Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1999, 6 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING USE PERMIT, U-28-99, AND VARIANCE, V-28-99, FOR A MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PACIFIC AND MORRO STREETS; 860 PACIFIC STREET. council 8-X1 ° j acjEnba REpont . -99 6"° .- CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P O O FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Develop nt Director Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING USE PERMIT, U-28-99, AND VARIANCE, V-28-99, FOR A MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PACIFIC AND MORRO STREETS., 860 PACIFIC STREET. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the appeal and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying the EIR Supplement (EIRS) as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); 2. Find that the additional proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan; and 3. Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and approving use permit, U-28-99, to allow a multi-level parking structure in the C-C and O zones with the building height exception to allow a 44-foot tall building and 52-foot tall elevator tower, a variance to allow a reduced street yard from 15-feet to 0-feet for the offices, and a variance to allow 80% lot coverage based on findings and subject to the .conditions and code requirements listed in Draft Resolution`B." REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Planning Commission denied the project finding the EIRS to be inadequate and that the required findings to approve a building height exception and the variance requests could not be made. To uphold the appeal and approve the project, it is recommended that: 1) the EIRS be certified; 2) the use permit for the parking structure use itself be approved with findings and conditions; 3) the use permit for building height exceptions be approved finding that: adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure; the proposed building height is consistent with adjoining buildings; and the building height will have less than significant impacts on views towards scenic features; and 4) the street yard and lot coverage variances be approved finding that: there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, zoning and surroundings; no grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district (C-C and O) would occur with the variances; and there will be no adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. If the Council decides that the use permit can be approved with modifications, but that required variance findings cannot be made,two possible alternatives are identified: 1) approve the parking structure with a building height exception, a lesser lot coverage variance (70% instead of 80%) and no street yard variance by removing the offices; or 2) continue the project and direct the 6-1 Council Agenda Report,U- -99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 PacificlStreet Page 2 - project applicant and architect to re-design the project (parking garage and offices) to meet requirements for lot coverage (60%) and street yards (15 feet). If Council choses the latter alternative, it is recommended that a building height exception be granted to the project. Limiting the structure to 35 feet in height would eliminate the top floor and a substantial number of parking spaces making the project infeasible. Fiscal impacts vary depending on the Council's decision. DISCUSSION Situation On July 14, 1999, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 vote (Commrs. Ready and Senn voting no) to deny the use permit and variance to allow a multi-level parking structure with deviations to building height, building setback and lot coverage, finding that: 1) the environmental impact report supplement (FIRS) does not adequately address the project's aesthetic and safety impacts; 2) approving a street yard variance, lot coverage variance and building height exception would constitute a grant of special privilege - an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and 3) there are no circumstances applying to the site, such as size; shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning. Planning Commission discussion focused on two issue areas—the proposed deviations to the Office zone development standards, . and adequacy of the FIRS. A majority of the Commissioners did not feel that the required findings for approving a building height exception, street yard variance and lot coverage variance could be made for the parking structure. They also felt that the FIRS did not adequately address visual impacts (obstruction of views to scenic resources) and the safety risks of the proposed pedestrian bridge. The Commission felt that City- initiated projects should be held to the same standards as private development. projects. Attachment 6 is a copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting.. On July 20, 1999, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with the City Clerk's Office. The applicant (City of San Luis Obispo - Public Works Department) is appealing the Commission's action, and asking the City Council to approve the project. The applicantUappellant states several reasons in support of the project, including: the site is consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Concept-plan; the original EIR(certified by City Council in December, 1997) analyzed alternative sites and concluded that the project site is optimum for meeting downtown parking demands; empirical data and consultant studies show the existing.Marsh Street parking structure functioning at or near capacity with a need to expand the facility to meet growing demand; a similar height and setback exception was granted for the existing Marsh Street structure; the ground floor office space is consistent with other types of uses along Pacific Street;the proposed pedestrian bridge will reduce conflicts between pedestrian and automobiles by providing a conflict-free pedestrian route; and the project's supplemental EIR determined that no significant impacts would result from the proposed project. Attachment 5 i a copy of the appeal letter. 6-2 Council Agenda Report,U-28-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 3 Buildine Height Exception There was substantial discussion on.the proposed building height (parapet walls up to 44 feet high and a 52-foot tall elevator tower), and the Commission's authority to grant a height exception for the project. A majority of the Commissioners felt that the structure was too tall and that it should be reduced to comply with the 35 foot height requirement, even if City Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to grant height exceptions for parking structures. Building Height Exception Authority and Findings The following information is intended to clarify the Planning Commission's and City Council's authority in reviewing the building height exception. City Zoning Regulations (Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone, footnote 13) states: "Where parking as a principal use is allowed, deviations to existing setbacks and building heights are permitted upon approval of a use permit as required by Section 17.22.010. All multi-level parking facilities shall require the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. " City Zoning Regulations give the City Council the authority to approve a building height exception (not a variance) to allow the proposed parking structure to be taller than the 35-foot typically allowed in the O zone district. Section 17.16.020E.2e of the Zoning Regulations establishes the criteria and circumstances under which a building height exception should be approved. In order for the Council to approve the requested height exception, any one of the following and similar circumstances must apply to the project. 1. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering the topography and zoning; 2. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; 3. When the properties at issue are within an area where use of solar energy is generally infeasible because of landform shading; 4. When adequate recorded agreement running with the land exists to protect established solar collectors and probable collector locations; 5. When the property to be shaded is a street. Staff Analysis/Recommendation: In staff's opinion at least two of the above findings (nos. 1 and 5) can be made in support of the proposed building height exception. 6-3 Council Agenda Report,U-/-o-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 4 The property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering the topography and zoning. Specifically, the parking structure will not deprive existing properties of reasonable solar access given the types of uses and zoning surrounding the site. Those properties most affected by the structure are commercial uses on C- C and O-zoned land. Existing uses include the Mission Medical parking lot to the east; the Post Office, Parable bookstore and the Masonic Lodge to the north; and the existing parking structure to the west. Although there are some smaller offices in the immediate area, they would continue to have sufficient solar access because they are located to the south of the structure. No residentially-zoned properties will experience solar exposure impacts from the proposed parking structure. The project site is bounded by Morro Street to the east, Pacific Street to the south, commercial uses to the north and the existing parking structure to the west. Given the site's location and orientation, the properties most affected by shading will be the rear of the commercial properties along Marsh Street (The Parable and the Post Office), the existing parking garage, and the public streets. It should also be noted that the EIR supplement finds that the parking structure replicates the height and scale of the adjacent parking structure as well as being similar in height to the adjacent Masonic Temple, therefore fitting in with the existing vertical scale in the vicinity. With the exception of the elevator tower, the building measures about 44 feet which is comparable to the existing parking garage and Masonic Temple, both of which are about 48 feet tall. The 52- foot high elevator tower constitutes a very small portion of the project and is located at the center of the structure, which minimizes it visibility from the public right-of-way. The offices are about 18 feet high and comparable in height to the single story office structures on the south side of Pacific Street. It is also important to note that a similar height exception was granted for the original Marsh Street structure,a portion of which is also in the O zone district. One of the Planning Commission's primary concerns with the proposed pedestrian bridge was that it would have viewshed impacts. However, the EIR supplement concludes that the bridge will have less than significant impacts on continuous views towards scenic features. Specifically, the EIRS finds that although the building will obstruct views of Cerro San Luis from some locations near the comer of Pacific and Morro Streets, many other views will be preserved with the primary garage setback from the street. Street Yard-and Lot Coverage Variances As outlined in the project description, the parking garage expansion project involves two variance requests—a street yard variance for the office spaces and a lot coverage variance. The following section describes each variance request, outlines the findings required to approve the variances, and summarizes the Planning Commission's action and staffs recommendation. 6-4 Council Agenda Report,U-26-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 5 Street Yard Variance for Offices At the Planning Commission meeting, there was extensive discussion on the proposed street yard variance for the office.component of the project. The offices have a 0400t setback when a 15= foot setback is required. On a 5-2 vote, the Planning Commission voted to deny the variance request because most of the Commissioners did not feel that the required findings could not be made for the project. The Commission felt that there are no circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning; and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege. One issue that was raised by Commissioner Jeffrey was the possibility of eliminating the office spaces to eliminate the need for a street yard variance. There was very little Commission discussion on eliminating the offices. Staff clarified for the Commission that the primary parking structure complies with the setback requirement, but the offices do not and.require a street yard variance. It was pointed out that the offices were added to give the structure a more pedestrian scale at the ground level, to break up building mass, to enhance the streetscape and to provide a mixed-use development that proved successful with the original structure. While the offices will improve the structure's appearance, they are the.sole reason for the street yard variance request. Therefore, removing the offices would eliminate the need for a street yard variance. However, it should be noted that without the offices the structure will have a more monolithic appearance rather than having a pedestrian-scale at the ground level. Removal of the offices is more fully discussed in the project alternatives section. Lot Coveraze.Yariance In evaluating the variance requests, staff examined project files to determine what deviations to property development standards were granted for the existing Marsh Street Parking Garage. According to City records, in 1987, a former City Council amended City Zoning Regulations to allow deviations to building setbacks and height for parking structures with use permit approval. These deviations are addressed by footnote 13 of Allowed Uses Table (Zoning Regulations Section 17.22.010). Staff is not sure if it: was the former Council's .intention to include lot coverage as an allowed deviation. While the footnote does not list lot coverage, the existing parking structure, constructed after this footnote was added, was-approved with a more.than 60% percent. lot coverage on an O>zoned property. Because lot coverage was not listed in the footnote, staff has chosen to process the application conservatively and to require a variance to allow a greater than 60% lot cover on the project site which has the same split-zoning as the existing parking structure. Project plans show a 3,509 mZ (37,757 sq.ft.) site and a 2,785 mz (29,964 sq.ft.) building footprint. As designed,the proposed structure will cover approximately 80%of the site. The site is zoned O (Office) and C-C (Central-Commercial). The O district allows a maximum lot coverage of 60%and C-C district allows a.maximum lot coverage of 100% A majority of the Planning Commissioners did not feel that the required findings could be made to approve a lot coverage variance, and that the project should comply with all applicable 6-5 Council Agenda Report,U -99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 6 development standards. Most of the Commissioners felt that there are no circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning; and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege. Required Variance Findings Pursuant to City Zoning Regulations (Section 17.60.040), the Planning Commission or Council must make each of the following findings to approve a variance. 1. That there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning; 2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege - an entitlement inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and 3. That the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing StaffAnalvsis/Recommendation: Staff believes that the required findings can be made to approve the street yard and lot coverage variance for the project. Those findings are discussed below. Staff is also conducting further research of the neighboring properties through the Geographic Information System and may have additional information for the Council prior to the hearing. 1. In staffs opinion, the street yard and lot coverage variances are justified because there are circumstances applying to the site and use which do not apply generally to the land in the vicinity with the same zoning. First, the property carries two zoning designations (C-C and O) with different property development standards. If the entire site were zoned C-C, the project would fully comply with the development standards. This split zoning makes it difficult for the property to be developed to meet the standards of two zones. Second, the site is comprised of several small parcels configured in a manner that does not allow for full compliance with strict development standards and proper functioning of the intended use (parking structure). Finally, several of the underlying parcels are shared with existing uses (the Post Office and original parking structure) that make it difficult for the project to meet the street yard and lot coverage requirements and function properly. 2. The variance for street yard and lot coverage will not constitute a grant of special privilege and will be consistent with developments on other properties with the same zoning in the immediate vicinity. An inventory of properties in the vicinity finds that there are no other available parcels, in the area, large enough for the parking garage use. The variance will bring the project site up to parity with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. There are only two other properties in the vicinity with the same split zoning—Washington Mutual Bank and the existing Marsh Street parking structure. Deviations to property development standards were granted for both of these properties. The proposed building 6-6 Council Agenda Report,Um.26-99(Marsh.Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 7 setbacks are consistent with existing development on properties in the vicinity with the same or similar zoning. For example, there are several commercial and office buildings with reduced setbacks along Pacific Street. Those include Mission Medical Associates, Washington Mutual Bank, First American Title Insurance and the existing parking structure. It is also important to note that a reduced street.yard was allowed for the existing parking structure in 1987. 3. The street yard and lot coverage variances will not adversely impact health, safety and welfare of people working or living in the area. The street yard variance is for the office spaces only. The office spaces constitute a small portion of the overall structure and are situated in a location that will not obstruct traffic visibility.The EIR and EIRS conclude that the project, with .street yard and lot coverage variances, will not result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts, including health, safety and welfare. Environmental Review In December 1997, the City Council certified a final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion. Council certification meant that the City found the EIR to be adequate in evaluating impacts, discussing alternatives, and recommending mitigation measures. A copy of the EIR was circulated to the City Council and Planning Commission previously, and is available for review at the Community Development Department. Certification of the final EIR allowed the City to proceed with project design and site acquisition. Over the past two years, architectural plans have been developed and refined. Refinement of those plans has resulted in four proposed changes to the project as described in the original EIR. Those changes include: 1) provision of a pedestrian bridge linking the second level of the expanded garage with the north side of Marsh Street, at a new stairwell gazebo; 2) inclusion of office space along the Pacific Street frontage, and at the comer of Pacific and Morro streets; 3) temporary closure of Morro Street to provide a construction staging area; and 4) changes to the internal circulation and exit-booth arrangement. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project changes were evaluated in a supplement to the original EIR. The EIR Supplement (FIRS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project. changes and recommends measures to mitigate project impacts. It focuses on traffic, air quality, historical resources, aesthetics and policy consistency. The draft EIR Supplement was distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission and interested parties. The EIRS was made available for public review on May 1, 1999 with the formal public comment period ending on June 1, 1999. A copy of the Draft FIRS is enclosed in the Council packet, and is available for review at the Community Development Department at 990 Palm.Street. There was extensive discussion on the EIRS at the Planning Commission meeting. A majority of the Planning Commission members did not feel that the EIRS adequately addressed the project's potential impacts, including: pedestrian safety at the street level or at the overpass, aesthetics of the structure, viewshed obstruction of the pedestrian bridge, and air quality impacts of cars using 6-7 Council Agenda Report,U-moo-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 8 the garage on individuals in the proposed office spaces. There was a request for a visual analysis of the structure and pedestrian bridge looking westward. Staff Analysis/Recommendation: Staff and the EIR consultant, Rincon Associates, do not believe that any new significant issues were identified at the Planning Commission. Most, if not all, of the Commission's concerns and comments have been addressed in the original EIR and the EIR Supplement. Staff has asked the EIR consultant to prepare a response to the issues raised by the Commission. Those comments are included as Attachment 8. In addition, a second photo simulation of the structure and pedestrian bridge that was requested by the Commission members will be distributed to the Council. Staff finds that the EIRS adequately addresses the project changes, and recommends that the City Council certify the document and approve the mitigation monitoring program (see Attachments 1 and 2). For additional discussion, see the attached Planning Commission staff report dated July 14, 1999. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department commented on the dimensions of the parking garage entrances and exits as well as internal circulation patterns. Public Works comments have been forwarded to the project architect and the Architectural Review Commission. Utilities commented on water and wastewater requirements. The comments of the Community Development Department - Building Division focused on the project's compliance with the City Building Code. Fire Department indicated that services are adequate. These departments comments are incorporated as conditions of approval for the use permit and final architectural approval of the building. FISCAL IMPACTS The funding for the proposed project was approved in the 1997-99 Financial Plan ($4.5M). An ample revenue stream presently exists in the Parking Enterprise Fund to debt finance all necessary costs. However, there are several fiscal implications if the project is not built or modified from the current proposed design. No Project—In a no project scenario the City's current investment of over $1,000,000 (land— $608,000 and environmental review and design--$421,000) could be jeopardized. The Post Office purchase agreement requires the ground level to be maintained as a Post Office customer parking lot, with or without a garage. If no garage was built,the City would continue to own the Post Office's customer parking, but would not receive any benefit from the purchase of this land. Only the 24 spaces from the Tenant medical parking lot could be utilized for public parking. All other costs associated with the project would be lost if the garage expansion was abandoned. Modified Project—Removal or reduction of office space. Elimination of the offices would result in a loss of lease revenue from the office space. This could be as high as $30,000 annually based 6-8 Council Agenda Report,U-28-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 9 on current rental rates if all spaces were removed. In addition to the lease revenue, project changes would result in additional design costs associated with the "new"project. Reduced Project---Reducing the size of the project would result in a loss of parking spaces as well as office space. In addition to the above lost lease revenue, each parking space reduction represents a yearly loss of$1,000 based on current garage rates. In addition to the lost revenue, substantial costs would be incurred for re-engineering the project at a reduced size. This would also delay the start of construction, which, in tum, delays the increased parking and/or lease revenue from the garage expansion. ALTERNATIVES The following paragraphs discuss project alternatives that are available to the City Council. 1. Parking Structure without Offices The City Council could approve the use permit allowing a multi-level parking structure with a building height exception to allow a 44-foot high building and 52-foot high elevator tower, and a variance to allow 70% lot coverage where 60% is allowed. Under this alternative, the location, size and height of the primary parking structure would remain the same, but the office spaces would be removed. Eliminating the office spaces would eliminate the need for a variance to the street yard requirement and reduce lot coverage from 80% to 70% The Council would.then need to make a decision on the use pen-nit, building height exception and the lot coverage variance. There are, however, negative impacts associated with removing the offices from the project. The office spaces were added to give the structure a more pedestrian-friendly frontage. The office spaces would provide a more pedestrian-scaled and pedestrian-oriented streetscape than the original project design. These offices would be complimentary to the existing offices across the street, and encourage people to walk along these segments of Morro and Pacific Streets. In addition, the office space would enhance the structures overall appearance by breaking up building mass and screening views to the interior of the garage from the public streets. The original project design placed the structure at the rear of the sidewalk and did not allow for a height transition. Without the offices, the structure will have a more monolithic appearance and would not be as pedestrian-oriented. 2. Reduced Parking Structure Continue the project and direct the applicant to revise the project design (parking garage and offices)to comply with the yard and lot coverage requirements of the O zone district. Under this scenario, the building footprint would have to be reduced from 29,977 sq.ft. to 23,724 sq.ft. (a difference of 6253 sq.ft.), the number of parking spaces would reduced from 299 (net) to about 235 spaces, the parking garage would be setback about 45 feet from Morro Street and 15 feet from Pacific Street, and the offices would be setback about 30 feet from Morro Street. There would not be any offices on Pacific Street. The actual number of spaces that could be provided would be determined by the project architect and structural engineer. 6-9 Council Agenda Report,U=—,o-99(Marsh Street Garage Expansion) 860 Pacific Street Page 10 To approve this alternative, the City Council.would need to approve a use permit to allow the multi-level parking garage and a building height exception without variances for lot coverage and street yard requirements. According to the applicant/appellant, limiting the structure's height to 35 feet would eliminate the top level of parking spaces and make the project infeasible: 3. Denial Deny the appeal, thereby denying the use permit with findings. If the Council denies the project, findings should be specified. Attachments Attachment 1 -Draft Resolution"A"-EIRS Attachment? -Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachment 3 -Draft Resolution`B"-Uphold Appeal Attachment 4 - Draft Resolution"C"- Deny Appeal Attachment 5 -Appeal Letter Attachment.6 -Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7 -Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 14, 1999. Attachment 8 -Planning Commission Hearing Input Report The Final EIR, EIR supplement and response to comments were distributed to.the City Council and are available at the Community Development and Public Works Department_Parking Division. Full-scale project plans are available at the Community Development Department. JShoa1s/PC/U28-99-3(Garage Expansion) 6-10 Attachment 1 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUPPLEMENT (EIRS) FOR THE MARSH STREET PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PACIFIC AND MORRO STREETS,U/V-28-99 WHEREAS, City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion in November of 1997; and WHEREAS, there are changes to the project, as described in the FEIR, and minor additions or changes are necessary to make the FEIR adequately apply to the revised project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the FEIR and the EIR Supplement (FIRS) in accordance with the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the EIRS comes to the City Council after extensive review and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public; and. WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the EIRS for the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts and recommends mitigation measures. 6-11 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2: Findinus. 1. The EIRS supplement was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The EIRS supplement reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. For each "Potentially Significant" effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Traffic, Air Quality, Historic Resources and Aesthetics, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project. 4. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17'day of August, 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen BhoaWCUEIRU-28-99 6-12 Attachment 2 O ma M.2 E = o `m v > c o � rn rn U C C C m b 7 M 0 C 'O O -O O -p p m U U N U (ca U C - � > ' m � Co U mz m fA C y y (0 C w C H O U m U m U m U y _ ' @ c m N L) C p "(a m @ 0 y N U C C 0. m E m o "w c � o p a ago 0x U)) Co ami v y rn c p m o Co Q o map w of m ov p m � L c a Y m a> c c m m as y .. x fl m c c p c y ami m 0) m �-�° v a b m c �? 'v, v ov o Cu o m Co m e � � a in Co a � ami Qm m U ,cmr v m0 a� nw v "' y o c W a o v v2 - a (p E o m U) o o `m o o W n � CD :3 y cc C0 'a � m m c Na cmi a) a' � '= c �'2 �.a`mi ^ EwE mom' m ~ � moo' `Ecmi o v cvCM = U U D) C M 1�1 O V m O U a3 p m y 07 m c Co m O y y y y 7 -O L 0 0 0) NO) (5 o O) O in n U O N '�O O O m O O O (6 Q QU 'vr - (owc� wa3On QO � 0 a � QEin Fz W c c c � 0 E E E tr C/1 b d n Co 'Z dp 0 0 m F+1 BCCI a � � ai ,z o m U U U E to H m 3 7 C rQ V Y C p,y m m of O ~ U m o yto «. w o CD � m U M �' m Z c r d m v rn o y U_ Ua do Omo . IM Nm vOO 0 0 cc w CL ® >� T O • O m m m m C13 '& m F� F� E fA .� H fn fn CL 0 Q 0 A tachment 3 Draft Resolution`B" RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION, STREET YARD VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, 860 PACIFIC STREET,UIV-28-99 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 14, 1999, denied Use Permit and Variance, UN-28-99, to allow a multi-level parking structure with a building height exception, and denied variances to street yard and lot coverage requirements for said structure; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo - Public Works Department filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on July 20, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, August 17, 1999, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission action on Use Permit and Variance, UN-28-99, the Environmental Impact Report Supplement (EIRS) and a General Plan consistency determination for acquisition of additional property for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the EIRS prepared for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 6-14 Resolution No. (1999 series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Use Permit. The appeal is upheld and the use permit is approved based on the following findings: 1. The EIRS adequately addresses the proposed changes to the parking garage expansion project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit, building height exception,street yard variance and lot coverage variance. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan which show the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. SECTION 2. Building Height Exception. The appeal is upheld and the building height exception is approved based on the following findings: 1. The building height will not deprive existing uses of reasonable solar access given its location and uses adjacent to the structure. Those uses most affected by the building are the rear of existing commercial uses to the north, an existing surface parking lot to the east and the existing parking garage to the west. 2. Given the site's location and orientation, those properties most affected by shading will be the rear of the commercial properties along Marsh Street (The Parable and the Post Office), the existing parking garage,and public streets. 3. The building height is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings. A similar height exception was granted for the original Marsh Street parking garage that was approved on December 2, 1987. 4. The EIRS concludes that the building will have less than significant impacts on continuous views towards scenic features with the primary garage setback from the street. SECTION 3. Variance. The appeal is upheld and the variances to street yard and lot coverage requirements are approved based on the following findings: 1. The street yard and lot coverage variances are justified because there are circumstances applying to the site and use which do not apply generally to the land in the vicinity with the same zoning. Those circumstances are: a) the property carries two zoning designations (C-C and O) with different property development standards, which makes it difficult for the property to be developed in accordance with the standard of each zone; b) the site is comprised of several small parcels configured in a manner that does not allow for full 6-15 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 3 compliance with strict. development standards and proper functioning of the intended use (parking structure); and c) several of the underlying parcels are shared with existing uses (the Post Office and original parking structure) which.makes it difficult for the project to meet the street yard and lot coverage.requirements and function properly. 2. The variance for street yard and lot coverage will not constitute a grant of special privilege and will be consistent with developments on other properties with the same zoning in the immediate vicinity, based on the following: a) no other parcels; in the vicinity, are large enough and available for the parking garage use; and b) the variance will bring the project site up to parity with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, that were granted deviations to property development standards. 3. The street yard and lot coverage variances will not adversely impact health,. safety and welfare of people working or living in the area. The street yard variance is for the office spaces only. The office spaces constitute a small portion of the overall structure and are situated in a location that will not obstruct traffic visibility. The FEIR and EIRS conclude that the project, with street yard and lot coverage variances, will not result in .significant unavoidable environmental impacts, including health, safety and welfare. SECTION 4. Conditions. The appeal is hereby upheld and the use permit and variances are approved subject to the:following conditions: L. All City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The.Planning Commission shall review annually the impacts of the parking structure on the surrounding neighborhoods and its internal functioning to assure compliance with the approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval. At such times, the Commission may recommend additional mitigation measures and/or revise the use permit conditions. 3. One additional street tree is required on Pacific Street unless waived by the City Arborist. 4. The transit stop located on Marsh Street; east of Chorro Street, shall be retained. (Currently, a turning lane is indicated adjacent to the curb from Chorro to the entrance to the parking structure entrance. Transit vehicles will occupy this turn lane when.transit stops are being made. 5. The bicycle lane striping adjoining the proposed tum lane into the parking structure shall be retained as a solid striped line. 6. Remove 8 existing on street parking spaces on Pacific Street at its intersection with.Monro Street to improve stopping sight distance and accommodate bulb-outs. The spaces shall be removed-as follows: . 6.16 Resolution No. (1999 series) Page 4 a) All spaces on the northerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the existing parking garage exit. b) All spaces on the southerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the new parking garage exit. c) One space on Pacific at the northeast corner of Morro. d) Two spaces on Pacific at the southeast corner of Morro. e) All spaces on the easterly side of Morro, from Marsh to the Post Office truck entrance. SECTION 5. Code Requirements. The appeal is hereby upheld and the use permit and variances, UN-28-99, are approved subject to the following code requirements: A. Based upon a total parking space count of 341, 8 accessible parking spaces are required. At least I space shall be a van accessible space with an 8 foot unloading zone. A minimum clearance of 8'-2" shall be provided along the vehicle access path to and from the accessible parking spaces. B. Curb ramps affording wheel chair access shall be provided on the ground floor level along pedestrian paths of travel into and within the structure. C. Where the office spaces are sharing a common toilet room, either provide an additional exit to the outside from the common access area or provide individual toilet rooms to each office space. D. Based on the property line location shown, the openings in the north wall of the structure (opposite the Post Office building) are NOT permitted. As shown, the wall must be of one- hour fire-resistive construction (less than 10 feet from the property line).All driveway ramps must be ADA compliant. Driveway ramps shown on the plans do not reflect the current City Standard Nos. 2110 (Marsh)&2111 (Morro&.Pacific). E. A water allocation may be required, due to the addition of restroom and office facilities. However, appropriate credit would be given for the old Recreation Department building which has been removed. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation Division will determine any needed allocation and any necessary retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781- 7258. F. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees may be required at the time a building permit is issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of any new water meters that are installed with the project, with appropriate credit being given for the meter that served the old Recreation building. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. 6-17 Resolution No. (1999 cries) Page 5 G. The height of the buildingmay necessitate the use of approved backflow prevention devices on certain connections to the City system. The construction plans shall be reviewed by the . County Department of Environmental Health for any backflow prevention requirements. The County cross-connection inspector, Henry Ruiz, can be reached.at 781-5567 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES:. ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed.and adopted this 171, day of August, 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM-- City ORM:City Attorney Jeffrey G: Jorgensen JShoals/MU28-99Res 6-18 Attachment 4 Draft Resolution"C" RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI- LEVEL PARKING GARAGE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION AND VARIANCES FOR REDUCED STREET YARDS AND INCREASED LOT COVERAGE FOR THE MARSH STREET PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION, 860 PACIFIC STREET, UN-28-99 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 14, 1999, denied a use permit to allow a multi-level parking structure with a building height exception, and denied variances to street yard and lot coverage requirements for said structure; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo - Public Works Department filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on July 20, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, August 17, 1999, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission action on Use Permit and Variances, U/V-28-99, the Environmental Impact Report Supplement (EIRS) and a General Plan consistency determination for acquisition of additional property for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 6-19 Resolution.No. (1999 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Action. The appeal is denied and Use Permit and Variances, UN-28-99, are denied based on the following findings: 1. Approving a street yard variance, lot coverage variance and building, height exception would constitute a giant of special privilege = an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, 2. There are no circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoriin-2. On motion of , seconded by , -and on the following roll call vote: AYES: .NOES: ABSENT` The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1.7'" day of August, 1999. Mayor.Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM- Ci ORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorge en JShoaWCC/U-28-99DenyRes 6-20 Attachment 5 � SII I� c is 061spo 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 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission rendered on July 14, 1999 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 DETAIL The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with: John Shoals. Community Development Dept on July 15, 1999 Name/Department (Date) 1260 Chorro Street, Ste. B Appellant: ith O a ewski, r ana er San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name/T-itle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 544-3177 781-7234 Home Phone Work Phone 1260 Chorro Street, Ste. B Representative: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for T/q 9 _ Date & Time Received: 6 c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVED Copy to the following department(s): /4 ' JUl 2 0 1999 2 - sLO CITY Ct_E15K Ongi al in C Ce s ce The City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department is hereby appealing the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission's July 14, 1999 decision to deny a use permit and variance to allow an addition to the Marsh Street Parking Structure. The specifics of the use permit and variance applications are as follows: • A height exception to allow a 44-foot high building with a tower at 52-feet where a 35-foot high building is allowed; • Lot coverage at 80% where 60% is allowed; reduced street yard from 15 feet to 0 feet for office use; and • Review and consideration of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the parking structure expansion project. The Public Works Department is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the use permit and variance based on the merits of the Marsh Street Parking structure expansion which include the following: 1. The proposed site is at an optimum location at the periphery of the commercial core on land that is currently used for surface parking. 2. Alternative sites have been analyzed with the conclusion that the proposed location is optimum for meeting parking demand in the vicinity of the Downtown Center. 3. Empirical data and consultant studies demonstrate a high demand for parking in the current Marsh Street Parking structure.. 4. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan which encourages development of parking structures on the edges of the commercial core to provide more parking opportunities and encourage people to `walk rather than drive between points within the core." . 5. The proposed project is consistent with Downtown Concept Plan which shows the site developed with a parking structure 6. The proposed parking structure's design provides the maximum number of parking spaces for the land available. The structure's height and scale is similar to adjoining buildings. 7. A similar height and setback variance was granted for the existing Marsh Street Parking Structure 8. The proposed ground floor office space is consistent with the types of land uses along Pacific Street and will help to complete this urban streetscape. 6-22 9. The proposed bridge over Marsh Street provides for conflict4ree pedestrian flow. Its use will reduce traffic congestion which is caused by the interaction between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and will eliminate the need for a mid-block traffic signal. 10. The project's Supplemental EIR determined that no significant impacts would result frorn.the proposed project 6-23 Attachment 6 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 147 1999 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Alice Loh, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, David Jeffrey, Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, and Chairman Paul Ready Absent: None Staff Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Recording Present: Secretary Leaha Magee, Associate Planners Glen Matteson and John Shoals, Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, Parking Manager Keith Opalewski, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of May 26, 1999, and June 9, 1999, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Diane Hutner, Palindromes Restaurant owner, described how she came to SLO from Chicago and how she feels the displayed drawings of the Marsh Street parking structure expansion look similar to structures in downtown Chicago. She did not feel this would benefit our town. Chairman Ready reminded Ms. Hutner that this portion of the agenda is reserved for non-agenda item comment. 6-24 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 2 Chuck Mormon, 1999 Tapadero Avenue, Los Osos, is the owner of Palm Street Antiques at 863 Palm Street. He expressed concern about how his business will be impacted and felt there was a lack of public notification on the construction of another parking garage know as Palm Street II. He did not support parking structures in the downtown core because of traffic and pedestrian impacts. He felt Santa Rosa, Nipomo, Marsh, or Mill Street would be a better location to capture freeway traffic and suggested a City/County parking coordination. He said he has collected over 200 signatures of people who oppose another high-rise parking structure in the downtown core area. Director Jonas explained the extensive planning program which is underway for a several block area downtown that will conclude the types of land uses and development that should occur in the vicinity of the downtown. He noted that there will be ample opportunity for public input before any Council action is taken. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 860 Pacific Street; ER, U, V 28-99: Request for a use permit and variance to allow an addition to the Marsh Street Parking Structure; height exception to allow a 44-foot high building with a 52-foot tower where a 35-foot height is allowed; lot coverage at 80% where 60% is allowed; reduced street yard from 15 feet to 0-feet for office space; and environmental review; O zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report with a clarification to the required findings for the street yard and lot coverage variances and one additional finding. He recommended the Planning Commission (1) determining that the EIR Supplement is adequate for final action on the project, (2) determining and reporting to the City Council that the additional proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan, and (3) approving the use permit with a building height exception, setback variance and lot coverage variance, based on modified findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Commissioner Cooper commented that variances are made based on unique site conditions, not proposed unique uses. Manager Whisenand explained that Footnote 13 of the Zoning Regulations was specifically included to address parking structures because it was recognized that parking structures could increase the height or lot coverage of what would normally be allowed in the zone. When the parking structure was proposed, the City Council adopted changes to the Zoning Regulations that allowed the Planning Commission, through the use permit process, to give deviations to height and. setback standards for parking structures, recognizing that they are somewhat unique. It was the intent of Council originally to address the situation of lot coverage, although the footnote doesn't specifically mention that. He noted that a variance is included for lot coverage to ensure that every aspect is covered. 6-25 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Jeffrey noted a variance for lot coverage was provided for the original structure, as noted on page 4 of the staff report. Manager Whisenand explained that an exception was processed originally, not a variance. Commissioner Jeffrey asked what the impact would be to the parking structure if the 5- foot setback for the offices was removed. He noted removal of the offices was not included as an option in the staff report nor included in the EIR. Associate Planner Shoals stated the office spaces were added after input was received from some of the workshops and prior meetings. The intent is to include offices to add pedestrian scale to the parking structure. He noted that if the offices are removed, the primary structure complies with street setback requirements. Commissioner Loh questioned if correct procedures have been followed since this item has been already been reviewed and approved by the ARC. Associate Planner Shoals explained this item went to the ARC for conceptual review on how the structure was sited on the property with respect to massing in relation to surrounding uses. Commissioner Loh had staff review the purpose of a supplemental El . Parking Manager Keith Opalewski summarized the Downtown Parking and Access Plan and reviewed the history/timeline, usage, and demand of the parking structure. Fred Sweeny, project architect, displayed slides and drawings and presented an overview of the structure layout and design features. Commissioner Senn asked what the height of the Masonic Temple is. Mr. Sweeny replied that it is approximately 50 feet high. Commissioner Cooper asked how many parking spaces would be provided if no variances or exceptions were granted. Mr. Sweeny replied that without a height variance, the proposed expansion would lose the top deck and 99 spaces. He noted that if the lot coverage variance is not granted, this project will not be feasible at this site. 6-26 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Cooper expressed concerns about pedestrian safety and felt a traffic signal would be an acceptable solution for a mid-block pedestrian crossing instead of the overhead walkway/bridge. Commissioner Loh felt that increased usage of the auto entrance on Marsh Street would pose a hazard to the increased number of pedestrians using the-sidewalk. Mr. Sweeny felt the pedestrian bridge would alleviate some of the pedestrian traffic at grade level. Steve Svete, consultant, reviewed the Supplemental EIR project alternatives and mitigation measures. Commissioner Cooper stated the pedestrian bridge is a visual feature that could be somewhat distracting to auto drivers on Marsh Street which could increase hazards to pedestrians crossing the street. Schott Schell, Associated Transportation Engineers, reviewed the circulation analysis, noting that the volume of pedestrians using the crosswalk would be below the threshold of warranting signalization. He noted that a warrant study would be conducted after the garage is completed to re-test criteria. Commissioner Peterson noted that he has not received a copy of the original EIR. In considering view impacts that would be caused by the pedestrian overpass, he found it interesting that views were only considered in an easterly direction but that not everyone is this area will be driving down Marsh Street; pedestrians walking westerly will have views impacted. He noted that in considering views and aesthetics of the pedestrian overpass, since there is only one photo simulation presented, it is difficult to judge impacts. Commissioner Loh commented on the cultural factor that San Luis Obispo is a small town and a pedestrian bridge may not fit in with the scale of the town in this area. Commissioner Whittlesey questioned the statement of exceedances of the APCD air emission significance threshold. Mr. Svete explained the format of the report and noted the conclusion is that emissions will not exceed the threshold. Commissioner Whittlesey had Mr. Svete explain the CO concentration analysis. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if consideration was given to the mix of vehicles (gas or diesel) using the structure. 6-27 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Svete explained that the model used accounted for an average vehicle mix. Commissioner Jeffrey indicated that individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (asthma) are at high risk of exacerbated symptoms while exposed to vehicle exhaust. He asked if additional safety measures will be provided with the new total number of parking spaces. Mr. Svete stated the specific groups were not mentioned, but standard County threshold information has been used to structure the analysis. Commissioner Jeffrey had Mr. Svete explain use of the term "sensitive receptors" and CO hotspots. He asked for comment on ventilation and emergency vehicle ingress/egress, page 10, C. Mr. Svete stated analysis of the circulation patterns is a follow-up study of Initial Study checklist. Mr. Schell explained that Initial Study information with concern with the number of exits was based on a preliminary design. There are no more exits in the current proposal and a bypass gate has been included for emergency access. Mr. Sweeny stated the Uniform Building Code requires air flow standards to be met either mechanically or by natural ventilation and the intent here is to provided 50% openings at all three sides. Commissioner Jeffrey expressed concern . with elevator usage for wheel chair accessibility and potential CO exposure. He commented that page 11, Section F, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative forms transportation. He asked if bicycle racks, car/van pool accommodations, and electric vehicle parking/charging stations are included in the project. Mr. Schell stated these three issues are addressed with the original EIR mitigation, page A10, QC. Commissioner Jeffrey asked for comment on high noise levels in relation to persons who would be using the proposed office space. Mr. Svete replied that the Building Code will address noise buffering issues from the garage itself. Mr. Sweeny noted there will be a four-hour fire wall between the offices and the garage, as required by code. External office windows will be glazed and will meet sound level requirements. 6-28 Draft Planning Commission Moutes July 14, 1999 Page 6 Commission Cooper referred to the Land Use Policy consistency statement and asked for comment on the redesign of the structure with 16-foot step-backs at the second, third and four levels as a mitigation measure. Mr. Svete stated that the step-backs refer to the original footprint which had the upper levels of the garage much closer to the sidewalk. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENT: Albert Reader (Inaudible), 3346 Barranca Court, urged denial of the requests. He felt the original and supplemental EIR's are based on false premises and procedures. He referred to a report from the Institute of Transportation Engineers which says the proposed sites of pedestrian overpasses should be at least 600 feet from the nearest alternative safe crossings. He said he believes the pedestrian bridge will cast shadows at certain times of the day, thereby maximizing the potential for accidents. He noted that Marsh Street is the second busiest street downtown and not on the periphery, and proposing a huge garage drawing thousands of autos on the edge of the pedestrian core is absurd. He felt parking garages should be located near freeway access, and more public input/participation is needed. He also felt outside experts should be brought in who will not accept Council mandates. Diane Hutner, Palindromes Restaurant owner, stated that the displayed drawings of the project remind her of the uglier parts of Chicago. She felt that big city concept development is not needed here. She cited and submitted a petition signed by 830 persons opposing this proposal and requested further public input and participation. Pat Veesart, Environmental Center Executive Director, stated he is not anti-business nor anti-parking. He felt the city needs another parking garage that could be part of the mix in the downtown, but does not believe this is the right location. He felt this site was ill conceived from the beginning and the public was not involved in the early stages of site selection. He also felt this site might have been illegally acquired because a decision was made on a parking garage before public participation, CEQA analysis, environmental work was done. He felt the Planning Commission now has an opportunity correct the wrong. He felt this is the wrong site because a variance is needed, more auto traffic will be brought into the pedestrian core, a garage will be place in the pedestrian core and not periphery, a bridge is needed to get pedestrian across the street, and there will be neighborhood traffic impacts. He urged courage to put an end to this divisive issue. He indicated that another site such as the old French Hospital would be more appropriate. He suggested a moratorium until an appropriate location can be found. 6-29 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 7 Ann Stavner, 441 Buchon Street, read a letter from Carolyn Jenkins who could not attend the meeting. She felt it is ironic that millions of dollars are being spent to house cars downtown when agencies such as the Homeless Shelter and EOC programs have difficulties in locating funding for housing for people. She felt this is not a good representation of the spirit of the Central Coast. Ed Stavner, 441 Buchon Street, software and transportation research engineer, stated the integrated development process includes a needs assessment, decision by stakeholder consensus, and an integrated design process based upon the assessed prioritized needs which leads to a product that has the greatest chance of commercial success by doing right the first time. He strongly suggested extensive community stakeholder input and that the variances not be granted. He asked that corners not be cut; do it right the first time. He felt alternative modes investigation and development is necessary. Tom Swem, Downtown Association and Parking Committee Chairman, supported moving forward with the process that has been going on for too long. He reminded the Commission that the Central-Commercial zone provides for the construction of facilities without parking, and that parking structures need to be constructed downtown. He felt the structure has been adequately designed and studied and there have been numerous public meeting to discuss the issues. Jane Shay, 544 Pacific Street, lives in a senior apartment complex and bikes or walks downtown. She retired in our city because of its downtown walking ambiance and she felt approval of the parking garage would destroy what is so special about the city. Gary Fowler, 777 Mill Street, agreed with previous speaker Mr. Veesart. He believed this is a terrible structure and urged denial of the project. He felt previous Councilmembers and Commissioners were dishonest in saying that the original Marsh Street structure would not be changed or expanded. He felt this structure will drive shoppers out of the city and the pedestrian walkway will be a launching pad for projectiles. He supports downtown parking, but does not believe this site should be expanded. Mike Spangler, downtown business owner, has been involved with the parking issue for 15 years. He felt parking structures enhance the downtown pedestrian access and provide commerce. The concept of a downtown is to be an intensified are of commerce to save the rest of the community. Nowhere is it written that downtown should have a viewshed. He gave the example of how Santa Barbara got cars off of its main street; we need to do the same. He urged adoption of the necessary variances to approve the structure immediately. Brett Cross, 1271 Mariner's Cove, agreed with comments made by previous speaker Mr. Veesart. He expressed the need to keep the downtown viable and felt additional 6-30 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 8 parking is needed, but this location is inappropriate. He did not feel that cars should be pulled into the pedestrian environment. Variances are for minor relaxations and small deviations of standards; this project is well beyond small and minor. He commented on the poor slide presentation of the architect. He stated that the Downtown Concept Plan is not a planning document and has not gone through environmental review, yet the City continues to use it as a community plan. Kathryn Keller, 862 Islay Street, is a frequent downtown shopper and understands the need to increase parking so downtown will remain viable, but urged courage to deny the variances. She felt that many of the parking spaces are utilized by employees, and the city would be better served to research and encourage alternative forms of transportation to the downtown. Chuck Mendleson, 1415 Morro Street, said he moved to SLO five years ago because it is user friendly. He concurred with Mr. Veesart comments. He asked what percentage of garage occupancy is utilized by downtown employees as opposed to shoppers. Parking Manager Opalewski replied 30%. Mr. Mendleson felt more public input with the aide of a facilitator is necessary. Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, transportation planner, thanked Mr. Opalewski for a walking tour of the downtown. He asked if the Commission had an opportunity to review the original EIR and urged rejection of the Supplemental EIR. He noted that a pedestrian transportation plan was promised to the citizens, but it has never happened. The Circulation Element and Downtown Concept Plan should be revised in certain areas. He felt there is too much through traffic downtown. CEQA requires alternatives to the proposed overpass, but none were presented, and there will be impacts to historic buildings. He felt these variances would never be granted to a private citizen, and urged denial of the variance. Sheila Baker, 3121 Johnson Avenue, said she uses public transportation and complimented the City bus service. She questioned why more people don't use the service. She did not believe any parking garages should be considered until it is figured out how to get more people to use the buses. Richard Lee, 7060 Peach Street, City Regional Planning Professor, suggested the variances. be denied. He felt a 70% increase in bulk is substantial and a private residential variance request of this magnitude would be denied. He felt the EIR analysis is inadequate in evaluation of pedestrian impacts. Revenue generated by parking garages equates to $500 per space per year; this garage will not pay for itself nor produce returns. This structure will not contribute to a pedestrian-oriented downtown which is called for in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 6-31 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 9 John French, 3942 Hollyhock, reviewed the histories of the Citizen's Parking Advisory Committee and the Campaign Committee for the defeat of the Palm Street parking structure. He noted everyone wants the benefits of parking structures, but no one wants the negatives in their area. There is evidence of parking structure success at this location and the EIR validates the evidence. More parking is needed now and the evidence is supportable. He urged approval. Richard Cramstorm (Inaudible), 160 Graves Street, suggested there must be a better way for public hearings to be held because staff and consultants are given endless amounts of speaking time and the public is limited to three minutes. He said he resents staffs comments which seem to be pushing approval of this project. He agreed that an additional parking structure is necessary, but not at this location, and urged denial. Daniel Wescot, 1519 Beach Street, felt the City is fortunate to have so many trained transportation/urban planning professionals who have taken the time look at alternatives, and to ignore this expert advice would be in error. He sees no legitimate reasons to approve the project with its variances. He suggested freeing up 30% of the existing parking that is occupied by employees before expanding the Marsh Street structure. Deborah Holley, Downtown Association Administrator, felt arguments against the expansion are based on idealism. She felt that downtown businesses and their needs should not be discounted as being greedy, unrealistic, or self centered. Downtown should be allowed to continue on the track that it's been following. This expansion is necessary now. She urged approval of project. Chris Collins, 7742 Grand Avenue, felt the pedestrian bridge is ill conceived. He described the dangers of his biking route along Marsh Street noting additional trips to the parking structure will increase impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists. He supports rejection of the expansion request. Orval Osborne, 310 Calle Lupita, urged rejection of the project. He felt the EIR is deficient in not keeping with the scale of the city. The General Plan calls for a pedestrian-oriented downtown and this request detracts from that goal. He said he honors downtown businesses and their needs, but this is not the place for more parking to meet those needs. He urged denial of the request. Evelyn DelMartini, 2210 Santa Ynez Avenue, said she supports the parking structure expansion. She has been attending parking meetings for more than five years and has heard the same comments repeated regarding the necessity of more public input. It was her understanding that expansion was planned for with the original garage project. Comment against the expansion seems self centered and downtown merchants should be considered. Downtown viability and success is necessary. More shoppers might be drawn to the downtown if parking was not so difficult. 6-32 Draft Planning Commission hnnoutes July 14, 1999 Page 10 Ruth Holden, 674 Church Street, said she lives in the city because it's pedestrian friendly. She is concerned about the unnecessary divisiveness that has been created. She described downtown Boulder, Colorado and felt we should be encouraging strolling shoppers and tourists. This city is unique and pedestrian overpasses and parking garages should be placed outside of the pedestrian core. Bringing more cars into smoke-free SLO is not going to improve health or safety. Stan Rahn (Inaudible), 234 Broad Street said he is new in the community and appreciates the pedestrian-friendly downtown. He felt this parking expansion will take away from the downtown atmosphere and the variances should be denied. This location is inappropriate for expansion. The city should not be granted a variance that the general public would be denied. Alternatives should be sought. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. (The Commission recessed for ten minutes.) COMMISSION COMMENT: Commissioner Jeffrey moved to continue this item to a date certain, secondary to the Supplemental EIR appearing inadequate regarding the pedestrian overpass: (1) It does not adequately address pedestrian safety at the street level or at the overpass. (2) a pedestrian signal needs to be part of the pedestrian safety plan. (3) the office aspect of the plan potentially reduces street-level air flow. (4) there are negative t impacts of aesthetics and to views. (4) it does not facilitate a pedestrian-friendly environment, and (5) minimum public benefit does not warrant a variance for a zero setback. (6) there is lack of support for finding a 52' height at the parapet. (7) view corridors infringed upon which are not adequately addressed. and (8) a 35' height should be maintained. The motion was seconded by Whittlesey. Commissioner Jeffrey cited Zoning Code Section, 17.58.040, page 82, and stated he felt safety issues have not been adequately addressed in the EIR. The pedestrian overpass, as stated, does not address pedestrian safety at the street level or at the overpass level. The disregard of the pedestrian signal further indicates that pedestrian safety was not fully evaluated. Commissioner Loh concurred and added that the Marsh Street auto entrance impacts have not been adequately addressed in relation to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Commissioner Jeffrey stated he cannot make the three variance findings. A variance obstacle could be removed by removing the office component; this would do away with one variance in relation to the 15 foot setback. 6-33 Draft Planning Commission Mir,,.Les July 14, 1999 Page I1 Commissioner Cooper cannot support the motion because it appears that if a continuance is approved, the applicant will be set up for denial when reheard if findings cannot currently be met. Commission Jeffrey cannot support a 52-foot tower height because aesthetic issues were not adequately addressed in the EIR; however, he favors a parking structure at this site, but not one at 52 feet high with a pedestrian overpass and a zero setback for offices. Commissioner Whittlesey withdrew her second to the motion. She could not support the motion in its entirely with regard to aesthetic concerns. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn. Commissioner Peterson suggested the motion be broken into sections. He shares concerns with the EIR, but does not want to package the motion along with a continuance. Commissioners Loh and Whittlesey concurred. The adequacy of the EIR should be separated away from the variance requests. AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey and Senn NOES: Commissioners Cooper, Peterson, Whittlesey, Loh, and Chairman Ready REFRAIN: None The motion failed 2-5-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to deny the use permit and variances based upon the finding that the required findings as outlined in the Zoning Regulations cannot be made: specifically there are no special circumstances applying to the site such as size, shape or topography which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning and that the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege and entitlement inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity with the same zoning. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesev. Commissioner Senn expressed concerned about whether a political call is being made. AYES: Commissioners Peterson, Whittlesey, Cooper, Jeffrey, and Loh NOES: Commissioners Senn and Chairman Ready REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-2-0. 6-34 Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 12 Chairman Ready offered the Commission the opportunity to provide additional comment. Commissioner Loh felt that this has been the wrong location since originally chosen. Public input should be considered and an alternative site should be studied. Bicycle and pedestrian safety should be considered and vehicular and bicycle and pedestrian conflicts should be avoided. We should maintain the city's small town character and ambiance. Commissioner Senn stated he felt denial of the expansion has set the process back. He noted from professional experience that trying to acquire a site downtown for parking garage construction is almost impossible and unrealistic. Commissioner Peterson addressed the EIR inadequacy and stated he would have liked to have seen viewshed analysis given at least cursory mention in a westward direction and page 4.4 of the EIR, General Plan Consistency, addressed in relation to the Circulation Element, and how this project is consistent with Transportation Goal #2 which reduces the use of cars and supports/promotes alternatives. He would have liked to have seen more schematic depictions of the overpass and garage in relation to the views in the area so that impacts could been better judged. Commissioner Cooper felt alternative design solutions to the pedestrian overpass should be addressed, which is a requirement of CEQA. The'City has a moral and ethical obligation to set an example for the development community in relation to the variances. Planning Commission interpretation discretion of exceptions or variances does not give the latitude to ignore the constraints of the development community. There are moral and ethical responsibilities for the City to adhere to the same rules and guidelines that apply to the private sector. This is not a political issue, but an issue of ethics and fairness. Commissioner Loh concurred. Chairman Ready has concerns with the proposed pedestrian overcrossing and would like to eliminate the current street-level crossing because of pedestrian safety concerns. Parking structures adjacent to downtown are appropriate and functional in other cities such as Santa Barbara. 2. 1890 San Luis Drive: ABAM 108-99: Request to abandon an easement to San Luis Creek next to 1890 San Luis Drive; R-1 zone; Eugene and Sheryl Goldschmidt, applicants. 6-35 Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: John Shoals, Associate Planneri=> MEETING DATE: July 14, 1999 FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: U 28-99 PROJECT ADDRESS: 860 Pacific Street SUBJECT: Use Permit, with an exception and variances to certain development.standards, for the Marsh:Street Parking Garage Expansion project at the corner of Pacific and Morro Streets. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: 1. Determine that the EIR Supplement is adequate for final action on the project, 2. Determine and report to the City Council that the additional proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan; and 3. Approve the use permit, with a building height exception, a setback variance.and a lot coverage variance, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. BACKGROUND: Project Description The proposed project is a use permit to allow a multi-level parking structure in the C-C and O zones, with the following development standard deviations: 1. Building height exception to allow a 4446ot high building and a.52-foot high elevator tower, where a 35-foot high building is allowed; 2. A variance to allow reduced street yards from 15 feet to 0 feet for the office spaces along portions of Morro Street and Pacific Street; and 3. A variance to allow 80%lot coverage,where 60% is allowed. Situation The City would like to expand the Marsh Street Parking Garage to provide additional parking downtown. The plan is to extend to the east of the existing structure directly south of the Masonic lodge, the Parable bookstore and the Post Office. The proposed garage expansion consists of a four-level parking structure, a pedestrian bridge spanning Marsh Street, offices on the ground level along Pacific.Street and Morro Street,landscaping and other site improvements. In order to proceed with the project, the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval of a use permit to allow the multi-level parking structure, with a building height exception and variances to street yard setbacks (for the offices only) and lot coverage. Planning Commission is also being asked to make a General Plan conformity determination on the acquisition.of a 10-foot 6-36 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park. o Garage Expansion Page 2 strip of the Parable lot, and a determination on the adequacy of the EIR Supplement. A copy of the EIR supplement (FIRS) is included in the Commission packets. Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report are available for review at the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission's role is to take a final action on the use permit and to provide recommendations to the Council on the adequacy of the EIR and General Plan conformity. City Council will take final action on the EIR supplement (tentatively scheduled for August 17, 1999). On May 3, 1999, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) conceptually reviewed the project and provided preliminary comments on architectural design. Attachment 8 is a copy of the ARC meeting update. Final ARC review is tentatively scheduled for August 16, 1999. Proiect Data Summary Address: 860 Pacific Street Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Representative: Phillips, Metsch, Sweeney, Moore Architects Zoning: O (Office) and C-C (Central Commercial) General Plan: Office and General Retail Site Description The site is 3,509 square meters (37,760 sq.ft.) in size. The site is nearly level and almost entirely paved except for planters at the edges. Existing land uses on the site are public and private surface parking lots and the United States Post Office property, which consists of a surface parking and loading area. There are several existing trees on the site and along the streets. Adjacent land uses. include the existing Marsh Street Garage parking structure, a fraternal meeting hall, retail uses, the Post Office,a title company, a church, a parking lot, and office uses. With the exception of the existing garage and the fraternal meeting hall, both of which are located on the same block as the proposed structure, most buildings in the vicinity of the project site are one story in height. EVALUATION 1. Building Height Exception The parking garage will be a four-level structure, 41 feet high, with parapet walls extending to 42 feet at Pacific and Morro Streets, 44 feet at the alley, and 52 feet at the elevator tower also located at the alleyway. Reduced-scale building elevations are included as Attachments 5-7. Zoning for the property is primarily Office, with a small portion zoned Central Commercial (C- C). The maximum building height limit in the C-C district is 50 feet. Structures in the Office zone are allowed a maximum height of 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit. However, Section 17.22.010 (footnote 13)allows the height of parking structures in the"O" zone to be established by the Planning Commission. 6-37 U 28-99, Marsh Street Parr Garage Expansion Page 3 Building heights were selected based on contextual relationships with adjacent buildings and the structural requirements of the parking garage. It was also important that the parking structure be large enough to provide a sufficient number of new parking spaces downtown. According to the EIR supplement, the parking structure replicates the height and scale of the adjacent parking structure as well as being similar in height to the adjacent Masonic lodge,therefore fitting in with the existing vertical scale in the vicinity. It is important to note that a similar height and setback exceptions were granted for the original Marsh Street structure, a portion of which is also in the O zone district. Staff recommends approval of the proposed building height for the following reasons. First, the building height is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings. At it's highest point, the building measures 44 feet which is comparable to the existing parking garage and Masonic Temple (approximately 40 to 50 feet tall). The elevator tower is 52 feet above existing grade. The offices are about 18 feet high and comparable to height of the single story office structures on the south side of Pacific Street. Second, the building will not deprive existing uses of reasonable solar access given its location and the types of uses adjacent to the structure. Those existing uses include the Mission Medical parking lot to the east, the Post Office, Parable bookstore and the Masonic Lodge to the north, and the existing parking structure to the west. Although there are smaller offices in the immediate area, they would continue to have sufficient solar access because they are located to the south of the structure. Finally,the EIR supplement concludes that the building will have less than significant impacts on continuous views towards scenic features. Specifically, the EIR supplement finds that although the building will obstruct views of Cerro San Luis Mountain from some locations near the comer of Pacific and Morro Streets, many other views will be preserved with the primary garage setback from the street. 2. Setback Variance for Office Space The project includes 1,695 square feet of office space to the first floor level of the garage expansion. As shown in the project plans (Attachments 3 and 4), approximately 464 square feet of office space would be located mid-block on Pacific Street and 1,231 square feet of office space would be located at the comer of Morro and Pacific Streets. These offices were included to give the garage expansion a more pedestrian-scaled and pedestrian-oriented streetscape and to break up views to.the interior of the garage from public streets. Located outside of the main parking garage footprint, the office spaces are within the required street yard. Structures in the Office zone are required to provide a 15-foot street yard. To accommodate the office spaces, a variance to reduce the street yard from 15 feet to 0 feet must be approved by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval of the street yard variance for several reasons. First,the variance is for the office spaces which constitute a small portion of the overall structure. Second, the reduced street yard will not adversely impact health, safety and welfare of people working or living in the area as the office spaces will not obstruct traffic visibility. or negatively impact the street's appearance. Third, allowing the reduced street yard will not negatively impact the 6-38 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park- .d Garage Expansion Page 4 street's appearance as the building setbacks will be consistent with other commercial and office developments along Pacific and Morro Streets. Fourth, the office spaces will improve the street appearance by providing a more pedestrian scale and blocking views into the main parking structure. Finally, it is important to note that a similar setback variance was granted for the original Marsh Street parking structure, which is also in the O zone district. 3. Lot Coverage As previously mentioned, the site is primarily zoned O (Office) with a small portion zoned C-C (Central-Commercial). The O district allows a maximum lot coverage of 60% and C-C district allows a maximum lot coverage of 100% The proposed structure will cover approximately 80% of the site. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the lot coverage variance for two reasons. The proposed lot coverage (80%) will be consistent with other commercial and office uses in the downtown area. A lot coverage variance was approved for the existing Marsh Street Garage. 4. General Plan Consistency for Parking Structure The project is consistent with General Plan which encourages the development of structures on the edges of the commercial core to provide "a diversity of parking opportunities" and encourage people to "walk, rather than drive between points within the core." 5. Environmental Review This project is subject to environmental review under State law. Because the City Council has the ultimate decision-making responsibility for this project, the City Council will make the environmental determination. A draft environmental impact report (EIR)was prepared and made available for public comment in 1997. After reviewing comments and responses, in November 1997 the City Council certified the EIR. The EIR concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts from the project. Council certification meant that the City found the EIR to be adequate in evaluating impacts, discussing alternatives, and recommending mitigation measures. That action allowed the City to take additional steps toward project design and site acquisition. One of those steps, refinement of architectural plans, has resulted in four proposed changes to the project as described in the EIR: 1. Provision of a pedestrian bridge linking the second level of the expanded garage with the north side of Marsh Street, at a new stairwell gazebo; 2. Inclusion of office space along the Pacific Street frontage, and at the corner of Pacific and Morro streets; 3. Temporary closure of Morro Street to provide a construction staging area; and 4. Changes to the internal circulation and exit-booth arrangement. 6-39 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park-_b Garage Expansion Page 5 When significant changes to a project are proposed following certification of an EIR, additional environmental review must be conducted. In this case, staff has recommended preparation of a supplement to the EIR. State law prescribes this approach when changes to a project may raise additional environmental issues, but not of scope that would require a new EIR. Provision of the pedestrian bridge makes unnecessary the previously proposed mitigation of a signal for-the mid-block pedestrian crossing of Marsh Street. This revised mitigation is discussed in the EIR Supplement. Also, inclusion of offices involves building within the usually required street setbacks, which is an exception request being considered by the Commission. The EIR Supplement also describes a minor enlargement of the site, requiring purchase of a strip at the rear of the Parable store:property, for trucks maneuvering near the rear of the.Post Office. An EIR Supplement has been published, with help from the firm that drafted the EIR. The supplement-focuses on traffic, air quality, historical resources, esthetics, and policy consistency. The Supplement has been made available for public review, and comments have been received. The EIR and the Draft EIR Supplement were distributed to the Commission previously. The draft EIR Supplement is distributed to Commissioners again with this report, along with the comments and responses. The Planning Commission should review and consider the EIR, and the EIR Supplement. While the EIR has been found adequate, the Supplement has not be presented to the City Council for acceptance. The Commission should determine whether the Supplement is adequate for the project approval aspects that are the Commission's responsibility. Staff recommends that the Commission do so. If the Commission believes the Supplement does not adequately evaluate the proposed changes to the project, the appropriate action would be to identify any additional environmental information that is deemed necessary. If this information cannot be provided at the hearing,the public hearing should be continued until the information can be provided. 6. General Plan Conformity Determination for Additional Site Acquisition . State law says that before the City buys land, the acquisition must be referred to the Planning Commission for a determination concerning conformity with the General Plan. The Commission holds a public hearing, and reports its finding to the City Council. The Commission made this determination in October 1998 for acquisition of the medical clinic property and the Postal Service property that will be used for the garage expansion. Plan refinement.has resulted in the need to acquire about 240 square-feet of additional land, at the rear of the Parable store parcel, for truck maneuvering near the back of the.Post Office. The General Plan Land Use Map shows the subject area as General Retail, within the Downtown planning area, and at the edge of the Core. The proposed use is allowable with these map designations. This additional acquisition does not raise any issues of General Plan conformity beyond those addressed in the previous determination, therefore -staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine and report to the City Council that the acquisition conforms with the General Plan. 6-40 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park—,g Garage Expansion Page 6 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works Department commented on the dimensions of the parking garage entrances and exits as well as internal circulation patterns. Public Works comments have been forwarded to the project architect and the Architectural Review Commission. Utilities commented on water and wastewater requirements. Building Division comments focused on the project's compliance with the City Building Code. Fire Department indicated that services are adequate. These departments comments are incorporated as conditions of approval for the use permit and final architectural approval of the building. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the request. The Commission could deny the use permit with findings. If the Commission denies the project,findings should be specified. 2. Continue the request. If the Commission continues action, then specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding further information needed. RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and consider the EIR and the EIR Supplement, and determine that the EIR Supplement is adequate for final action on the project; 2. Determine and report to the City Council that the additional proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan; and 3. Approve Use Permit, U-28-99, to allow a multi-level parking structure in the C-C and O zones with the building height exception, a variance to allow a reduced street yard for the offices, and a variance for lot coverage based on findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings: 1. The EIR supplement adequately addresses the proposed changes to the parking garage expansion project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit, building height exception, street yard variance and lot coverage variance. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Plan which show the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the EIR and EIR supplement. 6-41 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park-9 Garage Expansion Page 7 4. The street yard variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working at the site or in the vicinity because the variance is for the office spaces, which constitute a small portion of the overall structure and.are placed in a location that will not obstruct traffic visibility. 5. The reduced street yard will not negatively impact the street's appearance as the building setbacks will be consistent with other commercial and office developments in the immediate area. 6. The building height is compatible with existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings. A similar height exception was granted for the original Marsh Street parking garage that was approved on December 2, 1987. 7. The building height will not deprive existing uses of reasonable solar access given its location and uses adjacent to the structure. Those uses most affected by the building are the rear of existing commercial uses to the north; an existing surface parking lot to the east and the existing parking garage to the west. 8. The EIR supplement concludes that the building will have less than significant:impacts on continuous views towards scenic features with the primaryy garage setback from the street and the use of visible screen materials on the top level. 9. The lot coverage variance will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in vicinity. 10. The lot coverage variance is consistent with other commercial and office uses in the downtown area. A lot coverage variance was approved for the existing Marsh Street Garage. Conditions: 1. All City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIR supplement shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Planning Commission shall review annually the impacts of the parking structure on the surrounding neighborhoods and its internal functioning to assure compliance with the approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval. At such times, the Commission may recommend additional mitigation measures and/or revise the use permit conditions. 3. One additional street tree is required on Pacific Street unless waived by the City Arborist. 4. The transit stop located on Marsh Street, east of Chorro Street,-shall be retained. (Currently, a turning lane is indicated adjacent to the curb from Chorro to the entrance to .the parking 6-42 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park---.g Garage Expansion Page 8 structure entrance. Transit vehicles will occupy this turn lane when transit stops are being made. 5. The bicycle lane striping adjoining theproposed turn lane into the parking.structure shall be retained as a solid striped line. 6. Remove 8 existing on street parking spaces on Pacific Street at its intersection with Morro Street to improve stopping sight distance and accommodate bulb-outs. The spaces shall be removed as follows: a) All-spades on the northerly side of Pacific, between.Morro and the existing exit. b) All.spaces on the southerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the new exit. c) One space on Pacific.at the northeast corner of Morro. d) Two spaces on Pacific at the southeast comer of Morro. e) All spaces on easterly side.of Morro,.from.Marsh to the Post Office truck entrance. Code Requirements A. Based upon a total parking space count of 341, 8 accessible parking.spaces are required. At least 1 space shall be a. van accessible space with an 8 foot unloading zone. A minimum clearance of 8'-2" shall be provided along the"vehicle access path to and from the accessible parking spaces. B. Curb ramps affording wheel chair access shall be provided on the ground floor level along pedestrian paths of travel into and within the structure: C. Where the office spaces are sharing a common toilet room, either provide an additional exit to the outside from the common access area or provide individual toilet rooms to each office space. D. Based on the property line location shown, the openings in the north wall of the structure (opposite the Post Office building) are NOT permitted. As shown, the wall must be of one- hour fire:resistive construction (less than 10 feet from the property line).All driveway ramps must be ADA compliant. Driveway ramps shown on the plans do not.reflect the current City Standard Nos. 2110(Marsh) & 2111 (Morro & Pacific). E. A water allocation may be required, due to the addition of restroom and office facilities. However, appropriate credit would be given for the old Recreation Department building which has been removed. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation Division will determine any needed allocation and any necessary retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781- 7258. 6=43 U 28-99, Marsh Street Park---g Garage Expansion Page 9 F. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees may be required at the time a building permit is issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of any new water meters that are installed with the project, with appropriate credit being given for the meter that served the old Recreation building. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. G. The height of the building may necessitate the use of approved backflow prevention devices on certain connections to the City system. The construction plans shall be reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health for any backflow prevention requirements. The County cross-connection inspector, Henry Ruiz, can be reached at 781-5567 Attachments Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Reduced-scale Project Site and Adjacent Uses Attachment 3 - Reduced-scale Project Plan-Ground Floor Attachment 4 -Reduced-scale Project Plan- Second Floor Attachment 5 - Reduced-scale Building Elevations (Pacific Street) Attachment 6 - Reduced-scale Building Elevations (Marsh and Morro Streets) Attachment 7 - Reduced-scale Pedestrian Bridge Attachment 8 - ARC May 3, 1999 meeting update Full-scale drawings are available at the Community Development Department. Bhoals/PC/U28-99(Gar;ge Expansion) 6-44 C •, . C-C C-C-H c .S 0 QCT R-37C.R . R-3 IX i 0`` R-47R. Vicinity Map 860 PACI FI C A8° 0 8° Fed N U 28-99 6_45 Marsh Street Garage Expansion EIR Supplerrw Section 20 Prolect Desutption . D0WNTOWN_ CCEENTER a . MARSH STREET �-- I Book Store/ t Retail = Parking Post Lot Existing Masonic p Office Parking Lodge : Garage m F LLI w ui uJ ® y r�A K 0 0: �� O Pr ®jec Site Im J e o o x 0 oa e �0 x O. 0 mJ u I_ PACIFIC STREET OffiCe Office Title Company a. 25. a. Sao' NORTH Project Site and Adjacent Uses Figure 2-3 City of San Luis Obispo 6-46 0 O N ai O tl~1LLLU LL Q=Q m = K H WE O Z ® O ZLU Z W a 3 N Z z " � ° Z N I a s g z I d i 3 I � I i33HIS oaaow - - - - — p In l� vJ 0 m 0 L Y Y a m < II 0 1 OI i �I 0dc g O NI a m Wul W cz� z `+ 0 `iiI 1 o w 14 z d W O LL _ _ C) a WI II I II 0 ~ I V II I / o o .16.4 �w % I z O W WLP W ; I I I o . o Z o o =zu a) WI I co al WI M- m I .0 CL 7 y 'w CHORRO STREET c 0 o a a z � w p0 m v Q cc d a N m W c L C C � W y 6-47 N UF LL i LL r oOz LL 0 U- 0 0 0 K � I 1.33MIS ONNOW w D 2 2 QI \ I Q 0 U r� LU w l I CO) al zQc zl f— O W O LU w w Q to I I �- , o / I I o •-r f-I I •� ❑ 0 WI �I p 0 �i I I11I IIII1 I 111111111 !°_Y� 111111 b � � G 4 11111111.1 ccd�� 1l1l1 ! � ` I� ;; I Yllllll � lll � llllllllilllll � I I E n n y - - - - -—— ————— — —— — — ———— — w CHORRO STREET c o I 0 c ,C I y CL m I m w O I I t e O a s m o 9CO N L G � cm r Q E N 6-48 A.��• `I '{� E - r+ ' !tI � 1 F ate•; �� �_i��r.,t.� 1� � ^t t ; S LLI Eli 9y N� ' �• '���R a tea►' •' Z CL k:M CL 05 LU CD CLco 0 Ile =.� _ . Y ti 4� x e� i r- � + ' 6-495t C4 OL w V tl y s - l� :� ���e.�t��•.ate.;:Ql� +-, _ - i. F 1 .. NO, 1 : I MOT- �I 1 a ` c? o N y a O ' Or) _ c 0 .. . 4. M L. J- W I .. IS 1 W CO W .a E ` : LU CL K �y W L � a ..... - _ 0 V 4(9 1 = IL E _ Meeting Update ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting Council Hearing Room City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 3, 1999 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Lance Parker, Mark Rawson, Jennifer Metz, Zeljka Howard, Charles Stevenson, Jim Lopes and Chairperson Jim Aiken All of the Commissioners were present. ACCEPTANCE Commissioners or staff may add or delete items or modify the order OF AGENDA: of the items. The agenda was modified to take Agenda Item No. 3 after No. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: No member of the public addressed items not on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 860 Pacific Street_ Conceptual review of an addition to the Marsh Street parking structure; O and C-C zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (ARC 28-99) The Commission reviewed the conceptual plans and provided input on the architectural design of the parking garage, offices and pedestrian bridge with gazebo. The ARC generally supported the overall parking structure design and felt that the architect had 6-52 Architectural Review Commission Meeting Update May 3, 1999 Page 3 done a good job with building massing by providing a variety of building shapes, materials, details and colors. The ARC felt that the addition of the offices on the ground level will.give the garage expansion a more pedestrian-scaled streetscape along Pacific and Morro Streets. Commissioner Lopes also asked the architect to study the possibility of stepping back the top level of the structure. The ARC generally supported the building materials, but asked the architect to look at using a different roof material (rather than metal) for the office buildings. The Commission also expressed concerns with the effectiveness of the mesh-like material used to screen cars and lighting on the upper levels. The ARC supported the proposed building colors. The ARC was split on the need for a pedestrian bridge with some finding it a visual obtrusion and others expressing.safety concerns. Those who supported the bridge felt it was a good addition and would improve pedestrian safety, provided it could be designed to address visual and safety issues. Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo Street, expressed concerns with building_ scale (along Pacific Street) and garage lighting. He also encouraged the architect to incorporate design elements from the post office (i.e.,windows) into the project. No other members of the public spoke. COMMENT & DISCUSSION: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, provided an agenda forecast. There were no other comments from Commission members. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to a special meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 5:00 p.m., in the Planning Conference Room, City Hall; 990 Palm Street. 6-53 Marsh Street Garage Expansion. ,plemental EIR July 14,1999 Planning Commission Hearing Input Report Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING INPUi' REPORT INTRODUCTION This report responds to comments raised by members of the public and by Planning Commission Members at the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing held July 14,1999. The report is intended to respond to additional environmental issues and CEQA requirements that are still of concern to the public and the Planning Commission,as evidenced by the input received at the hearing. Issue No.1. Alternatives Evaluation. Many speakers and some Planning Commissioners raised the issue of the need to exan-ine alternatives to the Marsh Street expansion site or alternative designs to the one proposed. For some,the concern rose from the opinion that the proposed garage expansion is at the wrong location. For others,design features of the project were considered undesirable. The Draft Supplemental EIR appends the 1997 FEIR for the proposed project. This document provided an extensive alteratives discussion. The 1997 FEIR should be referred to when reviewing the 1999 EIR Supplement in order to consider the collective environmental information, including the discussion of alternatives. The 1997 FEIR alternatives evaluation is included in Section 7.0,Alternatives. First,it evaluated four alternative sites for optimum feasibility. These included Union Bank/First Bank,Santa Rosa Shell Station,Palm and Nipomo Street,and Wells Fargo Bank. Two of these sites,Union Bank and Wells Fargo Bank,were considered feasible. The Wells Fargo Bank site was added to the FEIR at the suggestion of one of the councilman during a public hearing. The alterative sites were reviewed along with a Reduced Parking(160 spaces)alternative and a No Project alternative. In addition,the proposed project from the 1997 FEIR can be considered a fifth alternative to the currently proposed project. This version of the project includes no office space and no pedestrian bridge. In summary,the CEQA review of the proposed project has included evaluations of numerous alternatives,thereby offering such information for decision-makers to consider. The addition of the bridge as part of the revised project allowed the City to eliminate the signal requirement for the mid-block crossing since it would not likely be warranted. The bridge has engendered a number of concerns related to aesthetics and safety. These are addressed below. The decision-makers have been provided sufficient information to take an action on the approval of an alternative design which eliminates the bridge,if that is their desire. Issue No.2 Pedestrian Safety. Several speakers (including Planning Commission members) raised pedestrian safety issues related to the proposed pedestrian bridge. The proposed bridge will provide enhanced pedestrian facilities in the area and will provide a safer alternative to either the existing unsignalized mid-block crossing or the proposed signalized mid-block crossing on Marsh Street. The overcrossing will divert existing and future pedestrian volumes City of San Luisgbi;pg 1 54 Marsh Street Garage Expansion S,Nplemental EIR July 14,1999 Planning Commission Hearing Input Report from both the mid-block crossing on Marsh Street and the Marsh Street/Chorro Street intersection,thus improving overall pedestrian safety in the area. Associated Transportation Engineers(ATE)estimated the number of pedestrians which would use the proposed Marsh Street bridge based on pedestrian counts conducted at the existing parking structure and at the mid-block cross-walk on Marsh Street. The following table summarizes these estimates. Marsh Street Pedestrian Bridge - Forecast Volumes Selected Hour Pedestrian Volume Pedestrian Volume On Bridge On cross-walk 9:00- 10:00 A.M. 141 61 12:00- 1:00 P.M. 374 160 3:00-4:00 P.M. 398 140 4:30-5:30 P.M. 298 128 24-Hour Volumes 3,148 1,352 The data presented above show that the bridge would divert a substantial number of pedestrians from the street level crossing. These pedestrians will have safer access between the garage and the Downtown Center than if they were required to cross at the mid-block crossing. These pedestrians would also be removed from the narrow alley and sidewalk facility that provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles from Marsh Street to the garage. This is also an improvement to pedestrian safety. The overhead bridge structure will be located near the mid-block pedestrian crossing on Marsh Street. Concerns were raised over pedestrian safety issues related to vehicles not seeing pedestrians on the street because of the structure(shading,distraction,etc.). ATE could find no documented studies showing that overcrossing structures increase accidents on the surface street travel. It is,however,recommended that advanced signing of the pedestrian crossing be enhanced on Marsh Street to address this concern. This could include additional signage, additional striping treatment of the crossing,in-pavement lighting,flashing beacons,etc. The EIR Supplement analysis indicated that a pedestrian signal would not be warranted at the mid-block crossing,as a significant number of existing and future pedestrians would divert from the crosswalk The SEER does,however,include a mitigation measure that requires the City to conduct a detailed pedestrian traffic signal warrant study after the project is completed to ensure that signals are not warranted. If the signals are warranted,the City would be required to install then-L The mitigation monitoring plan,required under CEQA,outlines the details of the mitigation implementation. It is not recommended that the crosswalk be removed entirely,as pedestrians will still cross at this mid-block point given the location of the Downtown Center and the structure. Some speakers have raised concerns about prank-oriented safety problems,such as people dropping or throwing items off of the pedestrian bridge to roads and sidewalks below. The City 2 V 7� City of San Luis&" Marsh Street Garage Expansion;,..aplemental EIR July 14,1999 Planning Commission Hearing Input Report has indicated that the pedestrian bridge will be redesigned to lower the walkway,and raising the effective height of the fencing along the bridge. Plans also specify the installation of video security cameras and blue-light emergency telephones. The Downtown Center currently employs security guard services until 3:00 AM. A speaker at the hearing stated that an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)bulletin on pedestrian overcrossings requires that 600 feet be provided between a pedestrian overcrossing and a surface crossing because of safety issues. ATE researched this issue and found an article published in the ITE Journal that listed some recommended warrants for pedestrian overcrossing structures. These warrants,which are similar to the Caltrans warrants for pedestrian signals, are based on the volume of pedestrians crossing the street, the volume of cars on the street,and the proximity to the nearest alternative crossing point. The article recommends that a distance of 600 feet be used for the nearest alternative crossing point to satisfy the pedestrian overcrossing warrant. This distance does not relate to pedestrian safety issues,but instead relates to the cost-effective nature of the overcrossing given the presence of alternative crossings within a reasonable distance. In the case of the Marsh Street crossing,this portion of the warrant would be outweighed by the location of the garage with respect to the downtown Center and the large pedestrian draw that occurs at the mid-block crossing. Issue No.3. Bicycle Safety. A bicycle lane will be striped between the new right-tum lane leading to the garage entrance and the through travel lane on Marsh Street The on-street parking along this portion of Marsh Street will also be removed. This design will provide for enhanced bicycle safety along this segment of Marsh Street,as conflicts between bicycles and vehicles turning into the garage entrance and vehicles parking on-street will be removed. Furthermore, the pedestrian bridge will significantly decrease the number of pedestrians using the crosswalk, thus reducing the potential for bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Issue No.4. Aesthetics. Numerous speakers expressed concerns that viewshed impacts were not adequately addressed. In particular,the fact that only an eastward-facing artist rending was included was suggested as a deficiency. The artist rendering of the pedestrian bridge included in the EER Supplement depicts that eastward facing view from the Marsh Street corridor as one travels toward the Chorro/Marsh Streets intersection. The analysis states that the bridge would obstruct vistas of the mountains at varying degrees as one travels in an eastward direction In response to comments from speakers and Planning Commissioners,a new rendering showing the impact to the westward viewshed has been prepared. This westward view impact would be similar to the eastward view impact The impact would vary as one travels westward along the Marsh Street corridor. In both cases,intervening features that at once frame and partially obstruct the viewshed include the buildings and street trees that line Marsh Street in both directions. The bridge would represent the introduction of a lateral element crossing the viewshed. This impact has been categorized as a Class III,adverse but less-than-significant,because the viewing locations affected are not identified by the City as scenic highways,important public spaces,or parklands. Some speakers stated that the bridge element introduced an urban feature that was out of scale for San Luis Obispo. This opinion is noted. It should be noted that bridges for vehicles and 3 0 City of San Luis�!156 Marsh Street Garage Expansion 5..;.,,lemental EIR July 14,1999 Planning Commission Hearing Input Report pedestrians can be found throughout the City,including bridges over San Luis Obispo Creek,the railroad,and Monterey Street. Some speakers registered dislike of the intrusion of the proposed ground-floor office into the required setback along Pacific and Morro Streets. It should be noted that this frontage is considered a beneficial aesthetic impact of the revised proposed project. The introduction of an office use would: • anchor the corner of the proposed structure, • present a pedestrian friendly function along portions of two block faces were there are currently none,and • correspond with the use and setback condition across Pacific Street. Issue No.5. Consistency with Circulation Element and Land Use Element. Some speakers raised the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan. The EIR Supplement addresses the project's potential consistency with Circulation Element and Land Use Element policies most pertinent to the project on page 4-1 through 4-4 of the EIR Supplement. The 1997 FEIR also addressed various policies raised by Draft EIR commentors. In that analysis, there was a question about Circulation Element Policy 15.2,which prioritizes programs that reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles. The Marsh Street parking garage currently serves primarily retail patrons with limited employee parking. The majority of the trips made to the garage are not single occupant vehicles. Travel mode survey data collected as part of the Downtown Parking and Access Study indicate that only 48%of all trips currently made to the downtown(including employees)were in single occupant vehicles. This mode split exceeds even the aggressive Year 2020 mode split objective of 59% outlined in the Circulation Element. It is also noted that Policy 1.4 related to Community Trip Reduction states: "The City should establish programs that reduce congestion in the downtown in a way that does not damage the downtowns long-term economic viability." The proposed project would appear to support this policy. The restriction of retail parking areas in the downtown as a means to reduce automobile traffic could be viewed as damaging to the downtown's economic viability and would therefore be potentially inconsistent with this Circulation Element policy. Finally,the trip reduction measures that have been identified by the City are geared primarily towards reducing single occupant employee trips and related parking demands. Utilization of these trip reduction measures to reduce retail trips in the Downtown Center area near the Marsh Street parking garage may not be successful given the nature of retail trips travelling to the downtown area and the central location of the parking structure. City of San Luis !, 4 FETING. AGENDA DATE L/ 14 ITEM # Unknown from: "Steven Potratz, Jr." <steven.jr@parable.com> Sent: Monday,August 09, 1999 3:49 PM To: "jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us'" <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> 6-CODIR UNCIL p FIN DD R Subject: Downtown Parking Expansion ❑FI E CHIEF DIR ❑POLICE CHF❑REC DIR❑UTIL DIR �i ❑PERS DIR Mime.822 Dear Ms. Marx, I want to voice my whole-hearted support for the downtown parking expansion plan. Much of the opposition feels a shuttle bus to and from outlying parking lots would be a better plan for downtown. We live in an age where seconds count in our daily schedules. I'm sure you can relate to the frantic lives we all live, trying to squeeze in a few minutes here and there to get things accomplished. How much time does it add to a shoppers experience if they have to park, wait for a shuttle bus, ride that bus into downtown, then get off and walk to where they need to shop, go back and wait for the bus again, ride it back to their car, and then head home? Can you imagine the hassle? Thank you for your consideration in your vote in favor of expanding downtown parking. Steven Potratz Manager The Parable Bookstore 883 Marsh St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 http://www.parable.com (805) 543-6146 RECEIVED AUG 1. 7 1999 SLO CITY CLERK Page 1 ,Jan Marx- Marsh Street Parking Garage _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --- —__ __ __ _ Page 1 From: Anne Sinsheimer <annesins@fix.net> To: "Mayor Allen Settle" <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Vice MayorDave Romero" <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "CouncilMemberJohn Ewan" <jewane@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "CouncilMbrJanHowell Marx" <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "CouncilMember Ken Schwartz" <kschwartz@ci.san-I u is-obispo.ca.us> Date: 8/17/99 1:58PM MEETIN Subject: Marsh Street Parking Garage AGENDA To Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: DATESITEM # As a downtown property owner, I support the immediate expansion of the Marsh Street parking garage and urge your support On August 17, 1999. Anne Sinsheimer MICtUNCIL MfDD DIR BtAO ❑FIN DIR D-KCAO ❑FIRE CHIEF ta'ATTORNEY M-IrVl DIR 9I`fLERKI0RIG ❑POLICE CHF G TES ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG 17 1999 SLO CIT`t' �'LERK MEETI"`" AGENDA DATE - ITEM #�- Unknown From: <Slorags@aol.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 5:23 PM Q'COUNCIL GKDD r)!n To: <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> 21-10A0 ❑FIN Subject: Parking garage Expansion 9Y-CAO ❑FI'- p-ATTORNEY �"�D,i R16LERKIORIG ❑POLICE C ❑MG .TEAM ❑REC DDR � �• ❑UT1L DIR a+r ❑PERS DIR Mime.822 v Dear Jan, As a longtime resident and business owner I urge you to vote YES on the parking expansion project. This community is in desparate need of more parking downtown. We are losing tourists and shoppers due to the lack of parking...I hear from people every single day during these summer months on how frustrated they are to find parking. Some say they'll never come back! We cant afford for that to happen. Ive lived here for 31 years...its time to be realistic and take care of the needs of the downtown. Lets dont let our precious unique downtown become a Ghost town... Please urge you to vote Yes on Tues.! Thank you for your time. Ann Reeves F ECEIVED UG 1. 7 1999 CITY CLERK Page 1 MEETIN� Unknown _r AGENDA�,�9 ITEM # ;o DATE From: Richard Kranzdorf<rkranzdo@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 9:34 PM To: <jewan@alteryourenergy.com> F2L'6AO QtDD DIR Cc: <jmarx@fix.net>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> ❑FIN DIR Subject: Re: Marsh ST Garage ❑FJAE CHIEF W DIR ❑POLICE CHF ❑REC DIR ❑FUTILER DIR � ❑PERS DIR M.me.822 ✓D (!'J9L.V John, I'm "the third person" meeting with Allen and Ira tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully, Allen will go for one of the compromises. If not, I'm going to propose another tack. If Allen is not agreeable, I hope you or Jan will introduce an amendment I outline in the next paragraph on Tuesday night when the Marsh St. extension is discussed. The amendment is that if the full extension is agreed to that it include a proviso that says that the extension will be dismantled if a year following the completion of the enlarged structure air pollution in the downtown has worsened, or traffic congestion has worsened, or if accidents or near accidents associated with the extension have increased. The notion of projects being turned back to what they were at an earlier date is an idea whose time has come. Nuclear reactors are being dismantled before their planned time. The Florida Everglades is returned to a more pristine state than it was before the Army Corps of Engineers started their projects there 50 or 60 years ago. And a small dam in Maine is now being dismantled, the first time such a thing has happened in the U.S. I can propose such an amendment from the floor (and I may do so) but it will count for much more if it comes also from a member of the City Council. As many as three or the Council members may be running for office next year. They should have to explain why they favored the extension over air quality or reduced traffic congestion or reduced safety. To put it the other-way, they should not be allowed to duck the possible results of their vote. Let the Council members and would-be candidates clearly state that air quality, for instance, takes second :RE:C:1VD place to the enlarged garage. A9 best, SLOERK Richard Kranzdorf Page 1 best, Richard Kranzdorf jewan@alteryourenergy.com wrote: > Raise Your Voices! > We (the city council) are currently receiving a campaign of pro Garage > e-mail from downtown business and property owners. > Please counter with an outcry of disgust and dismay. > Hold that thought. > It would be better at this point to read through the compromise that > has > been offered by Ira Winn, and state clear concise reasons as to why > this Garage should not be built at this site, at this size, at this > height, at this time (or any time). > It is important to stay on track and concise with your message. The > odds are against us, but we must let Allen especially know that this > is > not a good idea, and that the community is opposed to this garage > expansion as proposed. > And send these e-mail to Council members at the following Address: > Allen Settle asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Dave Romer c/o sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Ken Schwartz kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Jan Howell Marx jmarx@...... > John Ewan jewan@....... > copy to us so we can count! > Thanks > John Ewan ----------------------------- > Raise Your Voices! > > We (the city council) are currently receiving a campaign of pro Garage > e-mail from downtown business and property owners. Page 2 > Please counter with an outcry of disgust and dismay. > Hold that thought. > It would be better at this point to read through the compromise that > has been offered by Ira Winn, and state clear concise reasons as to > why this Garage should not be built at this site, at this size, at > this height, at this time (or any time). > It is important to stay on track and concise with your message. The > odds are against us, but we must let Allen especially know that this > is not a good idea, and that the community is opposed to this garage > expansion as proposed. > And send these e-mail to Council members at the following Address: > Allen Settle asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Dave Romer c/o sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Ken Schwartz kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us > Jan Howell Marx jmarx@...... > John Ewan jewan@....... > copy to us so we can count! > Thanks > John Ewan Page 3 DAVE ROMERO - Marsh Street Parking Expansion _ _ __ -_ Page_1 MEETIN AGENDA DATE ITEM # From: Nicole Danielle <moonsash@callamer.com> To: <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Mon,Aug 16, 1999 10:17 PM Subject: Marsh Street Parking Expansion Dear Vice-Mayor Dave Romero: 15 COUNCIL 0 FIN DIR Y@'C��0 ❑FIN DIR ClACAO ❑FFIRE CHIEF I own and operate Penelope's in downtown SLO. I have been operating a GYATTORNEY 19 PW DIR retail store in downtown SLO since 1970. ET'CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑M MTs ❑REC DIR We need to expand the parking structure. Parking is the number one ❑uTll DIR complaint of tourists and local customers in our downtown store. I also own ❑PEAS DIR .Nicole's in the Ferrini Square. One of the most frequent comments in ✓ K, QPAI Nicole's is, "We are very glad you are here,we hate the parking in downtown." 1 would love to have a town based on the European attitude of sidewalk cafe dining and evening shopping. Trouble is we don't have (1) Europeans that are willing to walk a few kilometers, (2)a public transportation system to match any major European city or(3) a city with ubran dwellers in the city core. The bike paths were a very fine addition to our city. I very seldom see our citizens on bikes and when I do it is usually outside the bike paths blocking cars. I own a warehouse off lower Higuera and for almost the last two years have gone from downtown to the warehouse almost daily. I have NEVER to my knowledge seen a single bike rider in the bike path from town to South street on Higuera. Basically, parking on the fringe of the urban core seems to be the answer. You must have the figures on the Marsh street parking garage use. When I go to the movies or shopping and dining on upper Higuera street I use the lot. It frequently is full and almost always busy. Please keep our urban core healthy economically and approve the parking expansion. Respectfully, Don A. Woolley Penelope's L D 999 LERK MEET AGEND DATEIN�"/,1"y, ITEM #A b RECEIVED Dear Council Members, dIIR 9 6 1999 • Re: Marsh Street Parking COUNCIL CITY I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo for 46 years and a downtown property owner for about 19 years. I would like to strongly urge you to vote in favor of the proposed parking garage expansion on Marsh Street. I personally favor it because I now hate to go downtown due to the difficulty of finding a parking spot. I either stay at home, order from a catalog, or go to the outlying areas where parking is not a problem. We are getting old and crippled, and it is not possible for us to walk very far any more, and even taking a bus is beyond our capacity. However, I did not feel any differently about the parking problems 35 years ago. Mayor Lucksinger was on the right track when he first proposed buying land for parking lots. Most of us are willing to pay for convenience, and convenience benefits both the mercharit and the customer. It seems likely, most people will continue to use their cars regardless of how many shuttles, buses, bicycle paths, and other incentives or inducements are presented to them. People who exercise by walking or riding bicycles to town are to be commended. It seems that for some of them it is like having a religious experience, but like religion, it should not be forced on the rest of us who feel differently. Please do not be swayed by arguments that are not backed by common sense and common experience. People buy cars for pleasure and convenience and there will always be a shortage of places to park them. As a landlord, I assure you that adequate parking is vital to the survival of a healthy downtown. Councils in the past have made many good decisions and as a result, we have a beautiful town. Let's continue on the right path. Please vote to improve the parking situation, now. FA,4!:r-jCCAO e-ft DIR Respectfully Ours, ❑FIN DIR y y ❑FTE CHIEF akfw DIR ❑REC DIRCHF George 0. French, M. D. ❑UTILDIR ❑PEAS DIR 125 Longview Lane, ✓ K.oat lewsk� San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 August 121 1999 I IL—WL—1 v a_v _ him 1 7 1999 b..cETING O I�C9L DATE jA G SLO CITY C - i%��` Q - -r:G��'i- - --- --- -- --- /G �Df %j� — C//f/�T9� AONC L1-FI��-C. — -- CA G 1"i L —8'Gr{fRfRK/ORIG ❑-{'OC�C�:i,:'F— — ❑MG T TEAM - ❑REC DIA ❑UTIL DIR _ PERS DIR 004 -- -- - - '7Zk — - -_ _ - --- - - --- --- -- - - RECEIVED - - - AUG 1 7-1999 - � � SLO CITY CLERK r MEETIN AGENDA DATE ITEM # mz� c o u n c i l m c m o RA n b u m DATE: August 13, 1999 RECEIVED I AUb 1 3 1999 TO: City Council � TY CLERK FROM: Ken Hampian SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Regarding the Marsh Street Structure Appeal We are faxing two memorandums from staff related to Tuesday nights appeal so that you may have the opportunity to review the information over the weekend. We will also distribute the information through the usual "red file" process and have copies available for the public at the meeting. ■COUNCIL ■CDD DIR cc. Jeff Jorgensen ■CAO ❑FIN DIR ■ ACA ❑FIRE CHIEF Lee Price ■ATTORNEY ■PW DIR John Dunn ■CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑h1 I.I T 15 ❑REC DIR ■ ❑UTIL DIR r ❑PERS DIR ® K.O�altw�4 Domm=U MEMORANDUM City of San Luis Obispo. _ August 12, 1999 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John Dunn,.City Administrative Officer (: VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Develo me Director/ BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MARSH STREET PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT, UN 28-99 The Council Agenda report estimates that for the parking structure expansion to fully comply with the 0 zone lot coverage and yard requirements, the primary garage would need to be setback, from Morro Street, about 45 feet and the office spaces setback about 30 feet. It also estimates, that as a result, the number of parking spaces would be reduced from 299 (net) to about 235, with the actual number of spaces being verified by the project architect and structural engineer. Working with the project architect, following distribution of the staff report, we were able to determine that the building needs to be setback 67 feet,from Morro Street to comply with the 60% lot coverage requirement. Walker Parking Consultants estimates that the reduced parking structure alternative would result in a reduction of 88-90 parking spaces. If this alternative was pursued, it would be possible to create up to nine (9) additional surface spaces within the 67-foot setback area. To incorporate this information, the discussion under the "Reduced Parking Structure"alternative (#2), on page 6-9 of theAgenda report is replaced as follows: 2. Reduced Parking Structure Continue the project and direct the applicant to revise the project design to comply with the yard and lot coverage requirements of the O zone district. Under this scenario, the structure's footprint would have to be reduced from 29,977-sq.ft. to 23,724 sq.ft. (a difference of 6,253 sq.ft.) with a 67 foot setback on Morro Street and.a 15 foot setback on Pacific Street. This alternative would not include office spaces. According to the parking garage consultant; the number of available parking spaces would be reduced from 341 (gross) to approximately 262-264 spaces (88-90 fewer spaces). To approve this alternative, the City Council would need to approve a use permit to allow the multi-level parking garage with deviations to building setback and height as allowed by City Zoning Regulations (Section 17.22.010, Table 9, footnote 13). Variances to lot coverage and street yard requirements would not be necessary, therefore, the Council would not need to make the required variance findings: A building height exception would remain part of the project because limiting the structure's height to.35 feet would eliminate the top level of parking spaces and make the project infeasible. A building setback exception would only be needed for two small building pop-outs at the Pacific Street exit. These architectural treatments are setback 12- feet from the property line along Pacific Street. MEMORANDUM City of San Luis Obispo • August 12, 1999 TO: Mayor and Council Members C FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer "j VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director�o BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MARSH STREET PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT, UN 28-99 In the Council Agenda report, it was noted that staff was researching the neighboring properties through the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), and that there may be additional information for the Council prior to the public hearing. The intent of this memo is to provide the Council with the results of that search and to provide additional information in support of the variance findings contained in the Council Agenda Report (Pages 6-9 and 6-10). Using the Geographic Information System, staff conducted a search of other properties in the vicinity to determine if there are circumstances applying to the project site that do not apply to other properties in the immediate area. In conducting this search, the surrounding properties were compared to the project site in terms of size, shape, topography, zoning and development (vacant or developed). The GIS search found that most of the properties in the vicinity have one zoning designation which would give future development (including remodel and expansion of existing developments) on these properties the benefit of having to comply with the development standards of only one zoning district. There are only two properties or sites in the vicinity with split-zoning--the Washington Mutual Bank property at 1235 Chorro Street. and the existing Marsh Street Parking Garage property at 836 Pacific Street. The Washington Mutual building is on O-zoned land and its parking lot is on C-C zoned land. The existing parking structure is on 0 and CC zoned land. Both buildings have reduced street yard setbacks. Attachment 1 is a zoning map of the surrounding properties and Attachment 2 shows existing buildings with similar setbacks. The staff report indicates that the project site is composed of several small parcels configured in a manner that does not allow for full compliance with strict development standards and proper functioning of the use. Specifically, the project site consists of portions of seven lots with two property owners (the City and the United States Government). It is staff's opinion that the size and shape of the existing lots make it difficult for these lots to be independently developed with a commercial use without some relaxation of City standards. By comparison, most of the properties in the area, with similar zoning of CC or 0, are larger and can mostly likely be designed to meet lot coverage and street yard requirements. The general size of the parcels and lots are shown in the attached Assessor's Parcel Maps (Attachment 3). The staff report also states that some of the underlying parcels, of the project site, are shared with existing uses (the post office and the original parking structure) that make it difficult for the project to meet the street yard and lot coverage requirements and to function properly. To clarify, the project site includes the rear portion of the post office property, which is presently occupied by the post office loading dock and parking lot. Because only air rights (not surface _ 2 rights) were purchased from the post office, the federal government controls the surface area and the design of the bottom floor of the parking structure behind the post office. So far, the federal government has bought into the design which puts postal patrons further away from the building. However, if the parking structure is made to comply with the 60% lot coverage requirement and setback 67 feet from Morro Street, it is a strong possibility that the federal government would require that the added setback area be paved to retain adequate post office parking, rather than landscaped. It should be noted that paving of the property to the 15-foot setback is possible because the City's lot coverage limitations apply to structures and not surface parking lots. This is a special circumstance that applies to the project site and not neighboring properties. A search of the GIS also found that there are only three other properties in the immediate vicinity with the size and zoning that could accommodate the proposed parking structure. Those properties include: the San Luis Obispo Downtown Centre at 883 Higuera, the San Luis Obispo . Medical Clinic Administrative Office complex at 1010 Marsh Street and the Mission Medical Associates site at Pacific Street. All three sites are fully developed and not.available for the construction of a parking structure. These three properties are shown in Attachment 4. It is important to note that this information is not intended to replace the alternative sites analysis contained of the Final Environmental Impact Report,-but rather to provide clarification of the information contained in the Council Agenda report. In staff's opinion, a parking structure is a special use. The parking structure is a public project for the benefit of the community. It will serve the businesses in the central business district where the historical pattern of development limits building form and the availability of on-site parking. Many of the downtown properties are small in size and unable to provide on-site parking. It will also help meet parking demands and provide convenient parking for patrons to the downtown area. In staff's opinion.granting a variance for the parking structure will not set a precedent because private developers do not building public parking facilities. This is evidenced by the fact that there are only two existing parking structures in the City of San Luis Obispo. Based on the above-stated reasons and the information contained in the Council Agenda report, staff believes that the required variance findings can be made in support of the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project. Nor iN.40or ..ii LL '%. % 'i/ / Q/ � V _ � ./ •N�� \\.CMJ. . w Z LL N O- = N j C T o cu U : CL i 3 ago 715)m cu Cc CL doe Sze 4-7 m - d m O H r6 _ / / `'• ° co s Cl _•. N o U co 3 i�M \ o le- cucn0 cocuc cs O cm 0 -0 O m co CL Lb 21) i .. 0) /'\ t5 C6 7 m IL 00, cu cm CU CU r 00- E2 ZOIZ cn cam fn CL m Ckd y LL /� a % 4'. yQ vagi ..aN'y�aM a =°NI K 80 I M I W ~ I C En p s9 - I I G 2 I I I � z Wr I I - �^ 0 0 Z 99 gE Os Oa 09 u. Lo _ son or rtcra.[r.� ' min a"'� Q W • 1 > m 1S Soso o am N y d ECN azr nn on tm IYrI {_- ED a O'✓59 as OS Z as os 0a O y n I I I N � O_I p Ta - Nir9 - A� co LO a tiO N 06 Od O O n N � P QOm I' In g ��_ T N U �IOO M _ �1N Oro a_ V o r a �) LJ I C I I 0 iz 0 I d n m:.a = OL 9\�0 Z6'.9 0169 1 as 09 as OG OS 09 OS r9E 6 c mr OKI O OL Y'G9 I OS IT I OS 09 I SZ gal OE 09 Og IiRI I I Ig y m aI I I m m I i s I NMI n' O rh I F^'m =ppU SS (n 09 N 09 Cl) 0 _ 09 621^/9tf-V) J U 0 091 M IO �Iw Wa� 09 c/1 q1m I00 �® h - _ OL h0 --__ a r •tl�a LL 0N0IO- m O tr M mn a tian O m h q" m �! I A. o of os os . �O O I I � I n • ,n -yl,n •� I � mr Iim ti) m s e w CS 4'99 Og 9f Cr JE O2 OC 0 B'YI p � r ren uc sac ru Lfl'LYan c „ ,per W Y.fS.•rs o a a n'1S a� o H o m 4 ern ren Znn .::,r«, r,rl 6a'99 96'64 1 09 Z or, OG I vaI OS og'aba OIOC B'a9 0 •a � I � I m n � n n P O QO O O/l\ •O nO I i M IOO o h aq Y•/M Na I N I UQ b) ? m r --------- - u) N. 1 yx a®hgb Nrn oMOg ga Ca:p ► ICL'I►OZ OE 2 0916 ag tPP yj a.n .n r • earl res 1S a�' N 3 d a d 9 e n rear rev rw mn v >9 Y'99 09 09 go OE 906 9'LE 06 SL'BL .dPi/i I m •Br — o A n 04 SI gb' mOO Ohm • LO r. I t 0 c 0001 O ^ Inca n OD I N fl-c 0Y EIp'SF 0 2 I N I M Qr to ^ N M Q q L �� I O I + + a w � `� w •I m t ?J I I m O O`'O� o I II 11199 a ruI M. m 17g mcn u r as h 1,15.'r[S 1S o avoae � VosI-<m urI am ase ora b'S9 I Sa °`n OG OC OE.02 OS o .Jv I orR si o (al a Attachment 4 Marsh Street Parking Expansion Study i OSO` I I 5 i \ I Ar ♦ \ \O•' .A• xe.. a - „Q'p �� I ux a p \0� Q N ACV\ Ol ♦ ® O \ r' { vy O, �C�4 \� 2 O` '90 " SOS.`.. 40 0 40 80 120 160 Meters Study emaDowdom Awodobw bmmdoy r-- CJS y�ryry��//��//�� C�' u� R ExMng Pwcels JJ•JW—W_�feet 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet Office ZordN Geooaha W cervi= Cerd Car a EiZmW mrdWwlmw PAVE-E10 -Yes,on Marsh Street Parking Expansion __ _ Page 1 From: Amy Katherine Kardel <amy_kardel@globalaccent.com> • To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-lu is-obispo.ca.us> Date: Thu, Aug 12, 1999 8:36 AM MEETIN� 9 AGENDA Subject: Yes on Marsh Street Parking Expansion DATE �� ---_ITEM # VOTE YES ON THE MARSH STREET PARKING EXPANSION Dear Mayor and Council, I am a third generation resident of San Luis Obispo. I have also chosen to arCOUNCIL L9'ODD DIR return to my hometown to raise my family and grow my Internet-based l9'CAO ❑FIN DIR business.Also, as a resident and business owner in wonderful downtown San e"ACAO ❑ RE CHIEF Luis Obispo, I urge you to approve the expansion of the Marsh Streeet L3'ATfORNEY C"W DIR Parking Structure at your August 18 meeting. We need more parking in our p CLERK10R1f3 ❑POLICE CHF CcMT ❑REC DIR ❑ area, not only to encourage locals to pop into town, but also to attract y S h o ❑Urn DIR out of area visitors to stay and see our historic downtown core. This plan g iia C ❑PERS DIR makes economic sense and will improve the quality of life for our residents. It is not realistic to expect Americans to use shuttle buses and alternative transportation to reduce our parking demand.Those ideas work well in Europe where cars and gas cost up to 4 times as much as here and the density of population can support extensive public transportation! But it's been shown time and time again that they don't work in this scenario. Thank you for your yes vote on the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure August 18. Sincerely, Amy Kardel 675 Islay Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Amy Katherine Kardel, M.A. Global Accent Translation Services amy_kardel@globalaccent.com RECEIVED 675 Islay Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA AUG 1 2 1999 Tel (805)543-0655 Fax (805)543-5760 Pacific Standard Time SLO CITY CLERK http://www.globalaccent.com LANDMARK COMPANY • ®COUNCIL 9CDD DIR August 9, 1999 ®CAO ❑FIN DIR ®ACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF ULL COUNCIL HAS ®ATTORNEY Pd FW DIRENT ®CLERKIORR9 ❑POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA `• I ❑MGMT TEp� ❑REC DIR DATED-ITEM # I$ J,5haL 5 ❑UTILDIR Afro ®. w h•�xrnrd ❑PERS DIR 10 K (0P'11Cwski SLO CITY COUNCIL Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: Please add my name to the list of people who strongly advocate the approval and construction of the Marsh Street Parking Garage. I am a native of San Luis Obispo, a business owner and a property owner. I am firmly convinced that the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure is critical to the enjoyment of downtown by residents and visitors, and to the retention of the downtown as the focal point of our city. I urge you, please, to vote for this parking structure, and to then work to facilitate its construction. Sincerely yours, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1999 SLO CITY CLERK Beverly . Ja s P.O. Box 1796, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 18053 544-2013 91AIgl D DIR fM000NIM O FINDIR o aFtgrreHIEF Tom Copeland MEETING AGENDA RNEYDIR 966 Monterey Street DATE l -7 ITEM # LERKI 0 ❑POLICE CHF T TEAM ❑REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑UTIL DIR 80 543-06609 eat. 108 5 NVJA ' ❑PERS DIR FAX (805) 547-9654 August 11, 1999 VIA FACSRVI LE NO. 781-7109 Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council Re: Response to Mr. Winn's"Compromise Plan for the Downtown" Dear Allen, Dave, Jan, John, and ken: I felt that it was important that I respond to a memorandum that was recently circulated by Mr. Winn to Members of the City Council. First,Mr. Winn proposes that the size of the Marsh Street Expansion should be cut by two thirds and have 107 spaces. This only replaces the surface spaces currently existing on the property, and to spend money to replace what we already have is not logical. Next, I believe Mr. Winn is proposing that my concept of below grade parking on Palm Street to support the redevelopment of a Court Street/Chinatown/City Hall Expansion be implemented instead of the Marsh Street Garage Expansion. This Pian is just not feasible. In my upcoming proposal for a Court Street/Chinatown redevelopment there is only enough parking planned to(1)replace the existing surface lot parking in the Court/Monterey/Palm Street lots, and (2) add additional spaces as is conservatively needed for the new businesses being built in the project. This parking will only be adequate if the Marsh Street Expansion is built as planned. If the Marsh Street Garage Expansion is rejected, the parking deficit in the downtown core will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to implement and support the redevelopment project we have proposed. Furthermore, if this severe parking deficit continues, the City stands the risk of losing valuable existing Downtown tenants as leases expire and these businesses evaluate their location options. Mr. Winn's further comments on my proposed project are premature and will be thoroughly addressed at the proper time. Like all things, the Marsh Street Garage isn't absolutely perfect, but it's pretty darn good. it does have tremendous community support, which will be evident on August 17. Also, there is no other site option available that won't take five to ten years to implement We've studied it to death, spent millions of dollars and six years to get to where we are today. Please, I encourage your"YES"vote to expedite the Marsh Street Garage Expansion without any further conditions, changes or delays_ RECEIVED AUG 1 21999 Tom Copeland SLO CITY CLERK Jim Copeland 966 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-06609 east. 108 FAX(805) 547-9654 August ll, 1999 VIA FAC SIIvULENO. 781.-7109 Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Dear Allen, Dave, Jan, John, and Ken: As a lifelong resident and business owner in our community, I would like to express my thoughts concerning parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo. Downtown San Luis Obispo is healthy, vibrant and has the unanimous support of the community. The Downtown is the cultural, entertainment, specialty retail and business center for residents of San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara counties, as well as the large influx of tourists who visit the Central Coast. The merchants Downtown for the most part are very successful and consist of sophisticated local merchants and national specialty retailers. Visitors from other areas are amazed that Downtown San Luis Obispo is so successful. There is one factor that can destroy our Downtown. If we lose our merchants because they have a better option in which to locate; which provides them with the ability to expand their businesses andmaximize their sales during the peak Holiday Seasons. A History Lesson: For those of you who were fortunate enough to have lived in San Luis Obispo during the late 1940's through the mid 1960's you will recall that this was the golden era of downtowns in general and San Luis Obispo in particular. The merchants included the top national retailers of that period, Sears, Wards, Pennys, Woolworths, etc, who in tum created traffic for the local merchants who shared a common customer and all prospered. In the late 1960's, however, a development occurred which destroyed the merchant mix in Downtown San Luis Obispo. This was the opening of Madonna Plaza with the ability to build larger stores and provide enough parking to handle regional business during the peak selling periods. Downtown lost all of its national tenants and every independent retailer who depended upon the over flow from this customer base closed their doors. Page-1- The only thing that saved the Downtown during this period was luck and the endeavors of a few local people . Luckily, the late 1960's through the 1970's was a period of opportunity for entrepreneurial retailers and the empty large spaces were converted into smaller spaces by local developers and occupied by the new entrepreneurs who catered to a new young customer. However, in the 1980's this customer base started to deteriorate and the Central Coast. Mall with a large department store again damaged the Downtown destroying the local department store and many of the smaller businesses. A recession also hit the county in the early 1990's and a major development-failed in the middle of Downtown which threatened the.survival of the businesses that remained. It was at this time.that Tom and I decided that if we were to protect our investment in Downtown that we would have to act fast. We saw that the Central Coast Mall was not able to attract the top national tenants because it was poorly conceived, cheaply constructed and poorly managed. Today if a regional mall can not attract the top retailing groups of stores like the GAP and the Limited and the major food and entertainment providers, it cannot be successful. In 1993, we developed the Downtown Centre and were able to convince some of the nations top retailers to locate in Downtown San Luis Obispo. We did this by convincing them that we would build them a quality environment in which to do business which would enhance their brand and we would pay fees to the'Cityto provide them with enough parking to support their.holiday and peak period business. This project solidified the Downtown and created traffic which benefitted all the merchants. It also created night and Sunday shopping. The national clothing retailers became excellent co-tenants for the independent retailers because the chains sell.only their own brands thereby not directly competing with local retailers who sell popular branded apparel. In the peak selling periods Downtown San Luis Obispo is solid customers rivaling major shopping areas throughout the country. Now Downtown faces another threat. There is a movement underway to oppose expansion of the Marsh Street Garage. The leaders of this movement, who are relatively new to the area, are attempting to enlist the aid of the environmentally concerned activists in the community to make this one of their causes. However, if this effort is successful, it will weaken Downtown and set the stage for urban sprawl which would be detrimental to the environment. To defeat the present parking plan for Marsh Street, the strategy is to delay the decision, threaten litigation, and propose alternate:sites which the City does not control and could not be implemented until 5 to.10 years in the future, if at all; and which wouldn't work if they were implemented. For example, can you imagine shopping for Christmas with your small children, arms loaded with packages having to cross Santa Rosa Street to get to your car or walldng to lower Higuera Street and wading through the transients that occupy this area. Page-2- If during the peak seasons, everyone had to be bussed into and out of the Downtown area, the staging arra required would dwarf the space required for a parking structure and cause huge crowds and lines, similar to waiting in line at major theme parks during the peak seasons. During the slower periods, there would be a huge economic drain because traffic increases ten-fold during the peak seasons and the amount of busses and drivers needed to handle this traffic would not be economically feasible during the slower months. This would also create major traffic congestion in. somebody else's neighborhood where the cars are parked and another huge bus staging area would be needed. Jerry James cartoon in the New Trmes shows a slightly exaggerated version of the concept of the downtown infringing on someone else's neighborhood, and his point is well taken. If this ill-conceived plan were to be implemented and fail, the Downtown would be destroyed and the huge space outside of town designated for parking would probably be developed for commercial use creating more urban sprawl. Also,the property adjacent to the parking area outside the City core would be under pressure to convert to high density commercial usage to take advantage of the customer base created by the parking lot also creating more urban sprawl. Another problem with locating parking outside the City core is the necessity for these facilities to be located near freeway access. Isolated parking lots near freeways are magnets for crime and transients. There would be a need for additional police on a 24-hour basis. By locating parking outside the City core, another issue must be addressed. There is no dominant entry point to the downtown area. People enter from Highway 1, Los Osos Valley Road, Highway 101, Highway 227, Orcutt Road, and from all points within the City. A location that would be convenient.for some, would be an impossible nuisance for others; and for tourists or people unfamiliar with the town, impossible to find. Economically, any parking which is inconvenient to the customer must also be free, and this alone would put a huge financial strain on the City for as long as the facility was in place. Now another threat looms. The new 500,000 sq. R development in the Madonna area that the City has given the go ahead to pursue. The developer is actively pursuing the tenants who occupy the Downtown Centre and other tenants of this type who want to located in Downtown. Without immediate parking the Downtown will not be able to attract these new tenants and are in danger of losing the existing tenants if this project is completed. This would be devastating and could destroy our most prized asset Copeland Page -3- FACSIMILE COVER. SHEET Number of Pages (including cover,sheet): Original(s) will not be mailed unless to indicated. DATE: August 12, 1999 TO: Mayor Allen Settle FROM: Tom & Jim Copeland and Members of the City Council Phone#: 781-7119 Phone#: 805/543-0860 FAX#: 781-7109 FAX 0; 8051547-9654 cc: Attached are two letters addressed to the Mayor and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council from Tom and Jim Copeland. Would you please distribute copies to the Council Members. If you do not receive.all of the pages indicated above; please tall Ruth 0 8051-40-0660, ea 108. DAVE ROMERO- MARSH STREET EXPANSION! Page 1 From: <TKLEMAY@aol.com> To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-lu is-ob ispo.ca.us> Date: Wed, Aug 11, 1999 8:30 PM MEETIN AGENDA (P Subject: MARSH STREET EXPANSION! i DATE 7 ITEM # .- Mayor Settle and Council Members; I own two thriving businesses in downtown San Luis Obispo, and my clients and customers, at both locations, constantly complain about the lack of parking in downtown SLO. We must have this expansion for the sake of our downtown. It has taken all of us business owners a long time to pick up the pace of our downtown area, and we simply can't continue our successes without the expansion of the Marsh street structure. Please consider all sides of the issue, not just the ones who speak the loudest. Expanding is the only choice! ■COUNCIL :0FIK n nD Thank you for your time. ■CAO ! ■ACAO Todd K. LeMay m ATTORNEY G::lOwner CLERKIORIG LICE C::. The Bladerunner Da S a ❑ J.SMGMT oa C DDR y p ® J.Shoa Is IL DIR and 1J,R.WhlSenardRS DIR Atmospheres Mf K.OfecIeWSKi RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1999 SLO CITY CLERK DAVE ROMERO -Marsh street ara a expansion From: <Slonana@aol.com> To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> E I AGENDA D Date: Mon,Aug 9, 1999 2:28 PM "1 ITEM # Subject: Marsh street garage expansion As a downtown business owner and resident of San Luis Obispo, I support wholeheartedly the expansion of the parking garage on Marsh Street. Parking is the biggest problem that downtown faces. Our clients often park blocks away or have to run down to meters with quarters during meetings. Please pass the legislation needed to proceed at once. sincerely, Jackelyn Rolin The Rolin Partnership FACAO ■CDD DIR ❑FIN DIR ❑FIRE CHIEF ■PW DIR ❑POLICE CHF ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR • K. OpalewsLi RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1999 `L�' C: I-Y CLERK 08/11/99 15:34 $805 466 6791 MORTGAGE HOUSE IQ001_ MEET! AGENDA DATE 'ITEM #_.. THE MORTGAGE HOUSE,INC. JUST 7.1, KWIL .- Idw C6 11/1999 0 CAO Fl1'1��,�,Pr o ages including cover sheet:. 1 Q ACAO O FIfiE CHIEF Cd ATTORNEY TORNEY PW DIR ®�LERKIORIO Y ,TEAY O REC DIR 4 El UTIL DIR, 2�tst[t p PERS DIR © k 0.0u lEu+sk To: From: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS_- - THE MORTGAGE HOUSE,iNC San Luis Obispo Roxanne Carr 2&dle.�..FJ e�f/ Division President Phone: 805-782-6999 Phone: 7R/_ ZZ/7 Fax phone: 805-782-6998 Fax phone: E Mail; roxcarr@aol.com CC: WWW: themortgagehouse.com REMARKS: x Urgent x For your review Reply ASAP Please comment I would like to urge your suppo of the Marsh Street parking expansion. I believe all the . studies have shown the intelligence of this move. Additionally, it is my feeling that the Downtown Concept Plan, adopted a few years ago by the Planning Commission and the City Council, should be followed whenever and wherever possible. The preparation of this Plan was authorized by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and took years of hard work by highly experienced and knowledgeable architects, planners, and designers and a very large number of caring citizens from all walks of life in this city. It seems to have been forgotten lately,with all the changes and the politics embodied by various factions. We need to get back to the beauty and sensitivity and general good sense of this Concept Plan.. Thank you all for all the time and effort.you give to our City, and thank you for listening. RECEIVED AUG t 1 1999 SLC+ _,TV CLERK DAVE ROMERO- Parking Expansion for SanLuisObsipo . ..___ _,. _^ - _Page 1 I AGENDA , DATE -/1 ITEM #.= From: <Hecarroll@aol.com> To: <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> FfATTORNEY CIL 1 CDD DIR Date: Mon, Aug 9, 1999 2:11 PM FCAO ❑FIN DIR CHIEF Subject: Parking Expansion for San Luis Obsipo ❑FIRE IR !PW DIRKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF I regret that I will be unable to attend the parking garage expansion meeting TEAM ❑REC DIR on August 17 to speak before the council, but I would like to join the � ❑UTIL DIRChamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, San Luis Obispo Property OwnerW h Ses I��I ❑PERS DI I Association, Downtown Coalition, the business and property owners of the is <; pfalevi6k:`i downtown and the thousands of shoppers in their enthusiastic support of the Marsh Street Expansion. As you, I've read all the studies, I've talked to the business owners and customers, I'm aware of the present and future competition for retail sales both within and outside our community, I understand the funding sources and the mission of the Parking Enterprise Fund and I support the Downtown. My vision on the necessity of this issue is clear, how about you? Join us in the support and implementation of the Marsh Street Expansion. Thank you, Howard Carroll RECEIVED AUG 1 1 lggq DAVE ROMERO- Marsh Street Parking Expansion MEETIW_ ,7 TEM DA DATE v From: <ECVAI3@aol.com> To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> SCD"' ' ICDDDIR Date: Tue, Aug 10, 1999 8:38 AM !G.' ❑ Subject: Marsh Street Parking Expansion ;'. ❑r. O ATT... * .. ..I ■CU"..:;l.:.. ? ❑PCLIC2 CiiF Dear City Council, ❑L3 5h•y..1 s ❑REC DIR ■ J ❑UTIL DIR I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo since 1964 and have had a business ®.R.W h6er'0.n� ❑PERS DIR downtown since 1977. 1 am fully aware of the impact of the increasing 10 K. D�lev�sk; population of the city and county on the traffic in our streets. I do not believe the expansion of the Marsh street Parking Structure will help in relieving the congestion or flow restrictions in the downtown area. What is needed is a reliable, clean, to-scale bus system that will be convenient enough to convince the motorists to use the system rather than drive downtown. The present bus system is inadequate with machines that are entirely too large for the scale of our existing streets. They contain few, if any, passangers 90% of the time and spew noxious fumes and large carcenogeric partical into our atmosphere. At one time we had a transit system that had busses that ran on propane and fit the scale of our narrow streets. If we had smaller, clean running busses along with a schedule that allowed no more than a ten minute wait for the bus we could provide available parking outside the downtown area and create more pedestian corridors in the downtown area. The scheduled hours should allow for the early morning and late evening traffic. Also, the bus schedule to Cuesta College and Cal Poly should extend to accomodate the evening class schedules. Even if the city should have to subsidize a better bus system, it would be cheaper and better in the long run than constructing more parking structures downtown and increasing the congestion and frustration that is rapidly increasing on our streets. The county should also support a better bus system that allowed for surf boards, luggage and bicycles and ran at later and earlier hours to more locations (but that discussion is for another time). My two cents worth, Stephen Macie 413 Sandercock St. San Luis Obispo, CA ecval3@aol.com RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1999 SLO CITY r^�.r-RK DAVE - -- - - -- - - ---- -- - - DAVE ROMERO- Marsh Street Parking Structure . _ .. _ _ Page 1 ,EETIN AGENDA DATE ' ITEM # From: Sam Blakeslee <samslo@thegrid.net> To: "'dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "'kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Tue, Aug 10, 1999 9:34 AM Subject: Marsh Street Parking Structure ■COUNCIL ■CDD DIR ■CAO ❑FIN DIR Dear Dave and Ken, ■L ❑FIRE CHIEF ■ EY ■PW DIR ® ORIG ❑POLICE CHF Please find attached my email to Allen, Jan, and John. ❑ EAM ❑REC DIR Let me know if there's anything I can do to help your efforts in this ■ a2 s ❑UTIL DIRmatter. ■ t5 wand ❑PERS DIR Sincerely-Sam Blakeslee ltffffffff/!!!ff///!!!!lfYlffff//! I wanted to take a moment to express my strong support for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure. Unfortunately the parking issue has been politicized over the years into a"growth no-growth"debate. As a long-time resident of SLO who loves the environment and loves our downtown I see it differently. One way to combat the proliferation of strip malls and big box developments in the county is to strengthen our downtown. Although many of us can, and do, walk or cycle to town many more cannot. Seniors and parents with children need to use their cars; they have no choice. If they find it difficult to park downtown they will simply go elsewhere. We will be left with a downtown that is largely populated by students and tourists. If our downtown is to realize its potential as the commercial, cultural, and social heart of our county we will need to provide the basic parking necessary to support those activities. It would be a tragic mistake to miss this opportunity to address parking needs in downtown SLO. Failing to do so will hasten the loss of our open spaces and degrade the quality of our downtown. Please support the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure at Tuesday's City Council meeting. Respectfully, Sam Blakeslee RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1999 SLO CITE( CLERK 4- DAVE ROMERO-Marsh Street Parking Expansion _ .- _ _- __ _ Page 1 MEETIN .a AGENDA - From: "Terry L.Westrope" <twestrope@sterlinghotelscorp.com>DATE ITEM # To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Tue, Aug 10, 1999 9:52 AM Subject: Marsh Street Parking Expansion ■COUNCIL ■CDD DIR •CAO ❑FIN DIR Dear Mayor Settle: •ATTORNEY 0 FIR DCHIEFR I am extremely concerned about the current situation regarding the Marsh 19CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF Street Parking Expansion and how the denial of the use permit for the ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REG DIR ®J,5h00. 5 ❑UTIL DIR i structure will impact downtown. ■ d�znc( ❑PERS DIR As I've said before, and will say again, our neighbors to the north and • K.OFnleulsk� south are mounting aggressive campaigns to lure our shoppers from San Luis Obispo to their shopping meccas. While I believe there are those individuals who will go to those areas anyway, I think there are a great many local and out-of-area folks we could attract and retain in our downtown area if only we had sufficient parking. We must add parking if we hope to continue the vitality of the downtown SLO core. We currently lease parking spaces in the downtown, and are continually threatening to tow cars and service vehicles that are parked in those spaces. Of particular problem are Thursday nights and Saturdays. Folks ignore signage threatening towing,just to find a place to park. If we had sufficient parking, we wouldn't necessarily have to act as parking monitors for our own leased spaces. I urge you to vote for this very critical element in the City's plan to maintain our SLO town's economic, social and cultural vitality. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please give me a call at 546-9388. Terry L. Westrope Vice President Sterling Hotels Corporation CC: <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1999 SLO CITY CLERK Bill Rorm ITI&STING AGENDA 3057 South Higuera Street 496 DATE _ / 9 ITEM # �_ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 13,''1'999 To: Mayor Allen Settle Councilman John Ewan Councilwoman Jan Marx Councilman Dave Romero Councilman Ken Swartz Attached to this letter are pages, or copies, of a petition that are signed by persons who are seniors and/or handicapped,:and wish to have better.access to the downtown of San Luis Obispo. The petition reads: "WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, AGREE THAT THE EXPANSION OF THE MARSH STREET GARAGE IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW US, THE HANDICAPPED, AND THE SENIOR POPULATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, TO ONCE MORE BE ABLE TO: PARR, SHOP, DINE AND ENJOY OUR DOWNTOWN." Please read the names of the persons on the list. I have no doubt that you will find friends, neighbors and persons who you know supported your election, or appointment, to the office you now.hold. You will find in who, in 1998, contributed a share of the over 200,000 hours of volunteer work performed in our county under the RSVP programs. Most; however, you have never heard of..They are joining the others, and are just asking government to "do what is right." Please vote for the expansion. FF DD DIR O FIN DIR O FIR CHIEF Thank you QDIR l7 POLICE CHF AO REC DIR - � O.UTIL DIH_ O-PERS DIR Bill Storm W Copy- Wallace Henry, President, San Luis Obispo City Senior Center WE, THE UNDERSIGNE. . AGREE THAT THE EXPj SION OF THE MARSH STREET GARAGE IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW US, THE HANDICAPPED, AND SENIOR POPULATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, TO ONCE MORE BE ABLE TO: PARK, SHOP, DINE AND ENJOY OUR DOWNTOWN. P�- - -s.l� .y/\//��•F%��fL--r=-i�-�r./� �l- �Ger cAn Y r1 Lt, cam_._ ✓� SC ,lc`i�f/� LTJ �ilJ7-t.�—cb-- ✓ `(v�o<-QJ-c�.�. `� .n.P- -- dg, Oo xj aJS(.a-mow••--� .�u� c�.r•'� L2 CIS- Oe_ J ♦ �/f (o F L WE, THE UNDERSIGNE05 AGREE THAT THE EXF�NSION OF THE MARSH STREET GARAGE IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW US, THE HANDICAPPED, AND SENIOR POPULATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, TO ONCE MORE BE ABLE TO: PARK, SHOP, DINE AND ENJOY OUR DOWNTOWN. RAI J.1 0 61VtA.L & E 44 7 i rn �-a- WE, THE UNDERSIGN, J, AGREE THAT THE EXI SSION OF THE MARSH STREET GARAGE IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW US, THE HANDICAPPED, AND SENIOR POPULATION OF —SA- —N-MS-OBISPO;I'O-ONCE-MOREBE-A-BLE-'I_'O:PARK SHOP;DINE JO`y OUR­DOWNTO ra i a ._p DAVE ROMERO- Marsh Street Parking rage .- . -- Page 1 From: <LWhite1948@aol.com> MEETING AGENDA To: <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> DATE $ !�'�4 ITEM # � Date: Sun, Aug 15, 1999 7:15 PM Subject: Marsh Street Parking Garage As a local resident, downtown shopper and voter with a long memory, I support the expansion of the Marsh Street parking garage. I encourage you to show your support. Linda White FZ -MDD DIR ❑FIN DIR ❑FIRE CHIEF 457W DIR ❑POLICE CHF 0 REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR A ❑PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 SLO CITY CLERK DAVE ROMERO- Marsh Street PArkinr - '-ucture Expansion .__—_ MEETING AGENDA From: <Jgradycfp@aol.com> DATE2L- f ITEM # To: <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Sat, Aug 14, 1999 3:02 PM Subject: Marsh Street PArking Structure Expansion Dear Dave Romero and Jan Marx: I feel strongly that we desperately need additional parking for our downtown retial shops, restaurants, and businesses. We have much to be thankful for with the beautiful and vibrant and very successful downtown that we all enjoy. It is crucial to our downtown's continued success that we expand the current Marsh Street parking structure. The Marsh Street expansion is a logical and cost effective means of providing the additional parking we so desparately need. I urge your support for this project at your upcoming city council meeting on August 17. Thank you for listening and for your support. Regards, John Grady MOUNCII ICAO [3CDJEFF aACAO ❑FIN CC: <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> -MTTORNEY .B'PWQCLERKIORIG ❑PO❑RECP UTI❑PER K- OfAlewcki- RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 SLO CITY CLERK _Sheny Stendahl=parkin-�l.doc _ _ _ -__ . _ _ - Page 1 MEETING AGENDA D TE g J � ITEM # MEMORANDUM August 16, 1999 RECEIVED TO: Council&Downtown Community AUG 1 6 1999 FROM: John Ewan SUBJECT: Downtown Issues SLO CITY CLERK /Pacific & the current Marsh ST. Parkin Structure should not be 1. The property bounded by Morro g developed with a structure which covers 80% of the property. The proposed structure can be built within a foot print which more closely follows our General Plan. Redesigning the fust floor offices to be set into the main footprint of the building would eliminate most of the needed variance, while maintaining the current set back (8'walk w/17' Landscape) as established by the Marsh ST. Garage and Post Office building. The City followed this same guideline in the construction of the new surface parking lot at Nipomo & Palm (10' walk w/14' Landscape). The granting of an 80% variance flies in the face of private developers who would never receive the same benefits and corresponds more closely with existing development. 2. Decreasing the height of the proposed structure by one story would place the structure within our building height guidelines, and create less of an impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for a "few tall Landmark buildings'. While the Masonic Lodge may qualify as a Landmark, it incomprehensible that this same status should be bequeathed upon a parking structure. A reduction to 200+ new parking spaces would lessen visual and circulation impacts on Morro, Pacific, Chorro and Marsh ST. The resulting 244 public parking gross capacity expansion would still double the size of the current Marsh ST.Garage. 3. The EIR identifies a threshold capacity for Pacific ST. if the full 299 additional spaces are built, with a gross 341 spaces in the garage addition. Follow up studies to the traffic impacts by the proposed expansion would be required to assure mitigation. Limiting development would ease this issue and the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. We need to seriously consider these traffic impacts on what is becoming an upscale office district in the heart of our city. 4. The acquisition of a portion of the Parable property makes the redesign of the first floor of the garage feasible. 5. The Palm Street garage and particularly the Marsh Street structure should be primarily for shoppers of the downtown. These desired spaces should not be used for long term parking of downtown employees. While the original purpose for the two structures was to provide all-day parking for downtown employees in order to preserve the on-street spaces for shoppers, these two garages, particularly Marsh ST. have become a desired parking area for employees and shoppers alike. Currently all day parking use is up to 30% of available spaces in the Marsh ST. structure. These same spaces would benefit 4 times as many shoppers as they do long term parkers (employees). The City and Downtown merchants should be reserving the use of these facilities for shoppers, and encouraging employees to park in less obvious surface lots(i.e.: Palm &Nipomo lot). 6. The Pahn/Morro Redevelopment area bounded by Palm ST. City/County Library to the East, Palm Theater to the West, Muzzios/Kinko'sBooBoo's to the South(properl 0, Iffl. C D DIR BVAO 0 RN DIR CACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF WATrORNEY G"DIR CfCLERK10R10 O POLICE CHF ❑MWEAK O REC DIR ..W 0 PERS DI Sherry Stendahl-parkin,l.doc Page 2 the enhancement of our Civic Center. The opportunity to recreate a part of our Chinese history while putting the area to a higher use is a positive move. 8. Any parking facility in this area, as part of a mixed-use project, should only accommodate the parking that would be displaced from the area plus the parking required by the redevelopment of the area. This redevelopment should not be used as replacement parking for Court Street or to meet the parking needs of proposed new development on Court Street. 9. Offset parking for Court Street should be supplied by a parking structure east of Santa Rosa Street and an aggressive Parking Demand Reduction Program. 10. The additional parking facility east of Santa Rosa Street (Ski's Shell, Clinton property, or BofA/Old French Hospital block), perhaps above an off-street transit center, should be developed expeditiously.This area affords easy freeway access,and keeps auto traffic outside of our Downtown core,as called for in our circulation element. 11. This parking should be primarily long term parking, largely geared to the County(moving jurors to the new facility would free up parking at Palm ST) and downtown employees. Employees moved from the existing Palm Street&Marsh Street garages would free up space in these garages for downtown shoppers. This move could be achieved by creating an aggressive pricing structure which would encourage long term parking at less expensive outlying facilities (Santa Rosa,Nipomo&Palm). 12. The Downtown Trolley should be routed to afford easy and quick transit for employees and visitors alike who take advantage of the less expensive parking offered at new parking facilities outside of our Downtown Core. 13. The north downtown quadrant study, a refinement of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan should include not only Court Street and the Morro/Palm/Osos/Monterey blocks,but should also include the two blocks between Monterey/Marsh and Toro/Morro. 14. Expansion plans for City Hall should examine the possibility of building over the rear parking lot rather than using the old library location. Renovation of the existing Library building and use as community space or additional City offices should be thoroughly examined as a part of the Civic Center expansion. Any expansion of the City Hall should be designed to accommodate staff and the community in an environment conducive to easy interaction and efficient use of space and staff resources. Sherry Stendahl-marshs-1.doc _Page 1 MEETINY.�'_y AGENDA (, DATE_ ITEM # EN 51111" M E M ® RAN ® U M - August 16, 1999 TO: Council FROM: John Ewan SUBJECT: Staff Memorandum of 8/12/99-Marsh ST.Garage 1. Rather than attempting to compare the property for the proposed garage to property developed several decades ago, a directed comparison to the property recently developed directly across Pacific ST. (dental office)would have been more appropriate. 2. I take exception to the suggestion in paragraph 3 of page 2 siting the example that no private parties have built or are likely to build a privately owned parking structure. We currently have a major business and downtown landlord promoting a privately constructed public parking structure for the palm ST. location. 3. Any variance we give to ourselves will be sited in the future as a precedence by a private developer. I would encourage the use of good design for the proposed Marsh ST. structure, rather than a reliance on variances. RECEIVED AUG t �1999 SLO CITY CLERK [OUNCIL eCDD nIR CAO ❑FIN C;^ B'ACAO ❑FIR_C" eraroRNEY 0'PW In B CLERK/ORIO ❑POUCE C::' TEAM ❑REC DIR J 0 UTIL DIR 8 O PERS DIR K.DALIeWSK I Bellws MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # o t&Prt� Amu - eS#Otts 6quc#ment - /„a;.,' :S�O�d eSfio� PHONE 805.543-2197 886 MONTEREY STREET SAN Luis OacSPO, CAMFORNCA 93401 Aug 12 , loc,c iMayor Settle, Council members : I have been watcl,inAz San Luis evolve all my life from 886 .'Monterey St . Since the fifties almost every improvement has been controversial : (Mission Flaza , Downtown Tree Planting, One gray Streets , EIA formation, Thursdav Ni7ht Farmers Market , Acquisition of Surface Parkinn Lots , New Library, Downtown Center, Parking Structures , Prado Homeless Shelter, and Athletic Fields on Proad Street nroper•ty. Pecause people of vision and courage voted for these improvements we continue to have a rare, alive Downtown of which we can all be proud . The alternative would be a bli7hted downtown like so many other cities . The proof t'^at t.'•,is city is on the right path is its desireability as a plsce to live. Stay on course, complete the Marsh St . parking structure and proceed with a plan for Court St / balm I1. Sincerely �� ✓JE3 COUNCIL ®CDD DIR Thomas L.PCAO ❑FIN DIR RECEIVED ATTOCAO 13 FIRE DIR ATTORNEY �PW DIR CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF Asir, 1 3 1999 . M VUaNAN`S ❑REC DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL A—Wx^1* 0PENDM �Eh'1sto#fay r r mcmonanbum MEETING Q'11.y AGENDA 6 August 13, 1999 a 1 ITEM #. To: City Council KCOUNCIL liktDD DIR 5�CAO ❑FIN N IJ ACAO ❑Fli.: From: Sharon Lilley WATTORNEY i!' F-r OKLERKIORIG ❑POLIC:: :.: ❑M MT TEAM ❑REC DIR Subject: Voice Mail Message - Marsh Street Parking Structure R e. Is ❑ UTIL DIR W� ❑PERS DIR ✓ K. OpAJew5E, I received a telephone call from Chris Collins stating that he was against the Marsh Street Parking Project as he feels that the overpass is dangerous, especially for bikers. z ED 999 ERK BOARD OF TRUSTEES Geoffrey Land,Chair MEETING AGENDA / Jennifer Renzo,Vice-Chair k5lr �'��('C 1p Leslie Jones, Secretary DATE_ -7/ ITEM # Bob wolf,Treasurer IRONMENTAL CENTER David Braun OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Don Dollar Bob Lavelle Kimberly Rosa FA NCIL 0CDDDIR Arlene Winn ❑FIN DIR Holly Ziegler O ❑FIRE CHIEF RNEY p('W DIR 16 August 1999 KIORIG ❑POLICE C::= �TEAM ❑REC D!R Y1015 ❑UTIL DIR UA,4&annd ❑PERS DIR RECEIVED l opal l-, Mayor Allen Settle 61)I; I b 1999 San Luis Obispo City Council SLO CITY C 990 Palm Street COUNCIL San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers, I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors and membership of ECOSLO to urge you to reconsider the direction you are taking regarding parking in downtown San Luis Obispo. I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow due to a commitment to be at an AVAC meeting in Avila Beach at the same time, so I thought I would share a few thoughts with you in writing beforehand. As you know, this issue has been a contentious one for quite some time. A deeply divided community has been before you many times over the years, and nobody ever leaves happy. The bright side is that folks on both sides do seem to have moved, perhaps ever so slightly, towards the center as their knowledge of the subject has increased. We have made some progress since the days of semi-secret meetings of the BIA Parking Committee (composed of people with a direct economic interest in taxpayer-funded parking garages) from whence the Marsh Street Garage was hatched. Today, business folks concede that there are alternatives to "bricks and mortar," and non-business folks can see that there is a need for some new parking in the downtown. Another thing that folks see clearly is that the Marsh Street location is not the best one for the downtown. You know it, I know it, and the business folks know it as well. The Marsh Street location has already created a problem with traffic and pedestrians on Marsh Street. Adding 3500 new automobile trips and 5,000 to 6,000 new pedestrians at the entrance to the garage and the entrance to the 864 Osos Street,Suite C Tel.805/544-1777 P.O.Box 1014 Fax 805/544-1871 San Luis Obispo,California93406 Printed on 100%tree free, chlorine free paper e-mail ecoslo@rlonet.org ECOSLO[Marsh Street F__.jng Garage 8-16-99 2 Downtown Center is insanity. Add to that the sheer size of what is being proposed, the variances, the "shoehorning,"the visual impacts, the neighborhood impacts, the historical impacts, the pedestrian bridge in the middle of the block, the increased auto traffic in the rest of the downtown, the increased danger to pedestrians and bicyclists, and what you have is a recipe for disaster. This is the wrong location. Hello? There are other locations; better locations; locations that will not have the impacts listed above. There are locations that we could all agree upon; that would not have the controversy. Can't we go there? Haven't we learned anything? What I am asking of you is to set aside plans for the Marsh Street expansion for the time being. Give the community a chance to apply what they have learned. Let's see if we can't work together to craft a really great circulation plan for the downtown; a plan that would compliment the great work already done on the Concept Plan; a plan that would address the needs of neighborhoods, pedestrians, bicyclists, and downtown business owners; a plan that would meet the goals and objectives of our adopted Circulation Element instead of contradicting them. What I am asking of you is to be leaders, not followers. Just because we have waded this far into the "Big Muddy" does not mean we must go on. I suggest tabling the parking garage issue for one year and pulling together an ad hoc committee, comprised of the various interests, to create a parking/circulation plan for the downtown that everybody can agree to. We need an open public process with opportunities for meaningful input from all players, and consultants who have not been told which outcomes are acceptable before actually doing the work. ECOSLO would be very willing to be involved in this process and to work towards the goal of achieving community consensus. The downtown belongs to all of us, not just the merchants who do business there. Please have the foresight to encourage community consensus at this critical juncture in the history of our city. Once you make the decision to value automobile mobility and convenience at the expense of pedestrians, you will have made the same decision made in hundreds of Southern California cities before you...and there will be no turning back. Sincerely, v Pat Veesart Executive Director memopwoum August 16, 1999 MEETING AGENDA DATE S"l ITEM # To: City Council From: Sharon Lilley Subject: Telephone Message - Marsh Street Parking Structure I received a telephone call from Mr. Walter Wolf of Los Osos, 528-4549 stating that he favored the Marsh Street Parking Project and that he strongly objected to the Planning Commission's denial of the variance for the proposed project. In addition, the Masonic Temple is taller than the proposed structure. StOUNCIL 9-CDD DIR BtAO ❑FIN DIR Q'ACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF �rrORNEY 9TW DIR CLGcERTTKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑M �h t.5 5 ❑REC DIR C� ❑LIT DIR K.012glew sk,^ RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 �[DAVE ROMERO-Marsh Street Parking Page 1 MEETING AGENDA From: <MRhine1011@aol.com> S( I yS To: <asettle@ci:san-luis-obispo.ca.us> DATE ITEM# Date: Mon,Aug 16, 1999 12_:05 PM Subject: Marsh Street Parking - Mayor Allen Settle and Council Members I support the immediate ezpansion.of the Marsh Street parking garage and urge Your support on August 17, 1999. Marvin L. Rhine 950 and 952 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. CIL ST D DIR '-'CAD ❑FIN DIR ICAO O FIRE CHIEF -WTTORNEY cw*bIR E3YCLERK/ONIa ❑POLICE CHF O MGhiT T-Ep� p HEC DIR J.S Yl o a — p ImL DIR g 2= u�.rn`'�( O PERS DIR K. Oei�few -I-, i RECEIVED AUG 1 6 199Q SLO CIT" ` _; MEETINUAGENDA TO: Council DATE �ITEM #— • FROM: Mark Smith (544-9094) Local businessman and Chamber of Commerce member. Not sold on parking structure. His main problem with the project is that he is concerned it will create a tremendous traffic burden on the surrounding streets. He would support building other parking structures on the periphery of the downtown or using a shuttle service. He indicated that a traffic problem already exists at the Pacific/Osos intersection and this structure will only make it worse. RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 SLO CITY CLERK I COUNCIL 0-60D DIR �AO ❑FIN DIR ,21(CAO ❑FIRE CHIC' 1,2�1.9�TORNEY ErPW DIR f ,SCI�LERKIORIO ❑ FC!.':: C.:= �❑6 yy11T TEAM Cl-. =c D.i lJ.Sh 16 ❑UTILDIR �p,F.'. {►LSciY1✓Ik❑PERS DIR ✓K-Ofgz!�u�k: r` August 16, 1999 MEETING AGENDA DATE -&:/--7-' f ITEM # MEMORANDUM TO: QQ City Council Members FROM: I I pMike Spangler, Downtown Coalition Member ti- RE: "Save Downtown" Petition It has come to my attention that Mr. Eugene Jud has been circulating a petition(attached, Exhibit B) against the Marsh St. garage expansion. It's unfortunate that Mr. Jud would have people believe that Cal Poly is against the expansion or infer that the head of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department is in support of his suggested alternative. Please see the attached letter from Professor Robert Lang, Chair Civil and Environmental Engineering Department (exhibit A). While I applaud Mr. Jud for his effort and believe some of his ideas are worthy of further study, I find it unfortunate that that he is using his position at the college to confuse the issue to be discussed tomorrow evening. I urge the Council to stay focused on the issue and adopt the CAO recommendation. -8VDDDill CO ❑FIN DIR GACAO ❑FIRE CHI E -.GArMRNEY .�v D R -GMERKIORIG ❑FOI.!C=CH F-0 ❑REC= l ❑ICi L'- F LRZr. RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 SLO CITY CLERK �1 .•�L y '1 S�l ll�f V AL 1 01 STATE of CAf.Q+ORNL1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Spangler DATE: August 5, 1999 Downtown Coalition 664 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 FROM: Robert J. Lang,Ph.D., P.E. Professor and Chair Civil and Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: Petition relative to parking needs in San Luis Obispo Thank you for your phone call on 8/4/99, in which you expressed your concern about the signatures of several Civil &Environmental Engineering Department faculty members on a petition circulated by Eugene Jud related to the need for parking in downtown San Luis Obispo. Please be assured that our Department takes no position on this issue, although individual faculty members are free to express their opinions on this or other issues. It would be inappropriate and unfortunate for Eugene to make any claim of support from individuals in our Department as some type of endorsement from the Department, which contains about 18 full-time faculty members. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions (805-756-2947; rlang@calpoly.edu). I won't be able to attend the City Council meeting later this month because I'll be out of the country, so please express my concern and apologize for any confusion we may have inadvertently created. July 25, 1999 Jud What is the Petition 'Save Downtown' ? Goal ? - BRING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER through real public participation about the future of downtown transportation(Appendix I). Everybody is welcome to voice whatever opinion on the subject. The process is more important than the result. Finally we need a downtown transportation plan similar to the ones in Santa Monica or Pasadena. - ENHANCE THE ATTRACTION OF THE DOWNTOWN in view of the threat of coming superstores in the southwest of the town. How many signatures? So far over 1,000 persons have signed. Most signatures were collected in downtown by downtown businesspeople. Also many professionals from Cal Poly have signed, e.g. the head of Civil and Environmental Engineering, all professors teaching transportation planning and many professors from the School of Architecture. What are the views of the Save Downtown committee? I. Enhance the attraction of downtown' means - In the short term: Better alternative transportation. Already after Sept. 1, there will be much better bus service, which fact reduces the 'need' for more parking. Better parking which is faster than "Brick and Mortar". Provide more well advertised short term parking near the core of downtown through organizational measures called Parking Management and Parking Demand Reduction (Meyer Mohaddes Report 1997). Special attention must be paid to the parking needs of the elderly. Additional organizational measures based on the ideas and the cooperation of downtown stakeholders must be considered. The Chamber of Commerce has already given creative input. According to Meyer Mohaddes such measures, like Park and Ride, are 20 times more cost effective than "Brick and Mortar". The Marsh Street Garage Expansion project may go through lengthy legal procedures and the resulting bonded indebtedness may be questioned extensively. - In the intermediate and long term: More pedestrianization is needed in the heart of downtown where the crowds are. The step by step implementation of Plan B is spelled out in three phases up to the year 2028 in the senior projects of civil engineering students Mike Sallaberry(1998) as well as R. Bale/E. Ballard (1995). Both senior projects are available at the Cal Poly library. The 1998 senior project was sent to the City Council in Fall 1998. • 1 2. Statistics Statistics are more important than subjective views. They show: - According to city documents the downtown has considerably less parking than 20 years ago - and it is commercially booming(Appendix 2)! We believe these numbers to be more convincing than the dogmas of some consultants suggesting that we need more and more parking. Other city reports show that San Luis Obispans are actually switching towards alternative transWrtition modes if encouraged to do so. Similar trends can be seen in many American and European towns. The downtown parking spaces are not full at all (Appendix 2) but there are local disparities. This shows that an electronic guidance system for drivers is needed. The driver must feel welcome and there is such a thing like "fun" parking! - Our real problem is not the lack of parking, as perceived by some, but the loss of the friendly and relaxed downtown atmosphere and the heavy pedestrian/car conflicts. This downtown atmosphere is our only weapon against the "lagoon of parking" potentially evolving in the southwest of the town. Physically adding 8 % more parking spaces to downtown - as the Marsh Street Garage expansion does - is relatively irrelevdnt. Among 10 people interviewed in downtown - only 2 say that they "found it difficult to park" - 6 say that they would like to "see the downtown more pedestrian friendly" (Appendix 3) - 5 say "there is too much traffic in downtown" (Student survey March 1996). 3. Waste of money Going into "Brick and Mortar" parking before the above points 1 and 2 are taken seriously is not business like. No private entrepreneur would do this. 4. The city's 'smorgasbord' of planning documents is unhealthy Our legal and pseudolegal planning documents are full of contradictions between each other and need to be revised This applies to the Circulation Element, the Parking Management Plan and mostly to the "Downtown Concept Plan". The latter document is totally confusing in connection with transportation and it may soon become a liability for the City. 5. Fatal flaws in consultants reports Partially because of the above 'smorgasboard' the Meyer Mohaddes report 'Parking and Downtown Access Plan' of December 1997 and the three E1Rs in connection with parking contain fatal flaws and are full of contradictions. E.g. they do not conform to the Circulation Element(= the transportation constitution) and to CEQA. Especially the "parking needs" forecast by Meyer Mohaddes stand on very shaky ground. We are willing to defend this view before any competent quorum of experts. 2 6. Missing data Despite 100,000s of dollars spent for consultants we.still do not have an answer to two basic questions: - How have towns (US and foreign) similar to San_ Luis.Obispo solved their access problems' - How much through traffic do we.have in downtown, which could be diverted onto the freeway or to South Street? This question is vital in order to produce a sound downtown transportation plan. Hopefully these questions can soon be answered. JUD CONSULTANTS Pob 1145 San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1145 (805) 545-5919 3 MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # ,�JI�G 5KY C AL�R� o� Y 1 M ` U . • • e r n F • • dI ffff rI ^ 1121 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, 9 , telephone: (805) 545-5401 1I 1 `L 1999 le� (,�1 cw., — SL CITY COUNCIL J-0-, 0 6-ty 5)�p ,r4q cikk cG�.t G CA 3 cto I Vegetable Sky Painting by Brad Delk uc,�uw, u S tti-tQQ • �i..,.�vi (� ,O wVLc.. ...... E CIL D DIR ❑FlN DIR❑FIRE CHIEF NEY B PIN DIIORIp ❑POLICE CHF ❑REC DIR ❑UT1L DIR❑PERS DIR 6 SLO DOWNTOWN' ASSOC . TEL :805-781=2W Aug 17 99 14 :02 No .041 P ._01 koft. PA Y' ,( &J Lo KOVt/ MEETINT AGENDA i3 L, � DATE=ITEM # p kit,(L6 cV a /LA/0,0 �t��<.lc "}v LLUT� v sJ = Q pCp�4L. � 'po N ` T C � }tut✓ ` y Sn COUNCIL U61FD DIR(- (�� s SAO E3 RN DIR lJ AO ❑FARE CHIEF A�ORNEY B PW DIR f9CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE 'CHF (i GoNOM`� oLX (v OOD 1 T L ouinola OPERS DIR bot N r,55 1LN vvU r)OW WT-OW N P,;�Es l X65 1 pA UAON 14 . a G 1 v � U� •-�-� W 4�l.t� ��u� r �t�f'+ - ��PP.�s 1N env � a..rr, P>A-u- I \(oj w m 0 Pnn-t tQ i s l-,-)Or i`k W o V2-t--� LL. m ���'AtJ� P�Vov� 'p i?��sv�-+� — �PIc�_ L—tRs► ���- � e � a r � Pot. NICs O r OF 1' C;u 5TbNvia-,e DDu1kTThw t�J SDP 9P(2-7w1� tv our CtT`� RECEIVED AUG 1.7 1999 �'� TD(/Y-�7 W-4 v(5, SLo CITY CLERK R.H. PORTER CO.- MEE. G AGENDA DATE . ITEM # /o August 16, 1999 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Marsh Street Parking Garage Support Dear Cowicii: Please accept this letter signifying my ;sincerest support for the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion. I have followed the progress of the project over the past five years as a past Parking Committee member of the Downtown Business Association and having served on a bipartisan City discussion Committee. I am a downtown business and property owner and have heard countless complaints over many, many yearsconcerning the lack of parking. I also am a firm believer .in the Downtown as our City Center, economically, socially and historically and do not wish to see our retail or office users leave the Downtown for newer outlying urban developments simply due to parking accessibility. Please keep the Downtown alive and vibrant by supporting this overdue parking addition. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard H. Porter LRIG RHP/tm Y O':f�_:_.: ,...r ! 7 169 0 MGM7, O REC DIR 0 UTIL DIR . 0 Q PERS DIR — 846 Higuera Sheet, Suite 8. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . (805) 543-5408 DAVE ROMERO=PARKING DEBATE _ From: <nlosey@slonet.org> MEETING AGENDA to: <asetfie@ci.san-Iuis-obispo.ca.us> DATE 11>I%.,. ITEM #.= Date: Tue; Aug 17, 1999 12:30 AM Subject: PARKING DEBATE CC: <dromero@ci.san-Iuis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci'.san=Iuis=obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-Iuis-obispo.ca:us>, <kschwartz@ci.san=Iuis-obispo:ca.us>, <nlosey@kcbx.org> ?COUNCIL IlMD DIR UrCAO O FIN DIR Sd;,f;CAO 0 FIRE CHIEF L7 ATTORNEY IPW DIR' �CLERKlORIO O POLICE CHF M M TEAM 0 REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR- [3 PEM IR[PERSDIR K. Olew ; RECEIVED AUG 1 .7 1999 SLQ G.�TYCLERK DAVE ROMERO- Part.000 Page 1 <FontFamily><param>Courier New</param>Dear City Council, I hope you will take the time to read the following letter.This is the first time I have ever done anything like this and I fear it is something that means so much to me it will all spill out onto the page in a jumble. I just wanted to try to have my voice heard in this Downtown Parking Issue. I feel you are in for a long meeting tonight and I wish you good luck. I feel that the following opinion represents that of many people. In the crowd I run in, including MANY people that work and shop downtown, most agree with what I'm about to say. Granted,polling my circle of acquaintances (run of the mill,middle class,working folks between 20 and 50 in age)is far from scientific,yet still valid I feel. My only hope is that some of these people will contact you as well and not give up in the face of the money and power that the pro-parking crowd seems to wield. As you can tell by the last statement, I'm not big on this parking plan. I'll be honest upfront(and I may lose some of you here)I'm not big on the growth of the downtown or SLO in general. PLEASE STICK WITH ME AND KEEP READING. I want to clarify that. I am pro local business in a big way. I shop at locally owned stores even if items cost a little more. I am a fan of our award winning downtown. I love this city and have hitched my wagon to staying here. I don't make much money,and I doubt I will ever make a fraction of a percent of the amount of money made by any of the names I find signed on a recent letter from the"Downtown Coalition."I live in a rental that is on it's last legs and there is a chance I won't ever get a job here that is fitting to my talents and ability.Yet, I have chosen to stay.The way things have been going recently, I almost wish I had chosen a place that was already ruined by chain store mentality and out of control developers(like San Diego or Salinas Or Sacramento or anywhere else on the California map.)That way I wouldn't have to watch it happen here and feel the sadness of watching the city lose its charm bit by bit. How does this all relate to the parking question?Well,there are a few connections. And,once again I apologize for the length of this,but I do hope you will stay with me.The first connection I believe is in the fact this parking plan involves more than a concern for DAVE ROM ERO- Part.000 - - _ _ —_ Page_? I local businesses. I hope you got to see the letter from the"Downtown Coalition"that went out to local businesses.This letter was signed by regular old joes like Tom and Jim Copeland, Rob Rossi and Mike Maino with nothing to gain from this whole deal.They're just concerned citizens,residents I think they called themselves.They discuss the well organized opponents to the parking plan and their intense lobbying campaign. I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone I just took, but that statement and letter really made me angry.These are people of wealth and power with a lot to gain from this downtown deal and the opponents are people that have nothing to gain monetarily.What they are trying to maintain is the sanity and joy of living in a place with as much character and class as San Luis Obispo.This leads to the second part of my point,particularly involving this letter. It is a plea to local businesses to support it because it will shape downtown for years to come. I've heard some arguments(particularly those of Deborah Holley)that our downtown will be in dire straits without the parking.All of these statements are aimed at the local businessman and how they will be adversely affected by the loss of parking. I hope local businesses that have been around for a while remember that some of these folks,even though they are local people,aren't the greatest supporters of local businessmen. How many local stores are in the Downtown Center?Are you aware of how hard it was for locals to ever rent any space from the Copelands because they kept their rents high hoping for those chain goldmines?How many times has Deborah Holley referred to her desire for Eddie Bauer or Patagonia or a Disney Store or Crate'N'Barrel or any other store you can find in Fremont or Monrovia or Bakersfield. She was quoted in the paper as saying she was really hoping for an Eddie Bauer in the space Carl's is going into. How about a cool local store?What's wrong with that?Well, not the same kind of dough to be had, but at least a part of the city's soul stays intact.Anyway,my point here is that while trying to get the support of local businesses by striking fear into them,they actually haven't shown much care about local businesses in the past. I strongly believe that their are more chains that want to be here and have told the developers they won't come until there is more parking. Do you think locals will give up Court Street for a new mall with a Disney Store if there isn't alternative parking? i The argument that local businesses are I DAVE ROMERO-Part.000 Page 3 suffering from lack of parking is hard for me to buy. Have you walked downtown on a Saturday lately. It's like New York City sometimes (Deborah Holley said so herself.)And it isn't all people in the Gap or Victoria's Secret. People come downtown because of variety and because it is a nice downtown.Just ask the people handing out the awards.That recent poll some Cal Poly students did in Santa Maria of people from San Luis as to why they weren't shopping in SLO is a little flawed. Did they also poll the people from<underline>all over</underline>that were shopping in downtown SLO as to why they WERE shopping there?The answers would probably have been because it is comfortable, classy, pleasant and many other things Santa Maria is not.Ask how many of the folks shopping in Santa Maria would actually like to live there and I think you would get a big,fat zero. This goes deeper than the downtown for me obviously.You can guess how I feel.about the new malls being proposed as well.Apply this letter to those discussions in the future if you would like. Remember a few things; if the developers want these things out of the kindness of their hearts and there deep concern for SLO, let them develop some community centers. Remember that the impassioned plea of the opponents is probably about as heartfelt as it gets.They have nothing to gain except the heartache of tilting at windmills. I know it isn't the correct thing to say because it is kind of sraight-forward, but developers are pretty much across the board in it for the money.We"opponents"are trying to do what we think is right. I don't mean to sound self- righteous about that,honestly. I sometimes wish I wasn't the type whose underwear got all bunched up over this stuff. I wish I could sit back and say,"Woo-hoo,a Costco is coming! I can get a pallet of toilet paper for a buck a roll cheaper! Finally!"My life would be much easier. But I can't. I feel in my heart that trying to save what we are lucky enough to have in SLO is what I have to do.This is a great place.Good local businesses with a good concept will survive and thrive without more parking and definitely without more chain stores. Folks from all over will keep coming here because it is a nice, UNIQUE, place to be.We're doing well and maintaining our character. For starters,a"NO" vote on this parking plan will keep us on our course. Thank you for your time, I know you must be DkVE ROMERO- Part.000 _ Page 4 swamped. I have a great respect for what you do and the decisions you have to make. I'm song for the length of this and I hope you made it through it. Its just so very important to me. Respectfully, Neal Losey age 32 14 year resident p.s.One other little point.Have you noticed how bad traffic has gotten downtown?More people running red lights,less use of turn signals,a lot more honking.Just a lot less courtesy in general. I hope it isn't that people are becoming more rude. I hope it is just a sign we may have reached our carrying capacity for cars in SLO. I've really noticed it the last few years. I don't think downtown parking would help that much either. <nofill> DAVE ROMERO- MULTI-LEVEL PARK GARAGE AT THE NORTHERLY CORS'" . OF PACIFIC ANDMORRO STRE e3ff M E ANG/'- 4 AGENDA .�f ITEM # From: "Backman,Vickie" <VAB1@pge.com> To: "'asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us'"<dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "'jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "'jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "'kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "'sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us"' <sstendahl@ci.san-lu is-obispo.ca.u s> Date: Tue, Aug 17, 1999 7:39 AM Subject: MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PACIFIC ANDMORRO STREETS; 860 PACIFIC STREET Council Members: I am sendingthis e-mail because I will be unable to attend tonight's EEr 0 FIN DIR g ❑FIN DIR council meeting. I am an eight year resident of SLO, and a 24 year resident ❑FRE CHIEF of the county. I live in the French Park area. I frequently shop downtown, G"DIR the Madonna area, and out of town, and I often use my bicycle for O POLICE CHF alternative transportation on the weekend for SLO errands. ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR I have followed the travails of the Marsh Street expansion garage in the TT. O PERS DIR I support the building of the expanded garage in its proposed form, at the v Kos ' maximum size possible. 1� It seems that some of the council may not really understand what they are asking for when they suggest that people should be encouraged to leave their cars in favor of alternative transportation. When I think of alternative transportation, bicycles and buses come to mind. Neither of these alternatives can replace adequate parking. Additionally, for elderly and handicapped people, close-in parking is a necessity, and this is a fast growing age group. Although I ride my bike every week on errands, the bike is not suitable for trips with others, such as my daughter or husband. It isn't a good idea at night. It is not suitable when I am making any more than minimal, small purchases. It is also not suitable when I need to be presentable at the destination. Smelly biking clothes are not a good idea in theaters or restaurants. The SLO bus system is inadequate to attract middle class riders. Service frequency is low and downtown destinations are severely limited. It is not my idea of fun to walk from City Hall to Higuera and Broad, and then back with an armload of purchases, and then wait an extended period for another bus. I've been to Europe, where public transportation is put to good use—it is frequent, goes where it is needed, and its cheap (heavily subsidized). I would much rather see expanded parking available right in downtown. I enjoy being able to find a nice, cool parking spot in the Marsh Garage when it isn't full. Often, it's even free. This garage is CLOSE to shopping and the theaters. I am looking forward to the eventual development of the Court RECEIVED Street area, hopefully with a good anchor store such as Robinsons-May or Macy's. I envision a vibrant downtown--not another sprawling suburban mall expansion into the Dalidio property. AUG 1. 7 1999 We have a great downtown, please don't spoil it by not providing parking. SLO CITY CLERK Also, please be good stewards of the taxpayers'money, and maximize the DAVE ROMERO- MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGEAT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PACIFICANDMORRO STREM!gB parking usage or this property. Vickie Backman Learning Services --Technical'Maint. Diablo Canyon_Power=Plant-- 119/247/5A PO Box 56 Avila beach, CA 93424 offce805.545-4289 (internal 691-4289) fax: 805-545-3545 MLA INAGENDq DATE "�7- 9 ITEM #L.L_ San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 August 17, 1999 David E. Garth, President/CEO RECEIVED Mayor Allen Settle AUG 1 7 1999 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street SLO CITY COUNCIL San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Chamber's Support for the City's Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Use Permit for the Marsh Street Parking Structure Expansion Dear Mayor Settle: On behalf of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, I want to convey to you our support for the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a use permit for the Marsh Street Parking Structure Expansion. The Chamber supports the Marsh Street Parking Structure Expansion for several reasons.The expansion is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. The expansion is consistent with the Chambers 15 year advocacy for a city with a compact urban form.The expansion is necessary to enable our downtown to remain economically viable and competitive in these rapidly changing economic times. Lastly,the expansion is necessary to fulfill the current parking deficit for the downtown area. The Chamber commends staff on its thorough discussion of the three elements necessary for granting the variance that this vitally important project requires.The Chamber agrees that there are certainly unique circumstances which apply to the site. Not only is the property subject to different zoning regulations but a significant portion of it is developable only in the air above the Post Office-a very unusual situation.The Chamber feels strongly that the granting of the variance does not grant a special privilege. Neighboring properties and the existing structure have similar variances. Additionally the project is being constructed for the community's benefit, not for private profit. Lastly, we know that the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people who work in the vicinity of the expansion. Rather,there is an incredible opportunity to improve safety for all pedestrians by constructing the pedestrian bridge from the expansion across Marsh Street. Thank you for considering the Chamber's concerns. We look forward to your resolution upholding the appeal this evening. FUJt,(-'6ew1Y am DIR Z-CAO 13 FIN DIR Sincerely, 3 PE CHIEF C PO DIR O POLICE OF O REC DIR Deborah S. Nicklas 0 UnL DIR Chairman of the Board ❑PERS DIR e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com N AGENDA DATE �TING _, �-�y ITEM #= McMORAnoum August 17, 1999 F�6=EY �cDD DIR ❑r' '2T.❑F:L ; C};'r❑REC DIRTO: Clty COLInCll ❑PERS D R From: Sharon Lilley i O�Q�ti L Subject: Telephone Message -Marsh Street Parking Structure I received a telephone call from Anna Mae Melhuse, 245 Almond (541-3351) stating that she favored the Marsh Street Parking Expansion. E ED 999 P_ERK MEETIN[; AGENDA DATE I_?_=ITEM #(� • COUNaf. M-CAO 0 FI D DIR .MCAO O FIN DIR P ATTORNEY 8 FIRE CHIEF August 16, 1999 ATCLEFIVORIt3 3 PO ICE ❑M MT TEAM POLICE CDIR NF �.S hoa.i.6 O RTC DIR Mayor and City Council D UTIL DIR City of San Luis Obispo .Vihtsertwtd ❑PERS DIR By fox: 781-7109 RE: Parking structure expansion Deor Mayor Settle and City Councilmembers, Thank you,as always,for the opportunity to comment on important community affairs. I support the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure,for the following reasons: Y WE CAN'T AFFORD TO TAKE THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF THE DOWNTOWN FOR GRANTED. Many letters to the editor suggest that some people think that the Downtown hos always been as attractive and successful as today,and that it will effortlessly continue to be so into the future. Both ideas ore,bluntly,incorrect. Unless we continually nurture the Downtown, including supporting the economic viability of shops, restaurants,theaters-all of which need customers-our Downtown can fail. Reversing the recent history of success would be one of the worst legacies a City Council could leave. IN ORDER FOR THE DOWNTOWN TO CONTINUE TO SUCCEED,WE NEED TO®FT PEOpL[THERE—AND THAT MEANS BY CAR. I endorse the use of alternative transportation to and from downtown. Without being self-congratulatory, I ride my bike or walk to work downtown quite often. (I'm lucky.) Nonetheless, most visitors to downtown(for work,shopping or pleasure)do not get there by walking,biking or taking the bus. This is just o matter of foci and it will remain so into the foreseeable future. Thus,cars must be accommodated. Therefore,I support more parking structures that 1) utilize fond efficiently (note that this means taller structures that cover much of the site),2)are centrally located,and 3) retain the first floor(as much as practical) in retail or other uses along the sidewalks. ➢ A PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DOWNTOWN STILL NEEDS TO CONYENIENTLT GET PEOPLE TO AND FROM THERE. I endorse enthusiastically the idea of a pedestrian-oriented downtown. Indeed, I think we have accomplished a lot in this regard(note particularly,Mission Plaza, Mission Plaza extension, the'Downtown Centre',and the continuous retail street level frontage along Higuera and several of the side streets). But,again, most people get to and from downtown by car. PARKING STRUCTURES FREE UP SURFACE LOTS FOR OTHER PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED USES;THIS IN TURN ENHANCES THE STREETSCAK AND MAKES SIDEWALKS SAFER AND MORE FLEASAFIT. What could be more anti-pedestrian than a scatter of small surface parking lots? Imagine them gradually tronsitioning into parks or plazas. Consider that few parking lots are truly attractive. Consider also that driveways crossing sidewalks should be minimized for both pedestrian safety and pedestrian ambience. 1 oft RECEIVED AUG 1. 7 1999 SLO CITY CLERK ➢ ALL THE ARGUMENTS RAISED AGAINST THE MARSH STREET EXPANSION WERE RAISED WITN • EXISTING STIt/CTUgES—AND THE BOTH EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE SMLY NOW W ELEMENTS TO THE SUCCESS OF THE DOWNTOWN. I hod the privilege of serving as the City's Community Development Director during the planning and/or development of our other two structures. I recall the review of the Marsh Street structure especially...let's see,the tall building would overwhelm the streetscape, traffic on Marsh Street and on Pacific would be intolerable and unsafe, it will ruin Old Town, the building is too boxy and massive, we don't need so much parking, let's spread the parking out among several smaller structures,we should be discouraging cars downtown and encouraging alternative means of transportation,this is the wrong location, it costs too much and is economically inefficient,etc. I contend that the Marsh Street structure provided a significant boost to the Downtown,dramatically improved the streetscape and pedestrian ambience (do any of you remember when Marsh Street was deemed'uncross-able'for pedestrians?Can any of you remember what was on that comer before the structure?). That structure also made the very pedestrian-oriented'Downtown Centre'possible. Marsh Street which was once thought of as uncross-able and very unfriendly to pedestrians now has an unsignahzed mid-block crossing (despite carrying more traffic)I Remember,that the expansion of the Marsh Street garage was anticipated when the current structure was planned and built. t I have worked on downtown plans and other special area revitalization efforts for several small communities (and a few large ones)throughout Califomia,so I have some practical experience in'this regard. I respect the thoughtfulness of the people who have suggested we discourage cars and encourage pedestrians or search for other sites before we use this one. Consider carefully their ideas. However, I believe that an improved pedestrian ambience in the Downtown is best stimulated by bringing people to the Downtown--which will be by car as a practical matter. Thus, parking must be convenient and plentiful. As I've said above, a few structures conveniently located are superior to other more land-intensive alternatives. The Marsh Street garage expansion is a practical option that should be implemented. Aqoin, thanks for the opportunity to comment and sorry about the lengthy missive. • Sincerely, Michael Multari 83 La Entrado (And 641 Higuero Street) SLO (Oh,in case any of you think that these opinions simply mask a self-serving interest regarding my office downtown, please keep in mind that a structure in a different location would benefit me a lot more and that,frankly, my particular business doesn't require a lot of direct customer contact here in SLO—unlike virtually all of my first floor neighbors in the Downtown.) 2 of 2 • Sherry Stendahl- Marsh Street Parking cture _ Pae 1 MEETIN �_4y AGENDA DATE_.____-ITEM # • From: <JPSgn@aol.com> To: <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 8/16/99 12:45PM 25COUNCIL 'DDD DIR Subject: Marsh Street Parking Structure j2tAO ❑FIN DIR gACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF Members of the City Council - ;eATTORNEY RTW DIR eCLERKIORIG ❑FTUC=CHF I am sure that you have received many emails regarding the Marsh Street ❑M TEAK ❑;EC D;:1 Parking Structure. Having voiced my opinion on this subject on many .4!1IS ❑ UTIL DIR AM occasions, I will repeat it. The Sargen Family is 100% in favor of '� mcamp El PERS DIR proceeding with the full program for the Marsh Street parking structure. Any or, 4Dpa1CWSWG delay, modification or reduction would be a costly mistake. Although not in the best location, prior Council decisions to build in this location have effectively removed this argument against proceeding with an expansion. RECEIVED The reasons we believe it is wise to move forward: AUG 1 j 1999 1. It fits with the City's General Plan and the oftstated concept of Compact SLO CITY CLERK Urban Form. Build downtown and stop retail sprawl. 2. Downtown faces stiff competition from other regional communities retail expansion and from projects within the City. These projects provide free close parking. 3. Building the Marsh Street Expansion provides a place for cars already circulating on our downtown streets and removes them from residential neighborhoods. People who complain about the garage expansion adding traffic don't understand, the traffic is here today and clogs our streets with cars circling for spaces. 4. The new garage as designed is an attractive replacement for an unsightly Post Office lot and loading dock. The design allows for attractive design features and takes into account the need for sunlight. Any variance required is a minimal mitigation for a to meet a compelling public need, adequate parking. 5. The garage is only a portion of the long term plan and solution for how to keep Downtown vibrant, pedestrian friendly and competitive. Palm 2, The Court Street Project, Bulb outs and closure or street width reduction on Garden Street and others, replacing parking on street level parking lots with garages, are all features of The Downtown Design Plan,which also foresees traffic reduction measures, in car pooling, increased mass transit and other alternative measures. 6. The Marsh Street Garage is now viewed as "AN ARTICLE OF FAITH", by those of us who have made major financial and personal contributions to enhancing the quality of life in the City. A decision that reduces, or minimizes the Marsh Street Parking structure will provide those of us who have made major investments in the City in this decade with a clear message on how we should view our role in the social and economic life of this community. We urge you to vote in favor of proceeding with the full program for the Marsh Street Expansion. Sherry Stendahl-Marsh Street Parking Structure _ ag__... Yours truly, The Sargen Family Joan, Jim, Marc, Kimberly and Cynthia Sarge.n RUG-16=1999 17:43 949 640 2816 P.01/01 J =i11J.L°J99 MEETING AGENDA ® DATE '��' ITEM #= To; mayor Allen Settle and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council From:Gary Richardson -General Manager Date: August 16, 1999 Re: Downtown Parking Structure Our company owns the Downtown Centre Cinema on. Marsh Street in San Luis Obispo. As a downtown business owner we have been following the much needed parking expansion in the downtown area. We:wereunder the assumption that the decision was made and only the timing still to be decided. It is very disheartening to hear that the expansion is now in doubt since the added downtown parking is so badly needed. Our company strongly encourages the Council Members to support the expansion as previously outlined. Thank you so much for your consideration regarding this matter. MEMO &POUNCIL KcFDb DIR r��AO O FIN DIR QACAO ❑fJRE CHIEF erkTroRNEY upwbIR Cc: Dave Romero lBCLERKIORI6. ❑POLICE CHF O G ❑REC DIR. a AA 4L 0 Jan Howell Marx Uill DIR O PERS DIR. John Ewan '� PAa6W i Ken Schwartz RECEIVED AUG 1 .7 1999 SLO CITY CLERK. TOTAL P.01 _ — -- - ------ -- _ - DAVE ROMERO- Downtow Pa _g_e 1 MEETING AGENDA DATE '�'I'4 ITEM #® From: <Bsfc@aol.com> To: <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> RECEIVED Date: Mon, Aug 16, 1999 2:56 PM Subject: Downtown Parking allr, 9 6 1999 Dear City Council Members: SL CITY When parking is talked about in Downtown San Luis Obispo there is generally a COUNCIL disregard for the benefits this parking provides to the community outside of the Downtown. Since Downtown is one of the largest generators of tax revenue to the City of San Luis Obispo, it is incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to make sure the vitality of the Downtown is, not only maintained, but enhanced. The addition of parking through the Marsh Street Parking Expansion is critical. The long term benefits of this expansion will be felt through the entire community. Since you are elected to be trustees of the community's well being I see no way you cannot support this much needed increase in downtown parking. I look forward to your positive vote on this issue tomorrow night. Downtown needs more parking and it needs it now. Yours for a better San Luis Obispo, Tom W. Brown, President Brown's Shoe Fit Co./Brown's General Offices Inc. COUNCIL BCD DIR MAO O FIN DIR tACA0 OF E CH I EF ATORNEY DIA ® MKIORIG O POLICE CHF Od O REC DIR • � O UTIL DIR Burr, O PERS DIR �/ K.oTq w DAVE ROMERO-Parking _ Page 1 From: Mike <wannago@fix.net> To: <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Mon, Aug 16, 1999 2:53 PM Subject: Parking Dave, Em Please stay the course and adopt the CAO recommendation to build 300 much needed new parking spaces. You have the support please have the courage to lead us in the right direction. Your effort is appreciated. Mike Spangler MEETING AGENDA AGENDA Member DA Parking Committee DATE.-ITEM # Member Downtown Coalition F ENDpR0 FIRE CHIEF WfW DIR O POLICE CHF ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR IET ❑PERS DIR v . DMe - - Pa 1 DAVE_ ROME -Attn: City Council Merr`-rs _ _ _ _ �err• �$A-=--- —ge— _ _ TUC DA1 c "I "q ITEM # From: The Oneal Group <www.onealgroup.com@callamer.com> To: "Mayor Allen Settle" <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: Mon, Aug 16, 1999 2:08 PM Subject: Attn: City Council Members RECEIVED I am writing IN SUPPORT of the Marsh Street Parking Expansion Project. AUG 16 1999 I am a local business owner that frequently shops in downtown SLO. It is extremely frustrating to drive downtown only to experience a huge SLO CITY parking dilemma. I put$1.50 in a meter and only get 2 hours to have COU►�CIL lunch and shop? Does this help our local business downtown? Currently both parking garages are filled to capacity.Why would you not support this expansion project whole heartedly. You allow a Carls Jr. to go in on Higuera St. A Victoria Secret to go in on Higuera. You allow Barnes & Noble, The Gap, Express, Structure, and not to mention the ever popular 8'COUNCIL ADD DIR Starbucks to move in. All of which are major draws for locals and •CAO ❑FIN DIR tourists. You want tourists dollars by providing wonderful specialty RMCAO ❑FIRE CHIEF shops, but you don't allow for parking when they come to our fine city. I WATTORNEY QPW DIR believe you need to get in touch with what keeps downtown thriving and YSCLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑M6M77��TTE M ❑REC DIR quit creating more traffic jams and parking problems for residents and z�6X��1 9 ❑UTIL DIR tourists alike. d ❑PERS DIR You don't allow drive thru's due to idling cars and the pollution 'eW problem, but you don't seem to mind cars idling while waiting for the next available parking space.A bit hypocritical don't you think??? Thank You Very Much Sandy Oneal Kane sandy@onealgroup.com (805)772-4338 CC: "Vice-Mayor Dave Romero <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "John Ewan" <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "John Howell Marx" <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>