HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-2017 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Cooper)To: SLO Planning Commission
Re: Conceptual Review of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage
From: Allan Cooper
Date: May 9, 2017
Honorable Chair and Commissioners -
1)There is no demonstrable need at this time for this project in that there is little demand for
parking at this end of town. In 2015, Walker Parking Consultants stated “The location of the
planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current high demand
for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown.” The demand exists,
instead, in the major growth areas east of Santa Rosa. The 2014 Walker Parking Consultant
demand study projected that occupancy would be at 60%. Over 1/3 of the parking spaces
will remain unoccupied. Private and public development projected to take place here in this
part of town will take years to develop. We should also recognize that back when the first
demand study was written in 2009 the size and scale of both the Garden Street Terraces
and Chinatown projects were significantly greater than now.
2)The construction cost projection ($23,600,000) may be too low (at $53,034 per space for a
445 space facility) and it is fiscally irresponsible to prepare an EIR that will cost $1.65 million
without any proof that this project is needed. The Walker report warns that any exclusive use
of the parking structure will likely mean that “any financing will not be funded through tax
exempt bonds and would likely increase financing costs”. This exclusive use refers to the
demand for parking for Monterey Place (65 spaces) and SLO Museum of Art (39 spaces).
This additional financing cost will only further burden a City that has let it's unfunded
liabilities build up over the years
3)This money would be better spent on alternative transportation systems. The City should
look at decentralized solutions to the parking problem taking into account emerging
technologies (i.e., autonomous vehicles) and changes to driving and parking dynamics.
4)Why is the City favoring The Little Theatre when there are numerous other non-profits that
could benefit from such a facility? A decision was made by Council on April 4, 2017 to build
the parking structure first while other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be
built later when funding is in place. The City’s January 19, 2006 MOA with the Little Theatre
is no longer binding. Encourage Council to hold off on pursuing a new MOA with the Little
Theatre.
5)There should be a parking survey done to determine the best location for a 4th parking
garage.
6)The Planning Commission should not be constrained to address “features or details that
should be considered by staff and the ARC in the parking design that haven already been
determined by City Council review and direction” if this implies adding additional features or
details. The Planning Commission should have the prerogative to eliminate features and
details as well.
7)What is missing in the work scope of the focussed EIR is a traffic analysis taking into
account that the Broad Street “dogleg” may be partially or totally closed, that Broad Street
may become a bicycle boulevard and that the Highway 101 off- and on-ramps accessing
Broad Street may someday be closed.
8)Finally, the commercial development proposed to be located along Nipomo Street is
inappropriate as it will be isolated from the main shopping areas in the downtown core. A
better idea would be to place offices or condo’s along this stretch of Nipomo Street.
Thank you!