HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/2003, AGENDA t
council acEnaa
.CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Action Update
Revised
6:30 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
At 6.30 p.m. the Acting City Attorney provided the Closed Session announcement
At 6.31 p.m. the Council adjourned to Closed Session.
CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8
Property: 1330 Monterey St.
Negotiating Parties: City of San Luis Obispo:
Wendy George, Mike McCluskey
and Shelly Stanwyck
Property Owner:
David Volk and Jeffrey Cole
Negotiation: Whether to Negotiate/Acquire
7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
Present: Council Members John Ewan, Ken Schwartz,
Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland,
Mayor Dave Romero
Council Agenda Tuesday, �iebruary 18, 2003
Action Update
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA(not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time,you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda or items on the
Consent Agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not
on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by
persons exercising their public testimony rights(Gov. Code Sec.54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.
Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's
Office in Room 1 of City Hall.
Mayor Romero mentioned that Milo Tappa (former streets supervisor)passed
away at the age of 83. Mr. Tappa worked for the City for 37 years before retiring.
Richie Ray Walker recommended that the City use surplus funds to reinforce and
repair wood stop signs throughout the town.
Dr. Stephen Hansen, Tobacco Control Coalition, voiced concerns regarding
tobacco sales to youth and urged the Council to consider adopting regulations
requiring that tobacco retailers be licensed. (See related discussion under
Communications, page 6).
Sifu Kelvin Harrison reiterated claims of discrimination and harassment
Richard Ferris asserted that corruption exists in small towns when a Council
promotes a particular developer.
Mary Beth Schroeder provided patriotic comments and urged the Council to
regulate tobacco sales.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
Acting City Attorney Trujillo reported that the Council gave direction to staff to
not pursue negotiations.
Mary Beth Schroeder complained that she was not allowed to attend the Closed
Session and demanded to know why.. Actino City Attorney Trujillo provided a
brief summary of the provisions in the Brown Act that allows Council to meet in
Closed Session and extended to her an invitation to meet with him for further
explanation.
PRESENTATION
Mayor Romero presented a proclamation to Karen Lindsay, Second Chance at
Love/Humane Society, for Spay Day 2003.
2
Council Agenda Tuesday, eebruary 18, 2003
Action Update
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be
considered after Business items. The public may comment on any item on the Consent Calendar.
C1. MINUTES OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 AND SATURDAY, FEBRUARY
1, 2003. (PRICE)
RECOMMENDATION: Waive oral reading and approve as presented.
ACTION: Approved. (5:0)
C2. STEELHEAD PASSAGE RESTORATION ON COON CREEK—A MITIGATION
FOR THE WATER REUSE PROJECT. (MOSS/PIERCE)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the award of a contract to TRC in the amount of
$120,000 for Engineering Services to design a steelhead passage restoration project as
mitigation for the Water Reuse Project and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.
ACTION. Approved. (5:0)
C3. INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR NARCOTICS TASK FORCE. (LINDEN)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for
operations of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force from July 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2005, and authorize the Mayor to execute.
ACTION. Approved. (4:1 Mulholland)
C4. DESIGNATION OF THE SLO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY OWMA) AS THE SOLID WASTE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY. (MOSS/MUNDS)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution designating the IWMA as the solid waste
Local Enforcement Agency.
ACTION: Resolution No. 9421 (2003 Series) adopted. (5:0)
3
Council Agenda Tuesday, o9bruary 18, 2003
Action Update
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT A SCULPTURE PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF
TANK FARM ROAD AND LONG STREET IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
CITY'S PUBLIC ART GUIDELINES; 3889 LONG STREET; ARC 113-01;
KEVIN KENNEDY, APPELLANT. (MAN DEVI LLE/CODRON — 30 MINUTES)
ARC RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal, and deny the proposed artwork because
the proposed art is not consistent with Guideline #4 of the Guidelines for Public Art.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the appeal and determine that the proposed
artwork is consistent with the Guidelines for Public Art, as recommended by the Art
Jury.
ACTION: 1) Resolution No. 9422(2003 Series)adopted upholding the appeal and
2) directed staff to review the criteria in the Guidelines and consider making a
distinction about public art on private property. (4:1 Mulholland)
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. APPROVAL OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COPELANDS
PROJECT. (GEORGE/STANWYCK— 90 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve the Real Property Agreement with San Luis Obispo
Court Street LLC (the "Copelands"). 2) Approve the Payment Agreement with Palm
Street Parking Structure LLC (the "Copelands"). 3) Approve the Option Agreement with
San Luis Obispo Court Street LLC (the "Copelands"). 4) Authorize the Mayor to
execute all three agreements upon receipt of payment by Copeland of outstanding
obligations to reimburse the City for third party consultant fees. 5) Adopt a resolution
finding that competitively bidding the Parking Structure is impractical, unavailing and
would not produce any advantage.
ACTION: 1-4)Approved. 5) Resolution No. 9423(2003 Series) adopted. (4:1
Mulholland)
4
- I
1 \
Council Agenda Tuesday, Pebruary 18, 2003
Action Update
3. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AIRPORT AREA AND MARGARITA AREA
SPECIFIC PLANS AND EIR. (MANDEVILLE/DRAZE — 30 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: Endorse adjustments to the draft Airport Area and Margarita
Area Specific Plans to address stakeholder cost concerns, and direct staff to proceed to
hearings on the plans and EIR by September 2003 for the Margarita Area Specific Plan
and January 2004 for the Airport Area Specific Plan.
ACTION: 1)Approved and 2) directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of
processing tract maps in the Margarita Area concurrent with the completion of
the specific plan. (4:1 Mulholland)
4. 2002-03 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW. (HAMPIAN/STATLER —45 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Consider the mid-year budget review of 2002-03. 2) Approve
mid-year budget requests for General Fund operating programs totaling $311,100. 3)
Reduce appropriations in the Capital Outlay Fund for street pavement resealing and
resurfacing by $42,000 to account for reduced State funding for this purpose. 4)
Increase General Fund support to the Creek and Flood Protection Fund to offset
reduced revenue estimates of $33,000 from Zone 9. 5) Increase General Fund support
to the Golf Fund to offset reduced revenue estimates of $32,000.
ACTION: Approved. (5:0)
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit-3 minutes.
Council Member Schwartz reported on the February 5m SLOCOG meeting and the
February 11 Downtown Association Board of Directors meeting(reports on file in
the Office of the City Clerk)
Vice Mayor Mulholland reported on the February 5m meeting of the County Water
Resources Advisory Committee and the February 12th promotional Coordinating
Committee meeting.
5
i
Council Agenda Tuesday, ftbruary 18, 2003
Action Update
COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies
and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request
staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to
direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda(Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2).
Council Member Ewan proposed that the Council consider the adoption of a
tobacco licensing ordinance. Vice.Mayor Mulholland voiced support and
suggested the Council consider banning tobacco advertising in the City. Acting
City Attorney Truiillo agreed to review a variety of ideas for curtailing tobacco sales
and bring back a recommendation for Council consideration.
CAO Hamplan mentioned Con ressman Bill Thomas will be speaking at the
Economic Vitality Corporation meeting February 1 .
A. ADJOURN.
6
i
council acEnaa
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY . HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
6:30 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Govemment Code § 54956.8
Property: 1330 Monterey St.
Negotiating_ Parties: City of San Luis Obispo:
Wendy George, Mike McCluskey
and Shelly Stanwyck
Property Owner:
David Volk and Jeffrey Cole
Negotiation: Whether to Negotiate/Acquire
7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Dave Romero
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ewan, Ken Schwartz,
Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland,
Mayor Dave Romero
® City Council regular meetings are broadcast live on KC PR, 91.3 FM and Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis
Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs,and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(805)781-7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda
information,call 781.7103.
Council Agenda Tuesday,-Pebruary 18, 2003
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA(not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda or items on the
Consent Agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not
on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by
persons exercising their public testimony rights(Gov.Code Sec.54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.
Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's
Office in Room 1 of City Hall.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
PRESENTATION.
PROCLAMATION FOR SPAY-DAY 2003. (ROMERO/PRICE)
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be
considered after Business items. The public may comment on any item on the Consent Calendar..
C1. MINUTES OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 AND SATURDAY, FEBRUARY
1, 2003s (PRICE)
RECOMMENDATION: Waive oral reading and approve as presented.
C2. STEELHEAD PASSAGE RESTORATION ON COON CREEK— A MITIGATION
FOR THE WATER REUSE PROJECT. (MOSS/PIERCE)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the award of a contract to TRC in the amount of
$120,000 for Engineering Services to design a steelhead passage restoration project as
mitigation for the Water Reuse Project and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.
C3. INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR NARCOTICS TASK.FORCE. (LINDEN)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for
operations of the San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force from July 1, 2002)
through June 30, 2005, and authorize the Mayor to execute.
3
Council Agenda Tuesday,February 18, 2003
C4. DESIGNATION OF THE SLO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY (IWMA) AS THE SOLID WASTE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY. (MOSS/MUNDS)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution designating the IWMA as the solid waste
Local Enforcement Agency.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT A SCULPTURE PROPOSED FOR THE CORNER OF
TANK FARM ROAD AND LONG STREET IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
CITY'S PUBLIC ART GUIDELINES; 3889 LONG STREET; ARC 113-01;
KEVIN KENNEDY, APPELLANT. (MANDEVILLE/CODRON —30 MINUTES)
ARC RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal, and deny the proposed artwork because
the proposed art is not consistent with Guideline #4 of the Guidelines for Public Art.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the appeal and determine that the proposed
artwork is consistent with the Guidelines for Public Art, as recommended by the Art
Jury.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. APPROVAL OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COPELANDS
PROJECT. (GEORGE/STANWYCK— 90 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve the Real Property Agreement with San Luis Obispo
Court Street LLC (the "Copelands"). 2) Approve the Payment Agreement with Palm
Street Parking Structure LLC (the "Copelands"). 3) Approve the Option Agreement with
San Luis Obispo Court Street LLC (the "Copelands"). 4) Authorize the Mayor to
execute all three agreements upon receipt of payment by Copeland of outstanding
obligations to reimburse the City for third party consultant-fees. 5) Adopt a resolution
finding that competitively bidding the Parking Structure is impractical, unavailing and
would not produce any advantage.
3. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AIRPORT AREA AND MARGARITA AREA
SPECIFIC.PLANS_AND EIR. (MANDEVILLE/DRAZE —30 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: Endorse adjustments to the draft Airport Area and Margarita
Area Specific Plans to address stakeholder cost concerns, and direct staff to proceed to
hearings on the plans and EIR by September 2003 for the Margarita Area Specific Plan
and January 2004 for the Airport Area Specific Plan.
4
I
Council Agenda Tuesday,, February 18, 2003
4. 2002-03 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW. (HAMPIAN/STATLER —45 MINUTES)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Consider the mid-year budget review of 2002-03. 2) Approve
mid-year budget requests for General Fund operating programs totaling $311,100. 3)
Reduce appropriations in the Capital Outlay Fund for street pavement resealing and
resurfacing by $42,000 to account for reduced State funding for this purpose. 4)
Increase General Fund support to the Creek and Flood Protection Fund to offset
reduced revenue estimates of $33,000 from Zone 9. 5) Increase General Fund support
to the Golf Fund to offset reduced revenue estimates of $32,000.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit-3 minutes.
COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies
and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request
staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to
direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2).
A. ADJOURN.
5
February 18, 2003 V E N T U R E S
Via Facsimile: (805) 781-7109
Total One (1) Page
Mayor David Romero
and Councilmembers
Via Mr. Ken Hampian
CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR for the Airport Area
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Please accept this letter to confirm a discussion I had with Dave Watson, Ken
Hampian and John Mandeville on February 5th concerning the completion of the Final
EIR for the Margarita and Airport Specific Plan Areas.
We were one of the original property owners to support the city's request to
assist financially with the preparation and certification of the EIR for these consolidated
areas. As of this date, we understand that the city requires an additional $80,000 to
complete the Final EIR.
During our meeting we indicated to your staff that we would contribute an
additional $20,000 on behalf of the Margarita Area as an advance against our
processing and impact fees. We have reviewed your staff report and recommendations,
and offer our continuing support to their proposals to bring these projects to their
conclusion. We are also working with staff to process our pending subdivision for the
Margarita Area, and we hope to bring that project forward on the heels of the FEIR and
final adoption of the Specific Plan later this year.
It is very important to us to maintain the timeframes suggested in tonight's staff
report, and in that context, we will do everything we can to assist on these matters.
Thank you for taking these comments into consideration. We look forward to the
conclusion of the FEIR process and the review of our subdivision applications.
0ohoerEe41e
;ing*l n E.
cc: Mike Draze, Planning Department
MAFtwne=02eirf�
King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX
RECEIVED
e ✓LG � ar . FEB 18 2003
� ��� ���5
What's wrong here? � SLO CITY CLERK
CC parking assumes there is extra available parking to share.
All surveys and studies have identified a clear existing deficiency prior to the first
Copeland project. (see attachment 1990 survey)
These two projects generated a total parking demand of approximately 1,300 spaces but
only paid for 244 in lieu spaces the Copeland project left us over 700 spaces worse off
than before.
How can there be even more non existent parking to share?.
The purpose of planning is to help plan realistic solutions not pretend solutions. The
entire Copeland II project and the MOU are based a big lie that there is parking in the CC
zone to share.
If there is not available parking to share then giving parking to a single developer means
you must take if from existing users.
To believe otherwise is a lie. Lies are bad and big public projects based on a lie can't be
good.
Please honestly and openly allow the reality of parking to be public discussion. A
consensus reached based on complete facts rather than the current limited public
discussion based 100% on a big lie and a predetermined outcome.
Please do not approve this project
1. bring forward and discuss the actual parking situation and subsidies direct and
direct the City will be ...........
2. Present complete information and allow community discussion
3. Evaluate economic impacts on existing merchants before subsidizing one
developer. If the city was not involved in a huge multimillion parking subsidy the
economic evaluation would not be appropriate, but using public money to steal
parking from existing merchants demands a fair and reasonable hearing. This has
nothappened.
4. The community is unaware of the magnitude and nature of the development
(parking) subsidy being given away. It `s fraud to fool everyone and pretend we
had public discourse.
5. Please do not make the mistake most towns in California have made: The main
thing that has made SLO economics special is that previous councils have not
done what you are about t o do.
6. Please stop and think. SLO is special because our downtown hasn't made the
mistake of courting developers with subsidies. Why harm the economic miracle
that other towns try to emulate. Certainly our copying them is unlikely to bring
prosperity(yet that's our best plan.
.. •.:;: r
Lj
QST.
txj
tab:
JAW : •1304 ' .
ttj I 0
El
V
O
O
O
z C
l:
it
'Id
V o : :;:;:;�':: .ji ii 'j�i Vii..:.:::.�:.:.>:::.. • : ' : ' .1 :::::';.':••;:� ;:;:�;:�:;: ;
O YI
L C ' MORRO ST. • '
- H
O
r• e
z
0
: ::::,�,::!�::��>:: • .
SOS S . O�
s
SANT ROit
A —
Crl
r �
ro �
TO 0
9 � M
� O
O
u `
O o Q o
o
O
zy g
m .
i �
PARKING SHORTFALL
Why haven't these facts been part of the public discussion!
Corruption shows its face in many ways — the project is one such way.
1. Difference in actual parking* generated by type of activity in CC zone and other zone!
A. Difference in CC Parking & Actual Parking Needed
USE ACTUAL PARKING CC PARKING CC SUBSIDY
REQUIRED
RETAIL/OFFICE 1 per 200 ft.' 1 per 500 ft. 60%
RESTAURANT I per 50_ l per 350 fL„ 83%
THEATRE 1 per 4 seats (or 50 ft.2) I per 350 ft.z 86%
*`As per city of San Luis Obispo planning requirements Based on actual needs by type of zone/activity.
2. Copeland I Project (Downtown Center)
B. "Regular" Workup vs. CC Parking
USE SQUARE ARKING ACTUAL CC PARKNG SUBSIDY
FEET
NEEDED** CC
REQUIRED
Theatre 27,436 500 78.4 431 Spaces
Restaurants '61009_ 80 171 63 Spares
Retail/Office 44,384 222.0 88.8-1 133 Spaces
Total: 802 184.3 618 Spaces
CC Requirement: 184.3
Credit for Non-Existent Buildings-
Credit for Existent Buildings: 6
20% D
"Co-Use" Bonus eduction: 23
Actual Spaces Spaces
Parking 802 Actually -VS, Actually
Demand: Needed — Required
3. Copeland II Project (Court Street & Palm/Morrow)
C. Difference in CC Parking a Actual Parking Needed
USE SQUARE PARKING CTUAL CC PARKING CC
SUBSIDY
FEET NEEDED** REQUIRED
Retail 521,700 2635 105.39 1S8 Spaces
Restaurants 9,291 X54:0 2654 128 Spaces
Polm/Morro
Retail/Office 1 16,000 1 801 32 148 Spaces
Total: 4975 163.93 333 Spaces
497.5 Spaces Needed -`/S; 164 Spaces Actually Required
°'Amount of actual parking generated, not paid for by developer
PARKING SHORTFALL RECAP
Total Parking Removed by Both Projects 150 Spaces
Total Parking Space Demand 1,300 Spaces
Total Parking Space Required 255 Spaces
Total Parking Space Shortfall 1,195 Spaces
Value to Community of Parking Subsidies
$4,7805000.00 = @ $4000.11 per space (former in-.lieu fee).
$135145,000.00 = @ $11,000." per space (current in-lieu
fee).
$26,2905000.00 = @ $22,000.°° per space (actual cost).
Value of just In-Lieu-Fees to Copelands
$455903000.001255 spaces x (22,000 — 4,000 value of each
space)
Value of credit for non-existing buildings in
Copeland project #1
$1,1.88,000.00 =66 spaces x (22,000 — 4,000 value of each
space)
Sharing parking that does not exist is stealing it
from its current users
and giving it to new out-of-town chain stores!
This is both wrong and bad business.
All numbers used in this workup are from the City of San Luis
Obispo Planning Department documents.
Prepared by Richard W. Ferris, 30 year retailer in San Luis Obispo,currently
operating 3 retail and 1 wholesale operation.
PARKING SHORTFALL RECAP
Total Parking Removed by Both Projects 150 Spaces
Total Parking Space Demand 1,300 Spaces
Total Parking Space Required 255 Spaces
Total Parking Space Shortfall 1,195 Spaces
Value to Community of Parking Subsidies
$4,7803000.00 = @ $4000.°° per space (former in-lieu fee).
$13,1453000.00 = @ $11,000.0° per space (current in-lieu
fee).
$263290,000.00 = @ $22,000.°° per space (actual cost).
Value of just In-Lieu-Fees to Copelands
$4,590,000.00 =255 spaces x (22,000 — 4,000 value of each
space)
Value of credit for non-existing buildings in
Copeland project #1
$1,188,000.00 =66 spaces x (22,000 — 4,000 value of each
space)
Sharing parking that does not exist is stealing it
from its current users
and giving it to new out-of-town chain stores!
This is both wrong and bad business.
All numbers used in this workup are from the City of San Luis
Obispo Planning Department documents.
Prepared by Richard W. Ferris, 30 year retailer in San Luis Obispo,currently
operating 3 retail and 1 wholesale operation.
PARKING SHORTFALL
Why haven't these facts been part of the public discussionl
Corruption shows its face in many ways — the project is one such way.
I. Difference in actual parking* generated by type of activity in CC zone and other zone!
A. Difference in CC Parking 8t Actual Parking Needed
USE ACTUAL PARKING CC PARKING CC SUBSIDY
REQUIRED
RETAIL/OFFICE 1 per 200 ft.' I per 500 ft.2 60%
RESTAURANT 1 per 50 ftp 1 per 350 ft.' 83%
THEATRE 1 per 4 seats (or 50 ft.2) 1 per 350 ft.' 86%
'As per city of San Luis Obispo planning requirements Based on actual needs by type of tone/activity.
2. Copeland 1 Project (Downtown Center)
B. "Regular" Workup vs. CC Parking
USE SQUARE ARKING ACTUAL CC PARKNG SUBSIDY
FEET NEEDED** CC
REQUIRED
Theatre 27,436 500 78.4 431 Spaces
Restaurants J 61000 80 9.1 63 Spaces
Retail/Office 44,384 222.0 88.8 1 133 Spaces
Total: 802 184.3 618 Spaces
CC Requirement: 184.3
Credit for Non-Existent Buildings: 66.3
Credit for Existent Buildings: 6
20% "Co-Use" Bonus Deduction 23
Actual Spaces Spaces
Parking 802 Actually -vs; 91 Actually
Demand: Needed — Required
3. Copeland Il Project (Court Street 8t Palm/Morrow)
C. Difference in CC Parking 8t Actual Parking Needed
USE SQUARE PARKING CC PARKING CC
SUBSIDY
FEET NEEDED** REQUIRED
Retail 52_,700 2635 105.39 158 Spaces
Restaurants 9,291 154.0 26.54 128 Spaces
Polm/Morro
Retail/Office 1 16,0001 80 32 148 Spaces
Total: 4975 163.93 333 Spaces
497.5 Spaces Needed -vs, 164 Spaces Actually Required
#*Amount of actual parking generated, not paid for by developer
Li F1I
� U
o N
A
/ C: "
M
�seo ; :120o itoo
H 1 0
� z�I j T .'pp::: ;
� •iiii • iii
o o
o
-
V1
tE:;EE:C��iE.
Ci rU� sr. .
c MORRO tw
; H
z
En RO
ji
0
0
S�
CEJ �"q o z
"d : :`•::i : :: ::::is ~:`•: :: : : ' . : . : ; ; .: ; ; .
SO 0
lid "
ro
In "s
CI
o
co
o
r _� nnr
N
m
What's wrong here?
CC parking assumes there is extra available parking to share.
All surveys and studies have identified a clear existing deficiency prior to the first
Copeland project. (see attachment 1990 survey)
These two projects generated a total parking demand of approximately 1,300 spaces but
only paid for 244 in lieu spaces the Copeland project left us over 700 spaces worse off
than before.
How can there be even more non existent parking to share?
The purpose of planning is to help plan realistic solutions not pretend solutions. The
entire Copeland II project and the MOU are based a big he that there is parking in the CC
zone to share.
If there is not available parking to share then giving parking to a single developer means
you must take if from existing users.
To believe otherwise is a he. Lies are bad and big public projects based on a lie can't be
good.
Please honestly and openly allow the reality of parking to be public discussion. A
consensus reached based on complete facts rather than the current limited public
discussion based 100% on a big lie and a predetermined outcome.
Please do not approve this project
1. bring forward and discuss the actual parking situation and subsidies direct and
direct the City will be ............
2. Present complete information and allow community discussion
3. Evaluate economic impacts on existing merchants before subsidizing one
developer. If the city was not involved in a huge multimillion parking subsidy the
economic evaluation would not be appropriate, but using public money to steal
parking from existing merchants demands a fair and reasonable hearing. This has
nothappened.
4. The community is unaware of the magnitude and nature of the development
(parking) subsidy being given away. It `s fraud to fool everyone and pretend we
had public discourse.
5. Please do not make the mistake most towns in California have made. The main
thing that has made SLO economics special is that previous councils have not
done what you are about t o do.
6. Please stop and think. SLO is special because our downtown hasn't made the
mistake of courting developers with subsidies. Why harm the economic miracle
that other towns try to emulate. Certainly our copying them is unlikely to bring
prosperity(yet that's our best plan.