stribution.of Request for
Proposals (RFPs) for a Dou,nloivn Parking and Access Sfudy, which includes analysis of
utilization of existing parking, alternative transportation options, and downtown access,
recommended by staff. //..aa// / .0"
with fundingas recommen Tlebtyneo.�t�n/f' i� � � es� �/! /`,� �}
MEN ME/
n,,,in i/ r,i:r,.n/r i,nr r
,�,,aate�,,
�I8 COUNCIL ❑ CDJ G R
.12CA0
13 FIN DIR RECEIVED
h:parking.rev a(ACAo
ATTORNEY ❑ FIRE CHIEF
0 PW DIR APR 1 1996
C'] CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF.
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
CITY 1K
'-E ❑ UTIL DIR
C1 C READ FI SAN LUlC
❑ PERS D;R ,
ME T' IG AGENDA
' BCFDATr f -p6 ITEM #=
w = SIERRA CLUB --G2 SANTA LUt
�UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
O 0 FIN DIR
ACAO ❑ FIRE CH18?
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council ATTORNEY WAW DIR
CLERKJOMG E) POLICE CHF
FROM: Pat Veesart ❑ MGMTTFAM ❑ REC DIR
DATE: 1 April, 1996 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UML DIR
SUBJECT: City Parking Policy ❑ PERSD;R
After reviewing the staff report for agenda item #1, prepared for the Council
meeting of April 2nd, I would like to express some concern about the legality of
past council actions and potential actions regarding parking policy and the
construction of parking facilities in San Luis Obispo. I would like to have these
concerns entered into the record.
• One Councilmember who has a conflict of interest in this matter, has
already participated in discussions and has voted on this issue. I mention this
not because I think that there was any intentional wrongdoing, I don't, but I
question the legality of the Council direction that has led us up to the point that
we are now at.
• The intent of Circulation Element section 12.7 is to require a parking
study, that includes evaluation of alternative transportation options, prior to
building costly and environmentally harmful parking structures. 12.7 is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element that seek to
reduce dependency on the private automobile and encourage the use of
alternatives. Circumventing the requirements of 12.7 by claiming the the
proposed multi-million dollar structure, adjacent to the existing structure at
Marsh Street, is not a "new" structure and therefore not subject to 12.7 is not
only dishonest, it could be illegal. All discussions, up to this point, by the City
Council, City staff and the BIA have assumed that 12.7,is an impediment to
moving ahead with the Marsh St. expansion and that is why its deletion has
been called for. Why has this suddenly changed at the 11th hour? If you aye
going to build parking structures, you must either com�ly 491th-42-.7, or amend
the Circulation Element.
• If you choose to amend the Circulation Element, CEQA requires
environmental review. This has not been done. General Plan amendments are
considered "projects" under CEQA.
• If you are going to make the claim that the proposed parking structure is
just "Phase 2" of the existing structure and it was the intent to expand all along,
then CEQA would have required that the the environmental review done on the
original structure include the entire project. Was this done? R E C E I V E
APR 1996
...To explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources...
i 6171'CLERK
WM earn r_e
• The Council haslra eady allocated funds and acquired land for new
parking structures in apparent violation of Circulation Element section 12.7 and
CEQA.
• The City has allowed vested interests to dictate parking policy in San
Luis Obispo and to have de facto control of the Parking Fund in apparent
violation of FPPC regulations. The City Council has historically all but "rubber
stamped" the recommendations of the BIA when it comes to parking. The BIA
Parking Committee is comprised almost entirely of people who have a financial
interest in the outcome of the recommendations they are making. Some of them
blatantly so. The regular attendance of city staff at these meetings legitimizes
this process and elevates these discussions beyond the mere
recommendations of a special interest group to the actual making of city policy.
• The November 7th "study session" on parking policy was publicly
noticed as an information item and the meeting was held during the day at a
time when most members of the public would be unable to attend. Yet, at this
meeting, decisions were made to fastrack a multi-million dollar capital
project,(that includes bonded indebtedness) pursue amending the General
Plan, and to acquire land for future parking structures. If this was not illegal, it.
certainly was inappropriate and decisions of this magnitude should have been
noticed better and made at a regularly scheduled Council meeting before the
eyes of the general public.
• The City is using the Downtown Concept Plan, with its 11 planned
parking structures, as a blueprint for city parking policy. This document has not
undergone extensive public or environmental review, and yet it is being used
to justify land acquisitions and new parking structures that will have a
tremendous impact on circulation in the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods.
• In deciding to proceed with construction of additiona[,parking structures
in the downtown, the City has ignored goals, objectives, policies, and
programs in the Circulation Element of its General Plan. These include:
Transportation Goal8 - #1, 2, 5, 7, 8
Overall Transportation Strategies - #3, 4
Transportation Objectives - #1, 5, 8, 9
Traffic Reduction - Policies and Program - #1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8
Parking Management - #12.1, 12.7
Implementation, Program Funding and Management - #15.2, 15.5, 15.7
S
t
The City appears to be out of compliance with its General Plan.
The Circulation Element is a contract with the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
Instead of living up to the promises made to its citizens, the City Council
appears to be reneging on those promises by claiming.that "that's not what we
really meant°. It may well play out in the courts that the Council is complying
with the Netter of the lawn, but will it play out with its citizens that they are
complying with the intent? City government should be run by someone other
than clever attorneys.
Pat Veesart
Chairman, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
cc: Mark Massara, Sierra Club Attorney
r
t
MEETING AGENDA
n DATE ` 0 ITEM #
ART GALLERY r CUSTOM FRAMING
�`�''coul�clL ❑ cao olp
��Ap ❑ FIN DIR
9 ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
(ATTORNEY @"PW DIR 599-A HIGUERA STREET
�CLERKJMG ❑ POUCE CHF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RECDIR 805-541-2464
READ FILE ❑ U11L DER
% ; ❑ PERS O;R ` i•iarc;i 25, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
Dear :Mayor and Councilmembers :
As a Downtown business person and member of the BIA
who feels that the parking situation has reached a
critical point. I urge you to direct staff to move
forward with the immediate construction of the ;Harsh
Street Parking Structureexpansion on Apreil 2.
You are certainly aware that the lack of parking .
availability has caused many of us great concern
and anxiety about the future of Downtown. Without
parking, customers, toutists and employees find it
difficult to access the core of the City and we
fear their frustration will eventually lead t0
going out of business.
More parking is needed immediately. We realize that
the expansion will offer small relief, but it is
the most obvious solution and we urge you to support
us in this request by making it a reality.
Please sider this very necessary addition.
espec cul ly, �v;, ..:... •'
ober hinkel
Poster t."arkei
RECEII/E�
MAR 2 9 1996
sANC17Y COUNCIL:
f enn C4
f
Wittlift AUNUA
SATE4_2_qb —ITEM #—
March 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues
L9'000NCILCDD DIR
M.
�A� O FIN DIR
FROM: Allen K. Settle ❑ FIRE CHIEF
LlA1TORNEY �W DIR
SUBJECT: PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION CLERK/ONG ❑ POLICE CHF
PROPOSAL ALTERNATIVE MOTION MGMTTEAM ❑ RECDIR
O C READ FILE O UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
OBJECTIVES:
Conduct and consider results of comprehensive parking and alternative transportation
study.
Proceed with phase two Marsh Street parking facility and acquisition of Wells Fargo
surface parking lot.
Retain existing General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7 wording without change.
MOTION:
1. The Council will retain the General Plan Circulation Element Program 12.7 wording
without change. The Council hereby determines that the processing of the phase two
expansion of the Marsh Street Facility, and the Wells Fargo surface lot acquisition, are
consistent with Program 12.7 because Program 12.7 is permissive and is intended to apply
to new free standing parking structures. No new free standing parking structures will be
considered by the city prior to the completion of the study on parking needs and
alternative transportation strategies.
2. Direct staff to proceed on phase two of the Marsh Street Parking Facility and acquisition
of the Wells Fargo lot, with property negotiations, remaining design work,and-acquisition
update,
and a project manager, with funding as recommended �y sCaff-•
3. Approve the Scope of Work (Exhibit B) and authorize the".di'stributiori of Request for
Proposals (RFPs) for a Downtoivn Parking and Access Study, which includes analysis of
utilization of existing parking, alternative transportation options, and downtown access,
with funding as recommended by staff.
f
KAT InllVu tIJULHI IUi b Fax bus-544-bbbo Mar 26 21 :49
fa!' l1NCllr ❑ CDD DIR
Er ,. ❑ FIN DIR
ieACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
IYATTORNEY e�PwDIR MEETING
® CLERWRIC ❑ POUCE CHF DATE C�I S' s
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE p UTIL DIR
� ❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo City Councilr 990 Palm Street / ANYTHINGEDUCATIONALSanLuisObispo CA 93401 1127 GARDEN ST.
SAN LUIS OBtSPO,CA 93401
Dear Mayor and councilmembers
As a Downtown business person and member of the BIA who feels that the parking
situation has reached a critical point,I urge you to direct staff to move forward with the
immediate..construction of the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion on Apri12.
You are certainly.aware that the lack of parking:availability has caused many of.p great..
concern and anxiety about the future of Downtown. Without parking;customers,:tourists
and employees find it difficult to access [he core:of the City and we fear their frustration
will eventually lead to economic devastation.
More'parking'is needed•inimediately. We realize that thee. xpansion will offer.amall'relie;f,
rt :.
but it is the most obvious solution and we urge to you suppous in this requesiby:making
it a reality.
?lease consider this very n cessary addition.
Respectfully,
I-v
Your Name In
e t- AV, y
FfC;V-^-
RECEIVED,
MAR 2.9 1996
�NCITY COUNCIL
AQ1qW) CA.
Fr0"I:Marty&barbara hurla VW.51 Hht I Wdtl 1-aX 000d44-4U IU VOIte:1:50-!144-41.11 U 10:Lay OI San LUIS UUISNO UI:Mayor d UOuliciI Mel I WerS I'dge L 011 Weane)ddy,Murcli J.PJnL U:J,:ii I'M
MEETING AGENDA COU14CIL 0--,L-Waz,—VEEW
COJDI
DATE,1.1- 16 ITEM # ❑ FIN DIR
�A�RNEY ❑ FW CHIEF
PW DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council PCLERK101110, ❑ POUCE CHF '
990 Palm Street 13MGMT TEAM ❑ RE,
DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ CR o FILE Its UrIL DIR
❑ ERS DIR
Dear Mayor and Council Members
As a Board Member of the Business Improvement Association, I strongly urge that the
Marsh Street Structure begin with all urgency. I cannot imagine trying to discuss any
further planning of any city project without resolving this issue.
I grew up back east, and was accustomed to "alternative" transportation, i.e, bus, streetcar
and walking (the hills of Pennsylvania were not conducive to bike riding). That was
another place and different frame of mind, like the snow, people would always ask me,
"how did you deal with it,?" Simple, we did not know any different. Alternative
transportation is a positive direction, but the reality is we need parking NOW. People on
the west coast are car-oriented, they want to get to longer distances and at a faster pace.
There is more to this eastern difference and much is social behavior, easterners are nesters
by nature, they move very little, unlike the westerners who are more the explorers. So,
although alternative transportation will benefit in the future, we need to fix the problem
NOW. There is a shortage of parking, which will not be solved by waiting for a
generation to adjust their habits, WE NEED HELP NOW.
Secondly, every day we lack parking for our businesses. We also lack parking for our
special events, parades, cultural festivals and so on. San Luis Obispo is special for these
events that take place throughout the year. We are a destination for so many tourists, and
no matter how many spaces we may save through alternative transportation, the garages
and streets will still be full as we turn away customers.
Finally, if you decide to delay this project, then please make the playing field level and
require all business that open(free standing shopping centers) have limited parking and
require their customers to reach them with alternative transportation. WE, the downtown
core, are the Outlet Center and Shopping Mall of the city. WE NEED PARKING! If you
want a thriving downtown to walk through and admire, then you need the parking. It's like
I tell people about trash on the street, if you want a perfect downtown without trash then
look at some the downtown's that are neat without the wear and tear of customers.
Alternative transportation at this time, should be called alternative destination because that
is the reality,of what our customers will do, shop elsewhere.
I look forward to speaking to•all before this Tuesday, to further discuss this important
issue.
Respectively,
RECEIVED
Mark Furia - MAR 2 81996
Osos Street Subs r couNaL
SAN I II•� n141114PO.ICA
f
OTE 1 P6 AGENDA
ITEM #
�IIIIIIIIIII I I IIIIIIII I MEMORANDUM
j CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OeCOUNCIL �CG J uiR
ICAO ❑ FIN DIR
2 'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TO: John DunnrITIORNEY p PW DIR
FROM Arnold Jonas ° CLERKiORIC p POLICE CHF
VIA John Mand A p MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
BY: Jeff H p C READ FILE ❑. UT!L DIR
�� ❑ PERS DLR
DATE: March 2 , 1996
SUBJECT: Blackstone Hotel Rehabilitation.
During last week's discussion of the Downtown Housing Plan, Council members heard some
criticism of the Blackstone Hotel Rehabilitation project. Most of the comments were from realtors
whose main concerns were: 1) the project's apparent high cost per unit; and 2) whether15
apartments for low-income seniors and disabled persons, plus ground floor commercial, were the
"highest and best uses" for the site. Unfortunately, several of the speakers did not have a firm
hold of the facts, and Council got an incomplete, even inaccurate assessment of the project. At
one point, council members seemed ready to pull City support from the project, but decided to
postpone discussion until April 2nd.
Staff understands council members' and the public's concerns, and is ready to support the
Council's direction on this issue. We feel it important, however, that Council has the "complete
picture" as it considers this issue. Facts relevant to Council's deliberations include:
• The Urban County's adopted 1995 Consolidated Plan includes $200,000 to help fund
acquisition of the Blackstone property.
• The County of San Luis Obispo proposes allocating an additional $250,000 in 1996 HOME
funds to assist the project.
• County staff indicates that if the City reallocates Blackstone funding to another activity, the
County will reallocate its $250,000 to another activity.
• The project would retain ground floor commercial uses. When costs to purchase and remodel
the ground floor are considered independently of the residential component, the per unit cost
of affordable housing drops to slightly less than $100,000, comparable to recent Housing
Authority units developed outside Downtown and well below the $200,000 per unit cited by
some speakers.
• The Blackstone Rehabilitation project may be feasible as a mixed-use project with both
assisted and market-rate housing. CDBG and HOME funds may be used to assist private
developers undertake such a project.
Blackstone Facts
Page 2
• Cost to demolish and build a new building is likely to exceed rehabilitation cost (for a
comparable finished building) by an estimated $308,000.
• Detailed seismic retrofit studies, engineering and schematic architectural plans have been
completed. These confirm that rehabilitation is feasible, thereby preserving and restoring one
of the City's earliest commercial buildings.
0 The rehabilitation project is exempt from traffic, water, and wastewater impact fees. If the
building is razed, however, construction of a new building after two years from the date of
demolition will be subject to traffic impact fees.
0 Building rehabilitation, as opposed to new construction, allows the use of more flexible
building codes to preserve the building's original architectural character.
• Affordable housing units are exempt from city permit and processing fees.
• The site is in or adjacent to the original Mssion graveyard. Removal of the existing building
will necessitate detailed archaeological studies and possibly, relocation of human remains,
resulting in increased development cost and time when compared with rehabilitation.
• The project is consistent with and implements policies in the Land Use Element, Downtown
Physical Concept Plan and the Housing Element.
Staff will be prepared to address these issues at the April 2nd meeting. If you or council members
have any questions, please call me or Jeff Hook at Extension 176.
,b„_��.
�illl�ll�IIIII�������� �IIIIIIIIIIII�
CityO Salr1 �11S OBISPO
Rpn08,G0, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Subject: 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
Dear Grant Applicant:
At its April 2, 1996 public hearing, the City Council took the following actions:
i
1) approved the recommended 1996 CDBG Program, Table 1, including an application for
Section 108 federal guaranteed loans in the amount of$1.485 million ($1 million for
affordable housing activities; $485,000 for possible economic development activities);
2) concurred with the recommended Special Urban Projects funding, Table 2;
3) concurred with the recommended countywide HOME funding, Table 3, with the change that
the $250,000 be allocated to the proposed Brizzolara Street Affordable Housing Development
instead of the Blackstone Hotel Rehabilitation project;
4) reallocated $101,750 in 1994 CDBG funds to the Pismo/Beach Streets Family Housing
Development;
5) authorized the City Administrative Officer to use approximately $70,000 in closed out State
CDBG grant program income to help fund At-risk Youth Services ($37,000), Children's Work
Incentive Program ($12,000), and Airport Area planning ($21,000); and
6) endorsed the Urban County's "One-Year Action Plan" (part of the Consolidated Plan) and
forwarded their recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors.
Activities recommended for funding are shown in the attached tables. The Council's actions
are advisory to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to
consider CDBG and HOME funding, and the One-Year Action Plan at its April 23rd meeting
(contact John Busselle at 781-5600 for additional information). These are public meetings and
anyone may comment. If you have questions on the City of San Luis Obispo's proposed 1996
CDBG Program, please call me at 781-7176.
S- rely,
0
As tate Planner
l� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
1996 CDBG Program
Page 2
TABLE 1: Approved CDBG Activities For The 1996 Program Year
(Italics indicate on-going programs)
.................................... ..... .............................
........................... ........
............
.... ............ .. .........
....................Activity. ................ ..................Project............ .....................................
....................... ..
Description........
.......
... F. q..n....d. fi9
...
.. ..... ........................... ..........
.......... ....................................
Public Services SLO Homeless Shelter Economic Opportunity operate SLO Homeless 120,000
Commission Shelter on Orcutt Rd.
At-Risk Youth Services City of SLO Recreation, day care, 63,000
Program Parenting training,
head start program
Homeless Services City Of SLO food, counseling, and 40,000
Center on Prado Road related day services for
homeless persons
Public Historical Museum City of SLO make public museum 117,000
Facilities handicapped access handicapped accessible
improvements
Homeless Services City of SLO Build day center for 50,000
Center on Prado Road homeless persons
Economic Seismic Retroft Grant City of SLO Commercial 100,000
Development Program rehablhistoric
restoration
Housing SLO Housing City of SLO Annual repayment for 272,976
Assistance Program: federal housing loan
Section 108 Loan
Repayment
Planning study Airport Area Specific City of SLO . Prepare specific plan 95,372
Plan and EIR for AASP
Program CDBG Administration Planning/administrative City of SLO 95,372
Administration services (10%)
TOTAL 953,720
1996 CDBG Program
Page 3
TABLE 2: Recommended Special Urban Projects For The 1996 CDBG Program
......... ...........
............... ......................... ..........
..................
............ .........
ActivityA H t:.:::
vp can :
................................
... .........
. . ..................................
.............................
... . ......................... ..
Funduig
..................
Homeless Services Center Public Services City of SLO 40,000
(operations)
Homeless Services Center Public Facilities City of SLO 25,000
. (construction)
SLO Homeless Shelter. Public Services EOC 91,125
(operation)
North County Women's Shelter Public Facilities North County 6,900
Driveway Installation Women's Shelter
TOTAL 163,025
TABLE 3: Recommended HOME Projects/Programs For The 1996 Program Year
..............................
........... ..............
......................
.......... NaweA::: lit :;�i
... ............ ........
.................................. ..............
. ...............
............ ...................
..........
Brizzolara Street Affordable Housing acquisition and SLO Housing 250,000
Housing Project construction Authority
Nipomo Affordable Homes Housing construction Peoples' Self-Help 200,000
Housing Corp.
Rental Housing Development Housing Construction Peoples' Self-Help 200,000
Housing Corp.
Templeton Rental Housing Housing Construction Peoples' Self-Help 200,000
Development Housing Corp.
County Administration, 1996-97 Administrative Costs County of SLO 46,000
HOME Programs
CHDO funding: operating and neighborhood housing Peoples' Self-Help 73,000
capacity building organization support Housing Corp. And
Affordable Homes,
Inc.
TOTAL $969,000
COUNCIL IQ CDD UIR i
2(CCAO 13 FIRE AO ❑ FIN DIR EETCHIEF DATE!
�noRNEY ❑ PW D R -96 AGENDA
ENI #
r CLERKtORIC ❑ POLICE CHF
Planning Commission Meeting `. ❑ MGMTTEW ❑ REC DIR
' ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
March 13, 1996 , u
❑ PERS DIR
Page 277
Development Review Manager Whisenand stat ere were no trees removed and that staff is trying
to contact the writer of the letter.
Commissioner Whittlesey reminded the Com on about the annual Advisory Body Meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT`S:'
No public comments were made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 0 Higuera Street: GP 105-95: Review of General Plan hillside planning standards to allow
a cellular transceiver facilities on top of South Street hill near KIID radio broadcasting
antenna; C/OS-40 Zone; SLO Cellular, Inc., applicant.
Commissioner Whittlesey refrained from participating on this item due to a potential conflict of .
interest.
Commissioner Hoffman and Chairman Karleskint stated they were not at the February 14 Planning
Commission Meeting but have reviewed the audio tapes and have read the staff report.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hoffman asked staff for a description of the antennas.
Associated Planner McIlvaine stated they are usually somewhere between 25'to 50' in height. They
can have single monopoles,but often they have what are called whip antennas. Sometimes they have
a grid dish and sometimes they will also have an additional microwave dish or a panel. There is also
the building on the ground that supports it.
Commissioner Hoffman asked staff how the mitigation measures tie in and become enforceable.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the language of Exhibit A, Land Use Element
Policy 6.2.2, Al, covers the mitigation measures.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the City keeps a record of all approvals in a computerized land
use inventory, which includes environmental reviews, building permits, andveverything for that site.
She suggested flagging this particular parcel so that as soon as it is called up on the computer there
will be a special note which can say, "See initial study, ER 43-95 mitigation measures."
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 1996
CITY COUNCIL
SAN nrtISPO•CA
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1996
Page 3
Commissioner Hoffman asked if these mitigation measures will apply only to this parcel.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the amendment is designed specifically for this site.
Commissioner Senn asked staff if the highlighted language of Exhibit A under Land Use Element
Policy 6.2.2 Developmeni Standards A, is a finding that must be made for any future use permit
approval.
Associated Planner McIlvaine answered no. Basically that language was added the Open Space
Element and describes one circumstance under which development could be considered allowed
above the development limit line.
Associate Planner McIlvaine suggested adding "or as provided in the Subparagraph 1 below" to the
highlighted sentence of Exhibit A, Land Use Element 6.2.2 Development Standards, A, for
clarification.
Commissioner Kourakis asked to hear from Tom Battalion Chief Zuelner of the Fire Department.
Battalion Chief Zuelner stated all of the previous concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction
of the Fire Department. The main concern is radio interference. If there is radio interference, it will
be dealt with as part of the permit process.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the process would be such that the permit would be withdrawn
immediately.
Battalion Chief Zuelner stated emergency radio traffic must be operational 100% all the time.
Commissioner Hoffman asked how fast action could take if the applicant was not willing to
cooperate.
Assistant City Attorney stated it could take two to four weeks. If the City had to, they could go to
court within 24 hours to get an injunction. If they were interfering with emergency services, the City
has the mechanisms to protect the public's health and safety.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if some testing for interference should be required prior to the facility
becoming operational.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated since the last meeting, a study was received
indicating there should not be an impact,based on the frequencies that were analyzed. The applicants
have some very qualified people who have indicated there will not be any problems.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1996
Page 4
Chairman Karleskint asked if this would be part of the use permit.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that would be part of the use permit that prior to
operation, a test run be done in conjunction with the Fire Department to make sure no radio
interference would occur. The Commission could modify one of the mitigation measures.
Commissioner Senn asked if the Commission has the authority to say that the permit does not become
effective until its operation is tested.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated when conditions are imposed they are expected to be
followed.
Commissioner Senn asked staff to address the differences between staffs language and the applicant's
language of Policy 6.2.2.
Development Review Manager.Whisenand stated the applicant has no problem necessarily with staffs
language. Staffs language took a deeper look at it with the idea that we need to make sure the
language is consistent between elements. He feels staffs language is internally consistent between
elements. The applicant has indicated no problem with staffs language.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he has some language the Commission may want
to consider relative to Page 18,Hazards, #3,to resolve the issue of the testing. He suggested, "If the
project is approved, the use limit shall assign responsibility for testing and implementing such methods
prior to the use permit commencing."
Commissioner Hoffman suggested using the wording,."If the project is approved, the use permit shall
assign responsibility for demonstrating that no interference will occur and implementing such methods
prior to the use permit commencing."
Adrianne Patnaud, on behalf of the applicant, thanked the Commission and staff. Ms. Patnaud stated
Cellular One is confident they will not create any interference and they are willing to do whatever it
takes to demonstrate this to the City. If the text amendment is ultimately approved, they will still be
coming before the Commission with an actual application for a facility, which will have to go through
an equally detailed review process. There might be questions that come up regarding aesthetics and
things that are unknowns at this time, but they are aware of these and are looking forward to being
able to work with the City to resolve.these issues. Ms. Patnaud offered to answer any questions.
Development Review Manager Whisenand asked Ms. Patnaud to respond to any testing procedures
relative to interference.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1996
Page 5
Ms. Patnaud stated in the projects that she has worked on, there hasn't been a large concern. But,
she sees how it can fit in if it's a conditional use permit. One of the conditions of approval could be
that they demonstrate the they won't interfere prior to occupancy clearance. It seems like a very
realistic thing for them to do and they are comfortable with it.
Chairman Karleskint stated the staff report mentioned the compatibility they have of Cellular One
statistics with Santa Barbara City and County radio facilities.
Ms. Patnaud stated they work on quite a few sites where they collocated with other municipal
facilities and county facilities and haven't run into any problems. She doesn't anticipate that there will
be any problems, but they want to make sure that they demonstrate this.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he has suggested language for Page 18, Hazards,
#3. He stated, "If the project is approved, the use permit shall assign responsibility for testing and
implementing such methods that demonstrate that there will be no interference with existing on-site
facilities prior to the use commencing to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the Community
Development Director."
Commissioner Cross made a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the proposed
amendment, based on the following findings of the staff report.A and B.
The motion failed for the lack of a second.
Commission Senn made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the negative
declaration as amended, providing the applicant submit a signed mitigation agreement, and approve
amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Elements as outlined in Exhibit A, based on findings
set forth in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hoffman.
Commissioner Ready asked if Commissioner Senn would include in his motion the suggested addition
to the language of Policy 6.2.2.
Commissioner Senn accepted the suggestion and amended the motion.
Commissioner Hoffman also accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Cross made a motion to amend the motion to include in Finding#3, "The proposed
amendment will not impact the character and visual quality of the South Street hill due to current
visual degradation of the site."
The motion failed for to the lack of a second.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1996
Page 6
Commissioner Cross stated there has been a lot discussion about radio frequency problems. He hasn't
heard any discussion with regard to Land Use and Open Space Element Policies. Our hillsides are
very important.
Chairman Karleskint stated these concerns are addressed in Mitigation Items 9, 10, and 11.
Commissioner Hoffman concurred.
Commissioner Cross feels this will open the door to other applicants installing facilities on the hillside.
He feels this will cause a tremendous impact on this area.
Commissioner Kourakis feels staff has addressed the concerns.
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Hoffman, Kourakis, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: Commissioner Cross
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Whittlesey
ADJOURNED at 8:15 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled for March
27, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
MEETING AGENDA
DATE aZ-96 ITEM # ..3
cv..
.R...sa-�.M.G�. ,.SY.,.n.CSl �- e.t:.J�•,v��..� , J1fl.�1.:�-b.3.r� , a.r+.3S,
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 1996
CITY COUNCIL
SAN : nolavp eA
COUNCIL
Q-cDD D!'- R i
-•g/CAO ❑ FIV DIR
R.ArbiniAO IJ CHIEF
•-,`�(I2567SantaClwaSt. a � ❑ PW DIR
Sn Luie Obisp,CA QUO 1-6339 j LE
RKIppICa p ppLlCf CHF
^ O _M_ TEAM O REC DIR
D F:LE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PEAS DIR
- .yam-:•
•
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ` -9L ITEM #
FAMILY CARE NETWORK, INC.
AN INVESTMENT IN OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE—CHILDREN
'March 28, 1996
City Clerk
San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: General P1an:Amendment
Stoneridge Hillside communications facility
Mayor and City Counsel Members:
I wish to express my support for the approval of this amendment. This agency is a
therapeutic foster care service headquartered in San Luis Obispo. Working with a
population of special needs children, emergency service can be critical, Thus we
are very dependent on cellular phones. Any improvement of this service is a benefit
to,our agency and this community.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
aur4W. berts
ecutive Director
JwPV1f ► q4;;
I
Fl—
' COUNCIL CDU 01
iVACAp OFINDIR
1�ATTOANEY ❑ PW D R 0 FIRE CHIEF
' APR 1 1996 CLEAKPDAIG ❑ POLICE CHF
O MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIA
CITY CLERK ❑ C AD FILE O UTIL DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA +'
: ._� ❑ PERS DiR
508 Higuera Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401 • (805)'781-3535•Fax(805) 781-3538
y FFA No.400707666