HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/3/2022 Item 2, Miller
From:Martha Miller <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ATC 11/3/22 Action Item #2 Access and Parking Management Plan Update
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Active Transportation Committee Members,
Thank you for your consideration of Walker Consultant's comprehensive report on Case Studies and Best Practices
related to access and parking management and the staff's suggested Action Items to guide the update of the Access and
Parking Management Plan.
In Walker's report, there is a section evaluating Area Parking Permit Programs (beginning on page 4) as well as a related
key finding about best practices for these programs "Some residential area parking permit management include options
for non-resident parking to ensure city resources are shared more efficiently and equitably among users." (page 17) As
currently structured, the City's Residential Parking Districts are neither an efficient nor equitable use of public resources.
However, there is no Action Item in the staff report to incorporate best practices for Area Parking Permit Programs into
the updated Access and Parking Management Plan.
As part of the Parking Management Plan Update, the City should enact a modest revision to the parking restrictions in
the Residential Parking Districts to allow short term (1 or 2 hour) parking without a permit from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm.
This modest revision will help to restore the use of the parking lane within the public right-of-way to its intended
purpose of providing parking areas for the public to use, improve public access to community services, and help
alleviate the exclusionary effect of the program. It is also consistent with the key finding of best practices for these
types of programs made by Walker Consultants, "a leading provider of services for planning, design, engineering, and
restoration of access, parking, and mobility infrastructure"
There are 13 different Residential Parking Districts throughout the City. Nine of these districts prohibit parking in the
parking lane within the public right-of-way by anyone other than those with a parking permit during all or a majority of
the daytime hours. In order to get a permit, one needs to be a resident of the district or a guest of a resident. This
prohibition effectively reserves the parking lane in the public right-of-way (i.e., public parking) for the exclusive use of
district residents and their personal guests. A number of issues with the current program are summarized below:
Parking Spaces are Not Needed by the District Residents. Except the Dana and Mission Orchard districts, all of
the Residential Parking Districts are within the R-1 Zoning District. In fact, the parking districts often end
where the R-1 District borders a multi-family or nonresidential district. The predominant development
pattern in these districts are single-family homes which were required to provide two on-site parking spaces
when they were constructed. Coupled with driveway space, this enables four cars to be parked on the
property. As such, there is no ‘parking shortage’ hardship for properties in these areas that would necessitate
the need for a public parking space on the street to be reserved for the exclusive use of a private resident. In
fact, a survey of the Residential Parking Districts shows the parking lanes in these districts are not used the
majority of the time, resulting in acres of underutilized paved areas.
Gift of Public Funds to Serve Private Interests. In order to establish a Residential Parking District, 60% of the
affected residents need to petition. Once a Residential Parking District is established, parking permits are
available for $20/year. So, for $20/year, residents are effectively granted exclusive use of a public parking
area that is paid for and maintained by the general public. Residents actually don’t even need to pay $20/year
1
for that privilege, as nothing requires them to purchase permits. They may choose to park on their property.
As such, the only purpose the Residential Parking District serves is to exclude use by others. The cost of the
permits could be increased to cover the cost of enforcing short term parking allowances. A minimum number
of parking permits could also be required to be purchased each year. If that number is not met, it shows that
the parking district is not necessary and the parking district would be dissolved.
Areas of Exclusion are Expanding. The City actively promotes use of these districts, which will serve to expand
their use. The number of districts has expanded from five to 13 in the last 10 years. As more and more public
parking areas in the City are reserved for the exclusive use of residents and their guests through these
districts, the program needs to change.
Access to Community Services. A number of the Residential Parking Districts are located near community
services and amenities, including open spaces, schools, commercial shopping areas, and medical offices.
Again, the Residential Parking Districts, as currently managed, exclude the public from parking within the
public right-of-way, making it more difficult to access these amenities. The Ferrini district is located across the
street from the only Spanish Immersion elementary school in the City. A caregiver cannot park across the
street even to walk a child into school for a quick check in with a teacher because parking by the public is
prohibited during school hours. The Dana district is within a block of Downtown businesses. The mantra often
given by residents, businesses, and the City is that more parking is needed Downtown. The City invests
millions of dollars in parking structures, and at the same time, effectively removes a large number of parking
spaces from public use in that same area.
Exclusionary Practices. This program is an example of how our land use and development practices default to
disproportionally favoring single-family homeowners. As currently managed, the program serves to reserve
public areas for the exclusive use of primarily single family homeowners for purposes that are essentially to
keep other people out of the neighborhood. All you need is for your neighbors to agree that other people
shouldn’t be able to park in the neighborhood. I could not find any instance in which a petition for a parking
district was denied. The notion, however subtle, that single-family homeowners interests take precedence
over the interests of the larger community is at the root of many exclusionary land use and development
practices. This program reinforces that notion by putting the special interests of individual neighborhood
residents over the collective of community goals, including those related to sustainability, equity, encouraging
multi-modal transportation, health, economic development, use of public spaces, and more.
Allowing short term (1 or 2 hour) parking without a permit from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm would address some of the
above issues by allowing limited use of the parking lane in the public right-of-way (i.e., public parking) by the public
while still ensuring primarily availability for residents and their guests.
I also support the incorporation of clear requirements regulating the establishment of new permit districts based on
occupancy observations as well as availability limitations (parking permit applications are accepted only if the applicant's
home or residence does not have a garage or private parking) as described on page 7 of the report.
Thank you for your consideration,
Martha Miller
2