HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/24/2021 Item 6a, Bishop
Delgado, Adriana
From:Ursula Bishop <ub_slo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Hussey, Gaven; Fuchs, Alexander
Subject:Item 6a, City Council Meeting 24 August, 2021
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
I am contacting you regarding Item 6a on the Council agenda for August 24, 2021.
First, thank you to City Staff, particularly Alex Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor, for the time and explanations of what I have found to
be a complicated and confusing item.
I ask that Council separate the changes to parking districts in residential/mostly residential parking districts from the issue of creating
parking districts in commercial areas.
My understanding is that if tonights changes are approved, from now on, any residential district would have all future creation or
modifications (other than the issuing permits directly to residents) voted on by residents and businesses of the district. According to city
staff, Anholm, Murray Avenue and Dana Street Parking District currently have commercial properties that could be added to their
parking districts. In the future, other neighborhoods looking for the protection of a residential parking district could also have a number
of adjacent or adjoining business properties.
What tonight's proposal does not fully and publicly recognize is that a single business building, with multiple individual office units, will
receive not a single vote but multiple votes, one for each individual office unit, to affect the creation of a parking district, or
modifications to an existing one.
A major concern that daytime or part-time worker participation in a mostly residential neighborhood could affect the 24/7 residents is
just one of many reasons that the item tonight should be separated and the two types of parking districts be dealt with separately.
Although there are arrangements that could be made, for example, city staff had mentioned that in mixed use residential districts the
business permits could be valid only during day time hours, opposite of when many residential permits are used. However, this would
need to be voted upon by the residents and businesses, and what a business might agree to at one point, could be changed through
future ownership.
I also question that a single office building with multiple individual businesses would be in a position to vote and participate in a
residential district when multiple-family units of more than 8 units are not eligible to participate. An office building with, for example, 10
offices, being allowed to add 20-30 vehicles to a mixed use neighborhood does not seem right when families actually living on the street
and helping create ‘neighborhood' cannot park on the street.
A big thank you to the city traffic officers who are monitoring currently Dana Street Parking District. But, despite signage and ticketing,
we are still experiencing non residential parking, particularly heavy at night time and Thursday nights - Sunday daytime. Neighbors
have observed people offering to split the cost of a parking ticket as “better than the price of a valet”, people who park on street have
been checking the ticket on another car and apparently determining the cost of the fine is worth it. Ticketed vehicles are not towed, so a
space on the street is still occupied, affecting residents. I would like to think that all street residents will be able to find parking when
they come home from a long day at work, and that on weekends they will have a similar opportunity, or be able to host family and
friends.
1
A one-size-fits-all approach to residential and commercial parking districts could be damaging to the future of preserving neighborhoods
and residential parking districts. Please consider separating the two district types and having a longer discussion regarding
Neighborhood Residential Districts at a later date.
Ursula Bishop
Dana Street Resident
2