HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/24/2021 Item 6a, Marlier (2)
Delgado, Adriana
From:John F. Marlier <jmarlier@calpoly.edu>
Sent:Monday, August
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Re: Opposition to increasing parking district permits. Aug. 24 City council meeting.
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear City Council Members:
My wife and I wrote earlier in opposition to item #3 contained in a letter sent by Parking Services to all parking district
residents. This proposal would allow “Greater Flexibility with Number of Permits" in the parking districts. Since then
Councilwoman Andy Pease alerted me to an updated response from Parking Services. I re-read the original letter and
read the updated clarifications. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between changes intended for commercial parking
districts and and those for residential ones. Since item #3 in the original letter states that it “will apply to all existing
parking districts throughout the city,” I assume this includes residential parking districts.
The response from parking staff does not address the most important of the three points we made in our original
comment, namely safety. Residents created parking districts because the increasing number of cars from rental units
was making it less safe for everyone, including families with young children, older residents, bicyclists, and the younger,
inexperienced drivers. Please consider keeping the the maximum number of permits at two/residence for all the reasons
in our original letter (below), but especially for safety.
Thank you for listening.
John Marlier
On Aug 19, 2021, at 4:56 PM, John F. Marlier <jmarlier@calpoly.edu> wrote:
Dear City Council Members:
We are writing to you in opposition to item #3 from the letter sent by Parking Services to all parking district residents.
This proposal would allow “Greater Flexibility with Number of Permits" in the parking districts. Due to a prior
commitment, we will not be able to attend the August 24th meeting in person. We believe Jan Marks was on the City
1
Council when the College Heights parking district was established and may provide additional insight into the issues
facing this particular neighborhood. Here are the reasons we oppose the proposed changes:
1. Safety. We live on Stanford Drive in the College Heights district. Stanford is a narrow street with
two significant curves and it was not designed for the high number of cars stemming from the
large increase in rental housing. The resulting overcrowded parking blocks visibility and naturally
leads to much higher traffic volume. These two factors combine to decrease safety while
backing out of a driveway or pulling out of a parking space. This situation is exacerbated by the
larger number of younger, inexperienced drivers. In part, the parking districts were set up with
safety in mind.
2. Current Lack of Parking. During the academic year, resident parking spaces are already scarce.
Issuing additional permits will force residents to park outside of the district. In addition,
approval of the 468-500 Westmont housing project with pre-approved ADUs and JADUs will
further worsen the parking problem. When the city council and our neighborhood first set up
the parking district, the council told renters in opposition to the district that, if they used their
garages for the intended purpose of parking cars, two permits/house was sufficient. Looked at
from this point of view, the need for additional parking permits seems to be largely driven by
renters feeling inconvenienced by having to shift their cars when they need to access the street;
in our neighborhood renters typically do not use garages to park cars.
3. Neighborhood Quality. California faces many challenges concerning the availability and
affordability of housing. Housing in the College Heights area is not about affordability, since
rents are extremely high. Permanent residents are constantly trying to balance this new housing
reality with an attempt to preserve some neighborhood quality. To assist us with the quality
issue the city has traditionally given us two tools: (1) parking districts and (2) a noise ordinance.
The current proposal by Parking Services greatly weakens the first of these tools and takes a
step backwards in the quest to save at least some neighborhood quality. We would appreciate
any help from the council to preserve some of the quality of our neighborhood by retaining the
current parking district rules.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Respectfully,
John and Joyce Marlier (residents on Stanford Drive since 1990)
2