Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2014 PH2 Mission Orchard Parking DistrictCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT REQUEST (PROPERTIES WITH 4 UNITS OR LESS) NEAR OLD MISSION SCHOOL RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution to: 1) establish a residential parking permit district in the Mission Orchard neighborhood as shown in Exhibit A from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday; and 2) install parking meters on the 600 block of Palm Street adjacent to Mission College Prep. 2. Appropriate $21,200 from the un-appropriated Parking Fund working capital reserve to fund the appropriate signs, posts, permits and other miscellaneous costs to establish the district and adjacent parking meter installation. DISCUSSION Background In November 2013 the City received a petition from residents living in the Mission Orchard neighborhood regarding a request to establish a residential parking permit district in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code 10.36.170 (Attachment 1). The petition was based on parking impacts caused by non-residents during daytime hours. The petition requested that parking be restricted between the hours of 6 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday. The boundaries proposed included roughly a one block area bordered by Peach, Broad, and Mill Streets. Staff met with five of the petitioners in December 2013 to discuss the parking issues and proposed boundaries. The residents were provided with the informational folders containing brochures, instructions, sample surveys and the Municipal Code sections that discuss Residential Parking Permit Districts. In late December and early January, staff conducted on-street parking counts to determine the level of parking congestion. Counts were taken during the week on random days between 8 am and 5 pm including times when: • Mission College Prep and Old Mission School were on winter break • Mission College Prep was on winter break and Old Mission School was in session • Both schools were back in session Information gathered from the parking counts (Attachment 2) indicates that while the area is heavily impacted during school drop off and pick up times, on-street parking is also impacted by school staff, students and downtown employees seeking non-metered parking. Staff also May 6, 2014 PH2 PH2 - 1 Mission Orchard Parking District Page 2 concluded from the survey that if a parking district is established in the neighborhood, parking impacts are likely to shift onto adjoining non-metered blocks. District Boundaries Staff met with the petitioners again in late January and provided the group with staff’s recommendation for a district boundary that included a primary and secondary area highlighted below. The primary area is located on Broad Street, Peach Street, and Mill Street between Broad and Chorro Street. The secondary area, 822-890 and 896 Mill Street (between Chorro and Morro), was identified as the area where on-street parking is likely to shift if a permit parking district were established in the primary area. 600 Block of Palm Another block where parking is likely to shift if a parking district is established is the west side of Palm Street between Broad and Nipomo. This block is within a Council approved parking meter zone, already has metered parking on the residential east side, but no restrictions or parking meters on the west side adjacent to the Mission College Prep sports field. The residential side of the street is under-utilized because of the free parking charge across the street. Staff estimates the annual revenue from 10-hour parking meters on this block could exceed $6,000 annually once initial start-up costs have been covered. Mission College Prep has been opposed to metered parking in the past because the street is used by students, staff and faculty. In 2006 a Parking Task Force established to provide revenue recommendations to the City Council did not Proposed District Boundaries Legend: Primary Area Secondary Area PH2 - 2 Mission Orchard Parking District Page 3 think that the revenue was significant enough to add the meters at the time. The Task Force concluded that once the Palm-Nipomo parking structure is built, meters would have to be added on this block. Council has also heard from parking expert, Donald Shoup, that regulating parking on only one side of the street promotes more vehicle traffic as motorists circle the block in search of free parking. With additional pressures of a new parking district and the likelihood of increased traffic, staff recommends proceeding with the meter installation with the approval of the parking district. Informal Survey and Town Hall Meeting After the parking district boundaries were determined, the residents gathered signatures by way of informal survey to determine the level of support for a parking district. With over 50% of the households supporting the district, staff scheduled a Town Hall meeting to answer questions about the district. The meeting was held on the evening of March 11 at the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art. Eleven residents attended including three residents living outside, but adjacent to the district boundaries. Two of these residents expressed concern that residents living in their developments will not be able to vote on the district or receive permits even though they frequently use on-street parking in the area. Under the current Parking District process (Municipal Code Section 10.36.170) voting households are limited to “non-multifamily units of less than 5 units”. As a result, several residential developments with over 4 units will not have a say in the formation of the district and not be able to park within the district boundaries during the time specified. The third resident noted that he lives on a block of Chorro Street where no on- street parking is permitted. Establishment of a parking district would further limit where he could park on-street. Residents within the primary area that attended the meeting asked questions and voiced support for the district. No residents living within the secondary area attended the meeting. Formal Survey After the Town Hall meeting, the City mailed out formal surveys (ballots) to households in the primary and secondary areas. Ballots returned by the April 11, 2014 deadline provided the following information: Primary Area Secondary Area Combined Area 45 households 23 households 68 households 31 ballots returned 05 ballots returned 36 ballots returned 28 Yes (90%) 04 Yes (80%) 32 Yes (86%) 03 No 01 No 04 No As shown above, the primary area received very strong support in the number of ballots returned and the number of ballots voting in support while the secondary area only received strong support from the ballots returned. The City’s regulations (Attachment 3) require a minimum of 60% support from the returned ballots for the request to be forwarded to Council for consideration. With support from 86% of the households in the combined area returning ballots, the request is being forwarded for Council consideration. The “No” votes generally indicated that a parking district would be too much of an inconvenience for them. PH2 - 3 Mission Orchard Parking District Page 2 Current District Formation Requirements The Municipal Code (Section 10.36.170) requires certain criteria to be met in order to designate an area as a preferential parking district. A district can be formed under two options: Option One The area is predominately residential; and Streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area; Option Two Limiting parking in the area to bona fide residents is necessary in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood as defined in the resident petition. The area is predominantly residential and thus the first criteria under Option One can be met. Recommendation Based on the results of the formal survey, staff is recommending that Council approve this parking district 6:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. Enforcement If the proposed district is approved the City would have nine districts requiring enforcement at various times and days of the week throughout the City. The proposed hours require the Police Department to assume a minor portion of the enforcement duties, along with Parking Services staff in Public Works. Enforcement of this area could be accomplished by utilizing Police Department staff for early morning hours from 6:00 am to 8:30 am. The daytime portion would fall under the duties of the current Parking Services enforcement staff that patrol the downtown area and other parking permit districts. It should be noted that with more districts to patrol and respond to specific complaints, the less time downtown or other areas of the City can be patrolled. CONCURRENCES The proposed hours of 6 am to 6 pm, Monday-Friday for restricted parking fall within the primary responsibility of the Parking Services Division and partially on the Police Department to patrol during the first two and a half hours. However, as with other after hours parking enforcement, the Police Department would only be able to dispatch personnel when available to respond to parking issues after other higher priority calls. The Police Department concurs with this assessment of the potential demands for parking enforcement of this proposed new district. They recommend that the district hours be reduced to 8 am to 6 pm if the expectation is that the early morning enforcement is essential to the parking district. The petitioners have been notified of the enforcement limitations during the early morning hours and continue to request a 6 am start time citing that the early start time was chosen to deter overnight parking (most people won’t park knowing that they need to move their car by 6 am) and that most people will obey the signs. Additionally, the petitioners acknowledge that enforcement will not be available until after 8 am. The resolution (Attachment 3) indicates that early morning enforcement will be limited. PH2 - 4 Mission Orchard Parking District Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT Creation of the parking permit district would have some direct costs to the City. Sign and pole installations would cost approximately $7,200. Additional permits, materials, and processing will cost approximately $500. The meters with installation will cost approximately $13,200. Since there is no formal budget for the creation of this particular parking district, if approved, the monies would have to come from un-appropriated working capital. Conversely, the addition of 24 parking meters will increase revenues by approximately $6,000 per year. Parking fine revenues are estimated at $1,000 to $1,500 annually depending upon the level of enforcement and the number of citations issued. This fine revenue will not be collected until next fiscal year when actual enforcement would begin. The negative side to more patrols in outlying residential areas is less time devoted to patrolling downtown meters, which translates into lost meter and citation revenue. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not enact a residential permit district at this time. Staff does not recommend this because there is sufficient support of more than 60% of the affected households in favor of a residential parking district. 2. Approve a residential permit parking district with modified hours of 8 am to 6 pm. This option would result in Parking Services being the primary call for enforcement during district hours. This option would provide more certainty in the City’s ability to respond since the majority of enforcement would be handled by Parking Services staff, but this option would not achieve the goals of the petitioners. ATTACHMENTS 1. Municipal Code Excerpts 2. Parking Counts 3. Proposed Resolution T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-05-06\Mission Orchard Parking District (Grigsby)\ECAR - Mission Orchard Parking District.docx PH2 - 5 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING SERVICES Municipal Code – Residential Parking Permit Districts 10.36.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas—Adoption of resolution. A. The council should, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking permit area if the council finds that: 1. The area is predominantly residential; 2. The streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area and the designation is supported by a majority of the affected households as indicated by a city survey of the affected households in which a sixty percent majority of participating households is required; or 3. Limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons residing in the area is necessary in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood as defined in resident petition and approved by a sixty percent majority of households in the area. Households will be determined using the city’s address database (there may be more than one household per parcel) and will be limited to non-multifamily units of less than five dwelling units. B. In determining whether limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered to or controlled and used exclusively by persons residing in the area is necessary in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood for the persons residing in the area, the council shall consider the negative effect of vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area on: 1. Environmental characteristics such as ambient noise levels and air pollution levels; 2. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety in the area; and 3. The burden on persons residing in the area gaining access to their residences. C. The council may, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking permit area after holding a public hearing and making a finding that the establishment of the district represents the desire of a majority of the households of the area. The hearing on any such resolution should only be held after the council receives a request, in a form acceptable to the council. (Ord. 1454 § 1, 2004: Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 1264 § 1, 1994: prior code § 3209.17) 10.36.180 Designation of residential parking permit areas—Content of resolution. The resolution designating an area of the city as a residential permit parking area shall describe the designated area in which parking will be limited to vehicles displaying a parking permit issued by the public works department for that purpose and shall set forth the hours and days, as specified by a sixty percent majority of the households in the district, when parking will be limited to those vehicles. (Ord. 1454 § 2, 2004: Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: prior code § 3209.18) 10.36.190 Designation of residential parking permit areas—Sign posting. PH2 - 6 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING SERVICES Municipal Code – Residential Parking Permit Districts Upon adoption of a resolution by the council designating an area of the city as a residential parking permit area, the city traffic engineer shall cause appropriate signs to be erected along the streets identified in the resolution which shall give notice of the limitation on the parking of vehicles in the area as provided in Section 10.36.170, and shall indicate the hours and days when such limitations shall be in effect. (Prior code § 3209.19) 10.36.200 Limitations on parking in a residential permit parking area. It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street identified in a resolution adopted by the council designating a residential permit parking area during the hours and on the days set forth in such resolution except: A. Those vehicles described in Section 10.36.180 displaying a valid permit issued as provided for by Section 10.36.220 and parked within the street block in front of the household to which the permit is issued or within one adjoining district block; or B. Any emergency vehicle, including, but not limited to, an ambulance, fire engine, or police vehicle; or C. A vehicle with commercial plates which is under the control of a person, who does not reside within the district, providing service for hire to property located in the designated residential permit parking area, including but not limited to a delivery vehicle; or D. District residents wishing to sponsor special one-day events which will exceed the number of parking permits available may contact the city parking manager and request a temporary, special-event exemption to the residential permit requirement. If the temporary exemption is granted by the parking manager, all vehicles which have as their destination a qualified residential permit address, shall display in clear view on the dashboard, written confirmation of the street address and date and time of the event. Further, special events shall be deemed infrequent occurrences and any regular requests for parking permit exemption will not be authorized. This section shall not be interpreted to allow the daily parking of vehicles. Any vehicle not displaying the proper or authorized identification shall be subject to citation. (Ord. 1454 § 3, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 3, 1994: prior code § 3209.20) 10.36.210 Reserved. *Ord. 1264, adopted June 7, 1994, repealed former § 10.36.210, relative to fee for residential parking permit application, which derived from prior code § 3209.22. 10.36.220 Residential parking permit—Issuance. Annually, the director of public works shall issue two residential parking permits to the registered property owner, or the registered property owner’s representative, as authorized in writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest county of San Luis Obispo assessment roll within each residential parking permit area established by resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified households that have multiple, separate dwelling units shall be eligible for additional permits, providing the total number of permits issued to one parcel does not exceed twice the number of residential dwelling units on the parcel. All parking permits may be picked up in person at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property on written request of the property owner. PH2 - 7 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING SERVICES Municipal Code – Residential Parking Permit Districts Parking permits may be transferred by the residents to any vehicle that is to be parked on the street and will be recognized by the city, providing they are displayed clearly. The parking permits shall be issued annually. Fees for residential parking permits shall be established by city council resolution. The permits shall be considered part of the residential property and shall be transferred to the new property owner upon sale of the residence. (Ord. 1565 § 1, 2011: Ord. 1454 § 4, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 4, 1994: prior code § 3209.21) 10.36.221 Lost, stolen, or defaced permit replacement. Any permit lost, stolen, defaced or otherwise altered shall be deemed invalid and a replacement permit shall be issued to the qualified property owner for a fee of fifteen dollars. If the replacement permit is again lost, stolen, or defaced, a replacement permit will be issued for a fee of twenty-five dollars. No additional replacement permits shall be issued within a twelve-month period. All permits shall be picked up by the property owner or a representative authorized in writing by the registered property owner, with proof of identification, at the office of the city parking manager. The property owner or a representative authorized in writing by the owner shall certify that the original permit was lost, stolen, or in the case of damaged permits shall submit the damaged permit, stating the permit shall be used by qualified residents and their bona fide visitors. Any resident and/or property owner found to misrepresent themselves for the purposes of fraudulently obtaining residential parking permits shall lose their right to said permits and no permits will be issued to the household until the beginning of the next permit year and shall be guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 1454 § 5, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 5, 1994) 10.36.230 Residential parking permits—Display required. Parking permits issued under Section 10.36.220 shall be displayed on a vehicle in a manner prescribed by the director of public works. The method of display shall be clearly stated on the rear of the permit. (Ord. 1264 § 6, 1994: prior code § 3209.23) 10.36.232 Enforcement. Enforcement of the residential parking permit district shall be on a regular and routine basis, and may be on a complaint basis by residents within the district boundaries. Enforcement personnel shall be dispatched on an as-available basis as determined by the city parking manager/police department. All parking citations issued for noncompliance with the parking permit requirement shall be governed by the civil proceedings set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994) PH2 - 8 Attachment 2 On-Street Parking Counts for Mission Orchard Residential Parking District Note: Mission Prep started back up Wednesday, January the 8th Note: Old Mission School started back up Tuesday, January the 7th Mission College Prep High School Before school started After school started Jan. 3 - Jan. 7 Jan. 8 - Jan. 15 41 50 On-Street Parking Count Collection Times per Day Jan. 3rd Jan. 6th Jan. 7th Jan. 8th Jan. 9th Jan. 10th Jan. 13th Jan. 14th Jan. 15 8:10AM 8:11AM 8:15AM 8:09AM 9:05AM 9:20AM 9:15AM 8:50AM 8:53AM 10:15AM 10:15AM 11:25AM 11:15AM 11:15AM 11:05AM 11:50AM 12:24PM 1:15PM 1:10PM 12:55PM 2:05PM 2:10PM 2:25PM 2:30PM 3:05PM 3:08PM 4:04PM 3:45PM 5:00PM 4:48PM 4:39PM 5:45PM 39 43 41 50 51 53 50 48 48 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Jan. 3 Jan. 6 Jan. 7 Jan. 8 Jan. 9 Jan. 10 Jan. 13 Jan. 14 Jan. 15 Overall Avg. On-Street Parking Count Averages per Day Average CountMission Prep Back in Session 47 - Estimated Number of On-Street Parking Spaces PH2 - 9 ATTACHMENT 3 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT FOR THE MISSION ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD, ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF SAID DISTRICT, AND INSTALLING PARKING METERS ON THE 600 BLOCK OF PALM STREET TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL FOR SPILL OVER PARKING WHEREAS, in November 2013 the City of San Luis Obispo received a request for the establishment of a residential parking permit district from residents of the Mission Orchard neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the request was processed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.36.170 et seq. which requires an informal survey, Town Hall meeting, and formal survey in which over 60% of the households participating in the survey supported the district formation before the request can be forwarded to Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the proposed residential parking district area shown in Exhibit “A” to include addresses 680 to 756 and 762 to 888 Broad Street, 754 to 789 Peach Street, 747 to 776, 780 to 890, and 896 Mill Street, and 697, 699, 755, 856, 862, and 864 Chorro Street is primarily residential and the area streets are congested with parked vehicles, many of which are parked by persons not residing in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, establishment of a residential parking permit district at this location could shift some on-street parking to the 600 block of Palm Street which is within a Council approved parking meter zone, but only has meters installed on one side of the street; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has held a public hearing to consider the establishment of a residential parking permit district and determined that the establishment of the district represents the desire of a majority of the households in the area and that a parking permit district which limits parking in the area to bona fide residents is necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood for the residents of the district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that: SECTION 1. Based upon the foregoing recitals, which are hereby adopted as findings of the Council in support of the formation of a residential parking district and pursuant to Section 10.36.170 et seq. of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the residential parking permit district is hereby established as shown in Exhibit “A” to include addresses 680 to 756 and 762 to 888 Broad Street, 754 to 789 Peach Street, 747 to 776, 780 to 890, and 896 Mill Street, and 697, 699, 755, 856, 862, and 864 Chorro Street. SECTION 2. No other vehicles other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a residential parking permit clearly displayed between the front windshield and the rear- PH2 - 10 Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Page 2 view mirror shall park in the area from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. SECTION 3. Enforcement of the district will fall within the primary responsibility of the Parking Services division and, as such, early morning enforcement will be limited. SECTION 4. The Public Works Department shall be directed to post the district with signs clearly indicating these parking restrictions consistent with applicable law. SECTION 5. The Parking Services Division shall issue residential parking permits on demand as permitted in Section 10.36.220 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Parking permits shall be issued for a year effective September 15th of each year. This issuance will include the households located within the boundaries of the district as shown in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 6. To address the additional parking pressures resulting from the establishment of the district, parking meters shall be installed on the 600 block of Palm Street adjacent to Mission College Prep. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Howell Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH2 - 11 Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Page 3 Exhibit A Proposed District Boundaries Legend: Primary Area Secondary Area PH2 - 12 MAY U 6 2014 Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:09 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Paul O'Malley's Correspondence & Tonight's Agenda Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 990 Palm Stfeel AGENDA Sari Uiis Obispo, CA 93401 CORRESPONDENCE tO 1 805 89- 7102 Item #e From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:11 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Paul O'Malley's Correspondence & Tonight's Agenda Agenda correspondence From: allancoope(@c1mail.com [mailto:allancoope(�bgmail.com] On Behalf Of Allan Cooper Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:34 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Paul O'Malley's Correspondence & Tonight's Agenda Dear Mayor Marx - Could you please red file this for me? Thanks! Honorable Mayor and Council Members — Please grant us our parking permit district. Mission Orchard Neighborhood is an R -2 island of historical homes surrounded by R -4 residential development. Paul O'Malley has corresponded with you in opposition to this parking permit district and he has described us as "johnny- come- lately's ". That, we are not! 20 - 30 years ago when we all moved here, we had second car and guest parking on the street to supplement our on -site one car parking spaces. But now that has all changed. First, and soon after I was settled on Broad Street, Old Mission School worked out an arrangement with the City (without first informing their neighbors I might add) to convert their curbside parking to short-term parking (ranging from 3 minutes to one hour). Soon after, Peach Street Apartments was constructed comprised of 24 - 2 bedroom units with 2 assigned parking spaces per unit and a maximum per unit occupancy of 3 tenants. After that Mission Orchard Townhomes was constructed comprising 20 - 2 bedroom units including a so- called "loft" and again with 2 assigned parking spots per unit. Assuming one car per resident and conservatively assuming each unit can comfortably accommodate 3 tenants, Mission Orchard Townhomes and Peach Street Apartments have a total combined parking deficit of 44 spaces — spaces which end up on our surrounding streets. If this wasn't enough, over the past 30 years, Mission Prep and the Old Mission School have expanded their enrollments adding to our on- street parking deficit during the day. And most recently, the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown has brought more cars into our neighborhood at night. In conclusion, we, like you, are neighborhood wellness advocates and we are presently being confronted with challenges that we did not have when we first moved into our homes 20 -30 years ago. Please help us solve this problem. Thank you, Allan Cooper 756 Broad Street Goodwin, Heather From: Kremke, Kate Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:19 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Council Correspondence Agenda Correspondence Thank you, Kate Kremke I Administrative Assistant ()go P :lire Stl eet. San i uis Obispo, CA tel i sock -781,7104 lrve:.,) i www.slocity.org /cityclerk From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:07 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Council Correspondence Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 990 Palm Street San i uis C)lmpo, CA g3/,o:T t.0180 ,781,7 02 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ,51 L Ozf Item# 0'Z From: allancoopeC@gmail.com [mailto:allancoopeC@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Allan Cooper Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:06 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Council Correspondence Dear Anthony - Would please place these two letters on the Council Correspondence website? Thanks! - Allan Cooper Honorable Mayor and Council Members — Please grant us our parking permit district. Mission Orchard Neighborhood is an R -2 island of historical homes surrounded by R -4 residential development. Paul O'Malley has corresponded with you in opposition to this parking permit district and he has described us as "Johnny- come- lately's ". That, we are not! 20 - 30 years ago when we all moved here, we had second car and guest parking on the street to supplement our on -site one car parking spaces. But now that has all changed. First, and soon after I was settled on Broad Street, Old Mission School worked out an arrangement with the City (without first informing their neighbors I might add) to convert their curbside parking to short-term parking (ranging from 3 minutes to one hour) resulting in a de facto on street parking deficit of 40 spaces. Soon after, Peach Street Apartments was constructed comprised of 24 - 2 bedroom units with 2 assigned parking spaces per unit and a maximum per unit occupancy of 3 tenants. Then the Mission Orchard Townhomes were constructed comprising 20 - 2 bedroom units plus a so- called "loft" and again with 2 assigned parking spots per unit. Assuming one car per resident and conservatively assuming each unit can comfortably accommodate 3 tenants, Mission Orchard Townhomes and Peach Street Apartments have a total combined parking deficit of 44 spaces — spaces which end up on our surrounding streets. If this wasn't enough, over the past 30 years, Mission Prep and the Old Mission School have expanded their enrollments adding to our on- street parking deficit during the day. And most recently, the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown has brought more cars into our neighborhood at night. In conclusion, we, like you, are neighborhood wellness advocates and we are presently being confronted with challenges that we did not have when we first moved into our homes 20 -30 years ago. Please help us solve this problem. Thank you, Allan Cooper 756 Broad Street Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members — As a 28 year resident of an historical property located within an R -2 neighborhood, I, and a majority of my neighbors, support staff's recommendation to form a residential parking permit district near Old Mission School. This parking district has had a long history leading up to it. In reverse chronology I am sharing with you some of this history: May 6, 2014 — Staff is recommending the formation of a Mission Orchard Neighborhood parking permit district based on its traffic management analysis. February 25, 2014 - Council is waiting to hear the efficacy of a proposed Mission Orchard Neighborhood traffic management plan. January 28, 2014 — Council endorses the following: Chapter 14 - Neighborhood Parking Management: "The City shall develop strategies to protect residential neighborhoods from spill -over parking from adjacent high intensity uses." October 18, 2013 — Administrative Review: Doug Davidson was advised by Allan Cooper, S.O.D., that the 772 Palm St. Mission School Annex project should be routed through the Planning Commission in order to address the proposed significant drop -off parking and off -site parking impacts on the surrounding R -2 Mission Orchard Neighborhood. September 7, 2010 — Council, while reviewing amendments to Municipal Code Title 17: Zoning Regulation, was informed by Sandra Rowley, R.Q.N., that she had concerns regarding the overcrowded parking in R -2 zones, including the downtown area. April 1, 2008 — Council received and considered the survey results (23% in support) for the Old Town Residential parking permit district. No public comments were forthcoming. No further action was taken to form a parking permit district at this time. I am hoping that you will follow through on your promise to develop strategies to protect residential neighborhoods from spill -over parking from adjacent high intensity uses. Thank you, Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. SLO COUNCIL MEETING: I ' ITEM NO.: - Mejia, Anthony n [7 nn[x From: Kurt Friedmann <kurt@kfmail.cnm> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:37 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Manx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony; Mandeville, Peggy Cc: peach387; Michele Gordon; Allan Cooper, Jose Dahan; Richard Cooper Subject: Re: Parking district Mission Orchard Tract Dear City Council Members and Staff, As a 30 -year resident of a 126 year -old property located in the Mission Orchard Tract, I would like to thank you for considering our neighborhood's request for residential parking. We feel fortunate that the City of San Luis Obispo has provided a way for neighborhoods, that are among the most heavily impacted by parking issues, to gain relief. Following the formal plan set forth by the City of SLO, our neighborhood has exceeded all of the requirements for a residential parking district, for which we have a unique and immediate need. Over the past 30 years, the historic bungalow homes that line the interior of Broad, Peach, and Mill Streets, have all seen substantial changes. 30 years ago, nearly all of the turn -of -the century homes were rentals, dilapidated, and in need of extensive repair. One by one, the properties were purchased by young families and business professionals, who upgraded the homes, restoring them above and beyond their original beauty. We are a very close -knit community, have invested heavily in creating a beautiful neighborhood, and are extremely proud to live in the Mission Orchard Tract. Many of us will likely live here for the rest of our lives. Dating back to the late 1800's, many of these homes were built before automobiles were commonplace. As such, there is limited off - street parking. 30 years ago, parking in the neighborhood was not an issue. Despite the limited number of off - street parking spaces, on- street parking was adequate for the amount of housing infill at the time. Well, much has changed in 30 years. With the addition of several large, under - parked, high- density apartment complexes, R -2 infill, extensive growth of neighborhood schools, and an expanding downtown workforce, what was once available "neighborhood parking" has in effect become "free" commercial parking. As homeowners and residents of the Mission Orchard Tract, we have been squeezed out of residential parking, sometimes even in our own driveways. With nearby public parking lots and structures half -full and readily available, there are numerous options that were specifically designed for commercial parking near the Mission Orchard Tract. Additionally, the scramble for on- street parking by non - residents has created an unsafe and chaotic situation in the neighborhood as downtown workers, visitors, tourists, parents, students, teachers, and multi - family renters all frantically descent upon the few parking spaces that are available each day. Add to that the increased traffic coming off of a very busy Highway 101 on /offramp, and the Mission Orchard Tract has become one of the most highly- impacted residential parking districts in the City of San Luis Obispo. We are one of the "comeback" downtown neighborhoods that the city planners envisioned over 30 years ago. Please visit our neighborhood during peak parking times. See what we have done as residents to create a beautiful downtown community. You'll also see one of the wildest daily parking events in the city. While often entertaining to watch, it's no fun if you're a resident trying to unload a few bags of groceries several blocks away from the home in which you live. Thank you in advance for your support and I look forward to seeing you this Tuesday evening. Sincerely, Kurt Friedmann Homeowner, Mission Orchard Tract COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: P k4 Z Mejia, Anthony From: Michele Gordon <mgordon @sloparents.org> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Cc: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy RAC _i'u'i' D Subject: Residential Parking District 5 -6 -2014 MAV 4 5 2014 Dear City Council members, I am writing to urge you to support our residential parking district application for the Mission Orchard Neighborhood (5/6/2014). 1 hope that you are familiar with our neighborhood. We stood before you at a City Council meeting (2/25/2014) asking that you put the Old Mission School Annex Project on hold, until further review of the clear shortfall of parking for all three campuses and the subsequent impact on our neighborhood (among other issues). The residential neighborhood surrounding OMS & MCP, including Broad, Peach and Mill Street, is a vibrant, owner - occupied neighborhood, with many long -term residents, including: 789 Peach (14 years) 794 Broad (32 years) 781 Peach (25 years) 752 Palm (30 years) 773 Peach (19 years) 770 Broad (29 years) 756 Broad (28 years) 762 Broad (20 years) Because our home was built in the 1920's, we have a driveway that accommodates one car (no garage). Like many of our neighbors with older homes, we rely on street parking for one of our two cars. Parking has not always been a problem in our neighborhood. When my husband and I moved into our home directly across from Old Mission School in 1994, spaces were available on the street. We have seen a significant reduction in on- street parking due to the following reasons: • Approximately ten years ago, Old Mission School was allowed to convert the curb in front of the school (from Peach to Mill) to restricted parking and shortly after, Mission College Prep and Old Mission School acquired the cul -de -sac between the two campuses and created a staff parking area. A large section of on- street parking became unavailable to those living directly across the street, during daytime hours. • Old Mission School and Mission College Prep's enrollment has grown over the last twenty years, and parking has not kept pace. Certainly the addition of the OMS Annex will further exacerbate the problem. Apartments that were built on the North -bound Broad Street on -ramp, with four students (and four cars) for most of the two bedroom units. OMS, MCP, the OMS Annex and the apartments are all under parked. • Downtown merchants, employees and shoppers choose to park in our neighborhood, which is just beyond the metered parking, rather than park in the lots and structures intended for this purpose. We have become the parking lot for OMS & MCP staff, parents and MCP students. Rather than choosing the nearby parking lots and structures each morning (we are told these lots are at 60% capacity on most days and would accommodate students, staff and parents), staff and students fill the limited spaces in front of our homes. It is not unusual to find a car partially blocking our driveway with a note that says "Sorry, late for class. No parking. Will move it later!!" OMS and MCP are a business, they are private schools that cater to families who live outside of our neighborhood. The apartment buildings that are sprinkled throughout our neighborhood and surrounding areas are a business. Landlords, who don't live in our neighborhood, generate revenue by maxing out the occupancy for each unit without regard to the number of allocated parking spaces. If allocated parking spaces and tenants with cars were evenly matched, the problem of under - parking would no longer exist. Please consider our neighborhood and the families who have made it their permanent home, when you are making your decision. Our neighborhood brings stability to the downtown area and creates an attractive entry to the city with our well -kept and historic homes (I am frequently providing directions to the Mission while watering my front lawn). We live in the neighborhood, raise our children here, walk downtown to shop and we desperately need street parking. We have met and exceeded all requirements to create a residential parking permit district. We scheduled a meeting with Parking Services. We conducted the required informal survey and received almost unanimous support from the neighbors. Our neighborhood attended the parking meeting to seek additional information. More than 60% of households returned the survey, and 90 %+ were in favor of the district from 6:OOam to 6:OOpm. Our last step is for City Council to support the process that was put in place to protect SLO neighborhoods, allowing for residential parking districts to address street congestion due to parking by individuals who do not reside in the neighborhood. I unfortunately will not be able to attend the City Council meeting. My son has high school swim finals on May 6th, from 3:00- 7:30pm in Arroyo Grande. I apologize for my absence. Sincerely, Jim and Michele Gordon - Johnson (762 Broad Street) MAY 062014 Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:10 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Parking restrictions near Old Mission Elementary School Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk [Uk; OMSI)O _)qo Palm StreeL AGENDA a ,n L"'5 Obis po, CA 9340' CORRESPONDENCE tel 1805 781 7102 Date 64114 Item# F" "1 From: Marx, ]an Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:25 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Parking restrictions near Old Mission Elementary School Agenda correspondence From: John Grady [mailto Johngrady5@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:50 AM To: Council ALL Subject: Parking restrictions near Old Mission Elementary School Dear Mayor and City Council Members, If residents near the Old Mission Elementary School are experiencing difficulty parking due to the number of cars parking along their streets during the daytime then it seems appropriate to address their concerns. However, I cannot agree with city staffs recommendation to add even MORE parking meters along the 600 block of Palm Street. Keep in mind that the only reason a parking problem exists for the residents of this neighborhood is the fact that adjacent streets are metered! So adding additional meters is likely to only exacerbate this problem into additional neighborhoods or areas that do not now have a problem. If you install meters along Palm Street bordering Mission College Prep where will people parking there (many perhaps all day due to work) go to find parking? Likely they will seek out the nearest available street parking without meters - just as they do now. So this will only spread the current parking problem to yet another neighborhood. Will staff then argue to create another controlled parking zone and add yet more parking meters? Where does this spiral end? I believe parking meters already extend well beyond reasonable downtown boundaries. Do we really need meters on Marsh Street and Carmel, or along Nipomo Street near Pacific, or along upper Monterey Street? There are countless other metered streets well beyond the downtown border where many may wish to park and walk downtown to shop or recreate without the additional expense of parking fees or fear of fines. Additional meters will only serve to discourage shoppers from coming downtown and will likely spread parking problems to adjacent neighborhoods. Please do not add more parking meters to our already over metered city streets! Thank you. John Grady San Luis Obispo, CA Goodwin, Heather From: Lichtig, Katie Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:06 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Parking restrictions near Old Mission Elementary School For appropriate distribution. Katie Lichtig City Manager CITY OF errs Q$� SHII LUIS OBISPO City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E klichtig@slocity.org T $05.781.7114 slo ity.crg From: John Grady Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:50:01 PM To: Council ALL Subject: Parking restrictions near Old Mission Elementary School Dear Mayor and City Council Members, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date S� Item #-f A �2, If residents near the Old Mission Elementary School are experiencing difficulty parking due to the number of cars parking along their streets during the daytime then it seems appropriate to address their concerns. However, I cannot agree with city staffs recommendation to add even MORE parking meters along the 600 block of Palm Street. Keep in mind that the only reason a parking problem exists for the residents of this neighborhood is the fact that adjacent streets are metered! So adding additional meters is likely to only exacerbate this problem into additional neighborhoods or areas that do not now have a problem. If you install meters along Palm Street bordering Mission College Prep where will people parking there (many perhaps all day due to work) go to find parking? Likely they will seek out the nearest available street parking without meters - just as they do now. So this will only spread the current parking problem to yet another neighborhood. Will staff then argue to create another controlled parking zone and add yet more parking meters? Where does this spiral end? I believe parking meters already extend well beyond reasonable downtown boundaries. Do we really need meters on Marsh Street and Carmel, or along Nipomo Street near Pacific, or along upper Monterey Street? There are countless other metered streets well beyond the downtown border where many may wish to park and walk downtown to shop or recreate without the additional expense of parking fees or fear of fines. Additional meters will only serve to discourage shoppers from coming downtown and will likely, spread parking problems to adjacent neighborhoods. Please do not add more parking meters to our already over metered city streets! Thank you. John Grady San Luis Obispo, CA Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: Mejia, Anthony Monday, May 05, 2014 11:11 PM ' e MAY 0 6 ?_014 �K To: Kremke, Kate; Goodwin, Heather Subject: Fwd: 05 -06 -14 Hearing Item 2: Parking District Attachments: CC_5- 6- 14_MissionOrchardParking District_SaveOurpowntown.pdf; ATT00001.htm Agenda Correspondence for PH2 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date �/ �'1 !y! Item# ,�,f�- Z Begin forwarded message: From: James Lopes <jameslopes(a)charter.net> Date: May 5, 2014 at 10:29:22 PM PDT To: "Ashbaugh, John" <jashbaug-(a,slocit�org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpent(?slocity.org >, "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristi a,slocity.org >, "Codron, Michael" <mcodron(j�slocit�org >, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietrickslocity.org >, "Lichtig, Katie" <klichti slocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx �r,slocity.or >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmith ,slocit �org >, "Mejia, Anthony" <amej iagslocity.org> Subject: 05 -06 -14 Hearing Item 2: Parking District Dear Mayor and Council Members, Please read the attached letter from Save Our Downtown, which is in support of the parking district requested by the Mission Orchard neighborhood. Thank you, Jamie Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805- 781 -8960 Save Our Downtown Comments on Gty Council Agenda Item 2; May 6,2014. Ordinance to restrict parking May 6, 2014 Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Save Our Downtown is a group of citizens who are actively engaged in the preservation of unique qualities that create a vibrant Downtown in San Luis Obispo. Save Our Downtown commented on the Old Mission School Annex which was proposed at 774 and 776 Palm, partly due to the increased traffic congestion and parking conflicts it would cause near the Old Mission School. We support the approach of the residents of the Mission Orchard neighborhood to reduce the amount of on- street day -time parking near Old Mission School. The association identified the problem of existing inadequate on- street parking during your Council's review of the Old Mission School Annex appeal filed by the association. The Annex was approved with capacity for 90 additional students, which will further exacerbate traffic and parking congestion at the main campus during drop -off and pick up times. The existing parking problem will worsen as this school grows along with the city and surrounding uses. The proposed parking district is the optimum way to control and reduce on- street parking in this neighborhood so that its residents, their families and friends can utilize some parking for their needs. We support the recommendation of staff and hope that the Council will "approve this parking District 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday" (p. PH24). Thank you for your consideration, James Lopes Chairperson 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 - 602 -1365 Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk r r.� Palm Stre.el: San Luis Obi.5po, Cep q,3401 tel 1805 7817102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:10 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Parking district around downtown. From: James Millenaar [mailto:jimmillenaar (slcimail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:32 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Parking district around downtown. Dear City Council Members and Mayor, ' MAY 0 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 404 Item #__FL_�— Just saw the post regarding the formation of a parking district in the downtown area on the Local News of my MSN homepage. I think it's a great idea EXCEPT that it doesn't go far enough! This letter has been a long time coming but downtown has a problem and it's in my neighborhood too. ALL DAY, EVERYDAY, & INTO THE NIGHT! Believe me when I tell you it's no way to live your life and retain any sense of community. The inability to leave and return to your residence on your own time terms and times, have friends and service contractors visit is just plain wrong. If you are going to make a district encompass the entire downtown! I for one am tired of subsidizing downtown businesses. Force them to take the up to $250 /month deduction for parking expenses! I have lived in a duplex at the corner of Morro & Buchon Streets for nearly 34 years now. We have gone from no parking problem to todays current mess. How many projects should be allowed to build with continued net losses of parking ie.; Downtown Center, Court Street Project, County Government Center, and many small residential conversions and now the Marsh Street project and China Town. Please tell me where are the people that use these lots daily going to park when consruction begins? Are you going to continue to foist them upon us in the neighborhoods? Time after time the carts before the horse! In my own neighborhood I wish to ask about these problems. Currently we have a non resident, meaning they don't live on my block warehousing of cars here. There are 2 cars that have been parked for more than 8 days now. Enforcement of the 72hr rule is non existent by city staff. Do I always need to be the crank that calls all this stuff in. The bicycle diverter that was installed at Morro & Buchon streets took 17 parking spaces from us. Why was there never any mitigation to us for the loss of parking? My duplex is surrounded by a sea of red curb to which I might add is not so red anymore such that people are regularly parking in the fire lane in front of my house. Does a duplex count as 2 residences in terms of parking permits should a district form? I would also like to invite staff to come sit with me and to watch the intersection for an hour so that you might see the number of breaches per hour of vehicles making illegal left turns and completely running the stop sign. This intersection is very dangerous & needs serious enforcement with tickets issued before a cyclist or pedestrian gets injured or worse killed. I would like to know what the Cities plan is for the 800 block of Pismo Street. It's been nearly 7yrs now since a rock on the embankment was thought to be a problem. Barricades went up, parking has been lost, graffiti has been a problem, the rock hasn't fallen, and nothing has been done. Lets get the offending rock off the embankment and remove the barricades. How long does it have to take! Build a retaining wall later if that's what needs to be done. My last point regards the issuing of simultaneous building & remodeling permits in and around the downtown perimeter. Within 3 blocks of my house there are at least 5 projects going on. While some are able to contain the contractor trucks onsite, others are not. The multiplier effect of displaced locals and downtown regular parkers has a very real impact on us! Just an observation, but yes it sucks. I have written a number of letters to past councils regarding this ongoing parking problem. Please revisit them for other ideas regarding colored sleeves for parking meters to differentiate and designate meter terms. Common sense placement of parking space designaters( the little T's & L's) which would help get people to pull up to or back up to red zones and driveways so that another vehicle may park in the remaining space and a resident can get in to or out of their driveway. Stepped up policing or parking staffs enforcement of blatant bad parking violaters. Maybe not necessarily a ticket but a reminder to minimize their impact such that a car that may be larger than theirs might also park or that parking on a corner, blocking sight visibility and handicapped access is wrong. Seems perfect for the bike patrollers to me. Thank you for your time. I will be watching this issue with great interest. I think there is much that can be done. Sincerely Yours Jim Millenaar Goodwin, Heather MAY 0 2 2014 From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:29 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Cc: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Parking district Mission Orchard Tract Agenda Correspondence for 05 -06 -14 PH -2 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 990 Palm Street San f ws Obispo, CA 9-3r. 01 tel 1 80.5. 781,7102 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Da# e +° From: peach387 [mailto:peach387Cd)aol.com1 Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:22 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Cc: maordon @cuesta.edu; kurL@kfmail.com; Donna Subject: Parking district Mission Orchard Tract Dear city council members: As a property owner in the Mission Orchard Tract, City of San luis Obispo, I encourage you to APPROVE the proposed 6 AM to 6 PM parking district for the following reasons: 1. The parking district will curtail extended overnight as well as standard car parking. The current 72 hour parking limit has never been enforced. Home owners within our neighborhood are the only persons that enforce this rule by monitoring parked cars and calling the police department when necessary. I have experienced cars being parked upward of 4 to 6 weeks along Peach street. 2. The parking district will curtail the Mission students and parents from parking in our neighborhood. They need to use the current Mission parking facilities that were previuosly approved by SLO City at the time of the Mission school building expansion. This has been a major "impact" to our neighborhood. Currently I get up every morning before 7 AM and purposely park my vehicle on the street to keep my on street parking privileges. 3. The parking district will curtail persons making "unsafe U turns" along Peach street in efforts to position themselves for a vacant parking space. With Peach street being a major vehicle arterial link between the Broad street off ramp and Chorro street, these unsafe manuvers have also caused unsafe traffic congestion along the Peach street arterial. 4. The parking district will eliminate the 72 hour + parking for downtown activities. 5. The parking district will eliminate extended parking (72 hour +) for the rental population. Rental properties in and around our neighborhood have designated parking. Any spill over is the responsibility of the Tennent to follow appropriate on street parking law. - please keep our neighborhood "a safe neighborhood community" and "not an unsafe free for all parking parking lot" - Respectfully, Doug Morris, property owner, 789 Peach st. Mission Orchard Tract. "MONA ". Retired Assistant Building Official SLO County Planning and Building, California registered Architect. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L f'E smurtphone Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:36 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Mission Orchard Tract parking district. MAY 06 2014 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk AGENDA cft,y 01, smi its,; oiffspo CORRESPONDENCE 99c, Palm Sr.ree>r. San Luis ObiFpo, CA 9340:1 Date Item# IL tel 18f3S.%81.7:102 From: peach387 [mailto:peach387(@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:37 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Cc: maordon@cuesta.edu; kurtOkfmail.com; acooper@caI poly. edu; Donna Subject: Mission Orchard Tract parking district. Dear city council I wish to express my sincere appreciation in your decision for a parking district in our Historic Mission Orchard Tract. Your decision promotes "forward thinking" for our city's development based on "smart growth principals ". Not only do you define our town's buildings and their uses you are also defining traffic / pedestrian circulation around and within our town's buildings. Again a masterfull decision towards the growth and development of our town's master plan. Good "Thinking outside of the box ....... Form follows function" ...cool... Thank you ...doug morris, architect, SLO County Planning and Building Assistant Building Official (ret). MONA. Sent fiom my Verizon Wireless •IG LTE smartphone COUNCIL MEETING: DS ITEM NO.: -' JA • Z Mejia, Anthony From: Paul O'Malley <PNOMalley @usermail.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:50 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Permit Distribution: Mission Orchard Parking District San Luis Obispo City Council members, MAY 0 5 2014 I am the owner of the property at 785 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo and am writing to express my opposition to the planned method of distributing permits in the request Residential Parking Permit District (the "District ") near Old Mission School (also known as the Mission Orchard neighborhood). I implore the Council to: 1. Sell Permits in the District at a price commensurate with the value of the public asset that is being transferred to the Permit holder; and 2. Make unsold Permits available to anyone who wants to buy them, not District residents only. What's at Stake - Approximately 2,350 linear feet of public streets next to downtown SLO; - About 146 parking spaces (2,350 feet at 16 feet/car = 146 cars); - Nearly 20,000 square feet of scarce public land (assuming parking spaces are 8.5 feet wide); - 50% of all weekdays (6am to 6pm Monday through Friday) District parking will be the exclusive right of Permit holders; - Over 35% of the entire year (including weekends) parking will be the exclusive right of Permit holders. Proposed Price My understanding is that the proposed price of a Permit is $10 /year. If each of the 68 households identified in the District buys 2 permits that is total annual revenue of $1,360. That is a very low price for the exclusive use and enjoyment of a large amount of public street parking. Enviable Privileges Benefits to District Permit holders include: - Guaranteed, convenient street parking without competition from people without Permits during Permit hours; - All cleaning, repair, policing and administration of the public land paid for by public funds. Economic Value Monetary value for a single Permit is probably in excess of $1,000 /year: - Parking meters at $0.75 /hour would cost $2,340 /year during Permit hours; - A card to use the 919 Palm Street parking structure costs $75 /month or $900 /year. At $1,000 /year, selling 136 permits to the 68 identified District households would generate $136,000 /year of revenue versus the proposed $1,360. Tax Complications Selling Permits at a price substantially below their market value could have tax implications. The lease of public property to private citizens is an economic transaction with tax consequences. State and federal tax authorities may view purchase of a Permit below a comparable market -price as income for the Permit holder. Selling a Permit for a market rate would eliminate that risk. Effect of a Market -Price Besides the economic value to the city of San Luis Obispo, the effect of selling Permits at a price commensurate with their value is that Permits will get in the hands of people who have an authentic need for them and value them. If the Permits are sold for $10 /year, they will all be quickly sold to both people who need them as well as people do not need them but want them should the need for a Permit arise. A ridiculously low price for a Permit will entice even people who don't need or want a permit to buy one. It's a very cheap insurance policy should there ever be a need for street parking during Permit hours. The result of an abnormally low Permit price will be vacant public street parking that is highly desired by other people. It is squandering a valuable public asset. Lead Us Not Into Temptation Even assuming all San Luis Obispo citizens are moral, ethical people, leasing valuable public property at severely depressed prices will tempt people to misuse a Permit. Since Permits will be transferrable, a District resident who doesn't need a Permit may buy one at $10 and give it to a non - resident friend who works nearby to use all year — voila: the very purpose of establishing the District for residents is circumvented. Worse yet, a secondary market may emerge where residents of the District spend $10 to buy Permits and sell them to the highest bidder for many times more than $10. Unsold Permits In conjunction with selling Permits at a market - price, I recommend that Permits be available to people who live outside of the District. People living inside the District can be given the right to buy an annual Permit at a market -price every year until a date such as November 30, but then all unsold permits could be sold to anyone willing to pay for them. By capping the number of permits at a number such as 146, there would never be the risk of too many cars being parked in the District. Best of all, the Permits will be in the hands of people who truly need them. Selling Permits in the District at a price commensurate with the value of the Permit and to anyone who wants to buy it benefits everyone: - The City of San Luis Obispo is compensated for leasing the use of public streets; - Permits will be in the hands of people who actually need and value them; - The goal of limiting parking congestion in the District will be solved by limiting the number of Permits sold. COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.:,, Mejia, Anthony From: Paul O'Malley <PNOMalley @usermail.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:49 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Secondary District: Mission Orchard Parking District San Luis Obispo City Council members, i MAY 0 5 2014 I am the owner of the property at 785 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo and am writing to express my opposition to the request for the "Secondary District" which is part of the requested Residential Parking Permit District near Old Mission School (also known as the Mission Orchard neighborhood). Establishing the Secondary District does not comply with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10.36.170. Municipal Code 10.36.170.A: "resident petition" Adding the Secondary District does not meet the Municipal Code Section 10.36.170.A standard of being initiated by a "resident petition... approved by a sixty percent majority of households in the area." The Council Agenda Report (Item Number: PH2) states the reason the Secondary District was added: "The secondary area, 822 -890 and 896 Mill Street (between Chorro and Morro), was identified as the area where on- street parking is likely to shift if a permit parking district were established in the primary area." It appears the Secondary District was "identified" by the people requesting the Primary District during a March 11, 2014 Town Hall Meeting. There is no evidence it was "identified" by people residing in the Secondary District. The Council Agenda Report states, at the March 11, 2014 Town Hall meeting, "No residents living within the secondary area attended the meeting." There was no "resident petition" for the Secondary District. The Municipal Code indicates the request for a Parking District begins with a "resident petition ", not for people in a Town Hall meeting to "identify" an area where on- street parking is likely to shift. Municipal Code 10.36.170.A: "approved by a sixty percent majority of households" Adding the Secondary District does not meet the Municipal Code Section 10.36.170.A standard of being "approved by a sixty percent majority of households." Obviously, if there was no "resident petition ", it couldn't possibly have been approved by a sixty percent majority. Municipal Code 10.36.170.C: "desire of a majority of the households" Adding the Secondary District does not meet the Municipal Code Section 10.36.170.0 standard of representing "the desire of a majority of the households in the area." Again, when the Secondary District was "identified" at the March 11, 2014 Town Hall meeting, "[n]o residents living within the secondary area attended the meeting." Excluding the multifamily units of more than 4 dwelling units, 23 households were counted in the Secondary District. However, only 5 ballots were returned (less that 22% of the households responded). One of the 5 returned ballots voted "No." Merely 4 "Yes" ballots (17% of the households) expressed a desire for the Secondary District, far short of the majority needed. Flawed Methodology Using the method of ignoring unreturned ballots, The Council Agenda Report (Item Number: PH2) calculated 80% "Yes" votes for the Secondary District. That is: 4 "Yes" votes out of 5 returned ballots = 80 %. The methodology of ignoring unreturned ballots is bad research. In this case, over 78% of the households were silent (18 of 23 household failed to return ballots). It may be policy to ignore unreturned ballots, but that doesn't make it right. In this instance, 4 "Yes" ballots (17% of the 23 identified households) will indefinitely exclude non- residents from parking on 2 sides of a busy downtown public street for half of every weekday. Ignoring the unreturned votes strongly biases "Yes" votes because a person is much more likely to ignore an issue if they are against it than if they are for it. Asking whether a resident wants to be given increased rights to parking on the public street they live on would obviously bias them to say "Yes." It's astonishing that anyone ever says "No" to that question. Lost in the Mail Is anyone concerned that so few ballots were returned (only 5 ballots from the 23 identified households)? That is definitely not a statistically significant count of possible votes. There are several non -owner occupied households in the Secondary District. If ballots were mailed to the owner of record, they may have gone to a partnership or limited liability company with an administrator receiving the mail. If ballots were mailed to residents, it would be nearly impossible to address the ballots with the names of the residents in the rented households because the tenants change so often. Someone Else's Problem As the Council Agenda Report states, adding the Secondary District has the effect of shifting the burden of the parking problem to people who live further from the Primary District, to the advantage of people who live in the Primary and Secondary Districts. At the extreme, you could continue "identifying" an indefinite number of areas where on- street parking is likely to shift and have a never - ending number of districts. Again, I request the Council strike the Secondary District from the proposal. Reasonable Person Test Besides not meeting the Municipal Code standards, establishing the Secondary District — nearly an entire downtown city block— defies reason because less than 20% of households in the Secondary District voted "For" establishing it. appeal to the common sense of the San Luis Obispo City Council to recognize that the Secondary District does not fulfill the Municipal Code standard for a Parking District and because it does not represent the desire of the majority of households in the area. COUNCIL MEETING: 32 a16([ 2.b su ITEM NO.: Mejia, Anthony From: Paul O'Malley <PNOMalley @usermail.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:48 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony _ Subject: Character Preservation: Mission Orchard Parking District L.0 — "g';j " -! ) MAY 0 5 2014 San Luis Obispo City Council members, I am the owner of the property at 785 Morro Street in San Luis Obispo and am writing to express my opposition to the request for a Residential Parking Permit District (the "District ") near Old Mission School (also known as the Mission Orchard neighborhood). It is a misuse of San Luis Municipal Code 10.36.170 to establish a residential parking permit area in the Mission Orchard neighborhood. The Mission Orchard neighborhood is a historical and culturally unique semi -urban area that, in its very nature, has always had and must continue to have street parking available equitably and equally for use and enjoyment by all private citizens. Character Preservation Municipal Code 10.36.170 allows for the designation of residential parking permit areas "in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood for the persons residing in the area." It is unreasonable to use neighborhood preservation of "character" as a reason for the District because limited public street parking is part- and - parcel with living adjacent to the viable economic and cultural center of downtown San Luis Obispo. Establishing a residential parking permit area does the opposite of preserving the character of the Mission Orchard neighborhood. Instead, a permit district for the exclusive use of persons residing in the area would forever change, not preserve, the historic character of the Mission Orchard neighborhood. Revising History For many decades, the Mission Orchard neighborhood has been characterized as a hub of residences, commerce, government, tourism, churches and schools. Anyone choosing to live in the Mission Orchard neighborhood knows that it is adjacent to the commercial "downtown core" and public street parking is an issue. To characterize the Mission Orchard neighborhood as a quiet, suburban area where only residents have rights to public street parking half of all weekdays would require the revision of nearly a century of history. Parking has been a problem in the Mission Orchard neighborhood for many, many years and the residents knew it. Asking the SLO City Council to establish the District is unduly subsidizing people who chose to live where they knew public street parking was difficult. Home owners and renters living in the District knew of the public parking laws before they purchased or rented. Prices they paid reflected the availability of public parking in the District. They aren't entitled to a nearly free gift of exclusive parking rights. Using Municipal Code 10.36.170's "character preservation" argument bolsters the case for not establishing the District because the historic character of the District includes limited public street parking. You Can't Have Your Cake and Parking, Too The Mission Orchard neighborhood is an energetic, bustling area which is an attractive asset to residents who choose to live there. They sought to be in close proximity to restaurants, the Mission, cultural events, the public library, stores, entertainment and the Farmer's Market. For most residents of the Mission Orchard neighborhood, the reason they chose to live there is because they want to be near the historic culturally diverse center of San Luis Obispo. It's prime real estate with some of SLO's highest prices per square foot for property —and this without permit parking. Less congested residential areas with plentiful public street parking are available in San Luis Obispo, but you must move outside the radius of downtown for that. The parking problem is not new in the Mission Orchard neighborhood. Demanding exclusive parking rights while still enjoying all the benefits of living next to downtown San Luis Obispo is irrational and unfair. Keep San Luis Obispo Friendly Establishing the District is a parochial, insular notion that doesn't belong anywhere in San Luis Obispo but, in particular, does not belong near the downtown core which is the showcase and center of the city's heritage and culture. It's in the best interest of the City of San Luis Obispo to ease the ability of people to come and go in the Old Mission District. Putting up restrictions on parking is a formula for stagnation. The welcoming, friendly nature of downtown SLO will be diminished by excluding outsiders from parking in the central district. Precedence Precedence should be a factor for or against the establishment of the District. However, the Council should note that the Mission Orchard neighborhood is substantially different from the previously established San Luis Obispo Residential Parking Districts. None of the current San Luis Obispo Residential Parking Districts boarder a major historic, cultural, or tourist area. The Mission Orchard neighborhood is different because of its proximity to downtown San Luis Obispo. Conclusion The Council should not apply Municipal Code 10.36.170 to the unique, historically significant Mission Orchard neighborhood. In this area traversed by tourists, workers, students and residents alike, I implore you to keep the playing field level for everyone. Preserve the historic character of the Mission Orchard neighborhood by letting everyone enjoy it with equal rights to scarce public street parking. COUNCIL MEETING: � 0(a �zosq. Mejia, Anthony ITEM NO.: From: Marx, Jan Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:49 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: residential parking Mission Orchard district MAY 0 5 2014 Jan Marx - I Mayor Office of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E imarx @slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org From: Terri Page [sosloter @charter.net] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:00 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: residential parking Mission Orchard district DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT IN THE MISSION ORCHARD AREA. THIS SUBJECT IS COMING UP FOR DISCUSSION THIS TUEDAY MAY 6th. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PEGGY FOR A FEW MONTHS NOW. IT HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO PARK IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STREET I LIVE ON HAS HOMES DATING BACK TO THE 1920's THAT HAVE NO GARAGES AND VERY SHORT IF ANY DRIVEWAYS. WE HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 32 YEARS AND THE SITUATION HAS BECOME BAD. THE CITY PARKING LOT ON PALM & NIPOMO WOULD BE A GREAT SOLUTION FOR THE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY. THAT PARKING LOT REMAINS ALMOST EMPTY WEEKDAYS. OUR STREETS START TO FILL WITH CARS FROM THE SCHOOLS AT 7:00 AM. IF YOU HAVE TO DRIVE ANYWHERE AND THEREFORE GIVE UP YOUR PARKING PLACE .... IT IS A GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER CAR WITHIN ONE MINUTE TO TAKE YOUR SPOT. CARS PARK IN CROSS WALKS, ON CORNERS AND ENCROACH ANY RED CURBS BY DRIVEWAYS. THIS WAS NOT THE SITUATION YEARS AGO WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE. WE LOOK TO YOU FOR LEADERSHIP WITH THIS PROBLEM NOW AND IN THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF OUR CITY WITH ALL THE PROJECTS LEADING TO MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN THE COMING YEARS. I HOPE YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE MISSION ORCHARD DISTRICT. KINDEST REGARDS, TERRI PAGE THOMAS FOSTER 794 BROAD ST.