HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2018 Item 2 - Foley
Purrington, Teresa
From:Davis <dfoley91@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday,
To:Lee, Scott
Cc:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Rethink the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
Hello Mr. Lee and City Council,
I was excited to hear that the city is considering replacing the surface parking lot on Palm and Nipomo with a multi-use
development. That excitement has turned to concern the more I have read about the proposed project.
My concerns with this project are that the City of SLO is failing its goals by prioritizing parking over housing, even at a
time when the 445 parking spaces are unnecessary and the city cannot afford the project. Additionally, the project is at
odds with the land use ideals set forth in the city's climate action plan and the completed project will undermine the
city's transportation goals.
The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, as proposed, would demolish or move (but not replace) five downtown residences.
This area of downtown has very few housing options already, and whittling down residents' choices even further will
only hurt the neighborhood. The loss of these units comes at a time as housing costs near historic highs and flies in the
face of the direction that our current pro-housing city council wants to go.
City council and staff must look skeptically at the need for this amount of parking. A 2014 report prepared for the City of
San Luis Obispo by Walker Parking Consultants recommends that the city reevaluate "if or when the \[Palm Nipomo\]
parking structure should be built" given that existing parking structures are underutilized. In fact, Walker points out that
only 61 out of every 100 parking structure spaces saw use during peak hours. The Walker report advises meeting parking
needs by using demand-based pricing, making staff changes, and extending on-street enforcement until 9 PM. Nowhere
does Walker recommend building additional parking.
Meanwhile, staff and public alike are aware of the budget issues the city is facing: a shortfall of $8.9 million over the
next three years. In this context, the idea of spending an additional $23.6 million to add to an already abundant supply
of parking adds insult to injury.
The SLO Climate Action Plan "addresses the largest contributor to community emissions: vehicles." It also notes that
"land use patterns influence the transportation choices we make in our community on a daily basis. Compact mixed-use
neighborhoods that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs within close proximity give us more choices
in what mode of transportation to use." The city needs more residents living, not just parking, downtown so that they
can walk and bike to work, entertainment, and local businesses.
Despite a stated commitment to multi-modal transportation by the City of SLO, business as usual will not get us there;
instead, city leaders need to take ambitious steps to accomplish that feat. A good start would be to redesign or reject
the current proposal. For example, why not wrap the garage with the proposed 5,000 sq ft of commercial space on the
ground floor, plus 50 housing units and the SLO Little Theater, and then use the remaining space for parking? You
wouldn't have 445 new parking spaces, but you would meet the needs of the community by checking off items on
everybody's wishlist (climate, commerce, culture, housing, and parking).
In conclusion, the Palm Nipomo parking structure project as proposed would fail the City of SLO in each of its four major
goals:
1
1. Housing
2. Multi-modal Transportation
3. Climate Action
4. Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
Sincerely,
Davis Foley
2