HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/2/2021 Item 10, Braga
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Gil Braga <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Comment on Item 10 - March 02, 2021
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear members of the City Council,
First of all thank you for all your work. I would like to once again reiterate my concerns about the exclusion of the
residents of 421 Dana street from the ability of purchasing permits for the Dana Street Parking District. Back in
December, right after the meeting was over, I emailed the following to you:
"I just watched the discussion of item 17 of tonight's agenda and I have to say that there were great points made but
one thing concerned me in the end. We, who reside at 421 Dana street, the only multi-family property with 16 units will
be left out apparently. Councilwoman Christianson was very adamant in stating that we wouldn't have the right to
acquire permits to park on the street. The issue will then continue the same; the exclusion of residents who, for
economical reasons, have to share an apartment in a multi-family residence with others, not always being part of the
same family and therefore having more than one vehicle.
I agree with you when you say that we should all strive to own only one car however some of the residents in our
building are roommates, not family. Our building has 16 designated spaces plus 5 guests spots. There's always some of
us who will have to end up parking off premises. Before the creation of the Dana Street Parking District our main issues
with parking happened due to Farmer's Market and other evening events sponsored by the city. Now if you limit the
permits to multi-family residences of 5 to 8 units you will exclude sixteen households because of a random maximum
number of 8 that neither the staff nor the council was able to explain the reasoning for.
Please take this into consideration when the new ordinance is drafted. "
The only city council member that offered me a reply was Councilwoman Jan Marx and I thank her for that. Her reply
stated that in her opinion "the deciding factor was small Dana Street’s inability to provide parking space for the
additional number of cars associated with your project."
I wanted to point out that although the inclusion could increase the number of vehicles utilizing the street for
parking, that "could" is only a speculation. I would also like to point out that there was no explanation for where
the number "5 to 8" units actually came from in the ordinance? Why 5 to 8? Why not 5 to 10, or 5 to 12 or, in
our case 5 to 16 since that's the maximum number currently existing on the street?
1
One other point that I'd like to bring up that fact that since the meeting in December and the changes that were
made to our street parking, what I noticed is that the street parking spaces allocated to permit only vehicles are being
underused, and the spaces where one can park without the permit are frequently taken. That tells me that those who
are allowed to get permits either don't need them (they may have driveways or garages) OR there are really more
spaces available than initially thought which could allow the inclusion of our apartment complex.
I would like to invite you to walk around our street at different times so you can see and understand for yourselves why
we, residents of 421 Dana, may have a reason to request our inclusion in the permit process.
I included a link to a short video from today, March 2nd, at around 11am, that illustrates what I mentioned above.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gg7jwqf01ga2n7x/DanaStreet-Mar0221-11am.mov?dl=0
Thank you for all your work,
Gil Braga (818) 565-9367
--
Gil Braga
High School Instructor, SLO Classical Academy
805.548.8700 | mrbraga@sloclassical.org | www.sloclassical.org
SLO Classical Academy is a community that forges character, fosters wisdom and
nurtures a lifelong passion for learning.
2