The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/04/2005, PUBLIC COMMENT - POSSIBLE PARKING RULE REVISION REQUEST �IIIIIIIIIIIII�� IIIIIIIIIII =• council MCMO Anburn cit o san Luis owspo, aammistoation aE aatmtn"t DATE: January 4, 2005 RECEIVED TO: City Council JAIL 0 4 1005 FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO SLO CITY CLERK SUBJECT: Possible Parking Rule Revision.Request The Mayor has advised me that a citizen may appear before the Council this evening to ask that the Council change parking rules to allow some property owners to park in driveway cuts. Staff responded to this request in February 2004 in a letter copied to Council. The Mayor asked for another copy of this letter in order to "refresh" on the issue and better judge whether or not to refer the matter to staff for further study. In case such a request is made tonight, I thought other Council members may also appreciate another copy of the letter, which is attached.. t�Ibd L-?COUNCIL TODD DIP P'CAO �IN DIF RED FILEMACAO .;FIRE CHIEF ,Z-ATTCRNEY �dPW DIR MEETING AGENDA 0 CLERK ORIS j-'pOL10E CHF El DEPT HEADS B'REC DIR DATE ITEM # f1G� ,.� ,eruRl p RR COUNCIL MEMO TEMPLATE J 1 C Ud! C . / wY, J cityo� san WIs OBIspo Wh I I(! PARKING OPERATIONS • 12 po, CA 93401 Mike SpanglerI F E B - h 2004 664 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 - February 5, 2004 _...._.. Dear Mr. Spangler, Thank you for your patience in allowing me sufficient time to review your request and consider the ramifications of this proposed program. While your proposal does include some parking benefits for private property owners and marginal benefit to the City Parking Fund, I cannot support your proposal at this time due to the following reasons. You proposed that property owners adjacent to drive cuts in the Downtown pay $50.00 a month to park at drive-cuts adjacent to their businesses, paying for the permit a year in advance. This would be limited to drive-cuts that do not require open access to a city street or multi-tenant parking area. It would be for drive-cuts with access to garage doors or abandoned driveways. You further propose to establish a drive cut association to administer the program. Your rationale is that it creates additional, self-supporting parking spaces and that this program is authorized under §22507.2 of the California Vehicle Code. While §22507.2 of the California Vehicle Code allows a jurisdiction to create a program such as this, it does not require one to do so. Your initial proposal was reviewed and discussed at two Downtown Association meetings. The former Parking Manager reviewed and denied this same proposal in a letter dated August 19, 2002. This denial was based on several factors: safety concerns (sight visibility problems); increased city liability; administrative problems (reviewing, approving and signing drive cuts); proliferation of requests for other private reserved parking; and concerns about the creation of private parking areas. I share these same concerns and have a few additional ones. The City of San Luis Obispo has developed an on-street parking system that is, for the most part, open and unreserved for the public and for delivery vehicles. While not perfect, it meets the general needs of the public. Drivers park when space is available on an equal or first come-first served basis. No one is favored over another. Your drive cut proposal is in essence "reserved parking" on city streets for a select group who share the commonality of having a drive cut adjacent to their business. This is inconsistent with our present on-street parking system and will not significantly improve public parking access in the Downtown area. r The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deal(805)781-7410. Another concern is the high potential for erroneous messages it may send to the public that parking is allowed at all driveways in San Luis Obispo. Someone would see a vehicle parked at one approved drive cut, and potentially proceed to another drive cut that does need public access and park. While appropriate signs are to be placed at approved locations under your proposal, signs (and vehicle permits) arc often not seen by passing by motorists. Some will not be able to tell there was a permit on a vehicle or see the applicable sign. It would be. confusing and could lead to blocked driveways...something that we can not allow for successful circulation in Downtown. The potential increase in costs and lost time for additional enforcement to preclude this from happening far exceeds the marginal benefits that may occur for a small number of people who may be eligible to participate in such a program. I appreciate you taking the time to research, discuss and show me locations of drive cuts. I also appreciate your effort to increase parking in the downtown area and want to make sure you don't misconstrue this negative response as an unwillingness on my part to work with you and other property owners on thinking "outside of the box" in getting solutions to our parking woes in the Downtown area. As always, you can contact me at (805) 781-7234 if you would like to discuss this or other issues. SincereI , j Robert Horch, Parking Manager 1260 Chorro St. Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 c: Tim Bochum Mike McCluskey 1:0ocument ManagemenANon Geo Based DocumentslG67i Carespondence\S-Z\Spangler,Wke\Spangler Resp.doc , REC"VED c0UNc1Z,/CDD DIR JAN 4 20fi i 2-CAO ?'FIN DIR 2ACAO ,FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK ! ATTORNEY ZPW DIR 1/3/05 2-CLERKIORIG IfPOUCECHF DEPT HEADS E�l O-REC DIR E71'UTIL DIR Drive Cut Parldng Proposaly '��— R DIR This is a request to the City Council for assistance in allowing parking in drive cuts per California Vehicle Code 2500, which allows parking in drive cuts with council resolution (see below). 22507.2 Notwithstanding subdivision(e) of Section 22500,a local authority may,by ordinance,authorize the owner or lessee of Property to park a vehicle. in front of the owner's or lessee's Private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant To the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the cost of issuing and administering the permits. The Proposal Either quit ticketing or adopt an ordinance that would allow parking'in drive cuts upon paying a fee to cover administration and revenue for the parking fund. The fee would be paid once a year in advanceand yearly thereafter. Why is it needed? In March of 2001 the Parking Manager informed property owners with drive cuts that parking would no longer be allowed in their driveways. As a result, those vehicles that historically used drive cuts for parking are now displaced and forced to park elsewhere on the street, creating even more parking problems for businesses and delivery trucks. By allowing fee-based parking in drive cuts, new parking is being created at no cost to the city and revenue is being generated for the parking fund. Why Not? A letter from the Parking Manager (attached)states property owners with drive cuts should not have"convenient free parking." Charging a fee to park in front of your own business should alleviate that concern. It should be noted that parking in some drive cuts has been allowed for the past 60 plus years,and customers and delivery trucks constantly use these spaces to park because of a lack of yellow zones in certain areas. RED FILE MEFTING AGENDA DAT a ` ITEM # WffV11UJ- Safety was cited as a concern; however, in many,years of parking in drive cuts, no accidents have been reported. In fact, more amage has occurred from street trees, intersections, mid-block pedestrian crossings, and buses in the downtown core than parking in drive cuts. The cost of administration of the proposed drive cut program was also cited. However,with a combined general government budget and operating budget of $1,500,000, I believe there is adequate funding to administer the program. If budget constraints were a.consideration, a drive cut volunteer committee could also be created to administer the program at no cost to the parking fund. Conclusion By allowing property owners to park in their drive cuts,much needed parking will be.restored. Employees,customers, and delivery vehicles desperately need this parking, and additional revenue for the parking fund could be created.This is surely a "win-win" situation for the city and the business owners as well. Mike Spangler 664 Marsh St: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 s ►�►►�I�IIIIIIIII�II I111IIIII��i��I►►�IIIII� a-W of san IUIS OBI Sp® III PARKING OPERATIONS • 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 761-7230 • FAX (805) 781-7267 August 19, 2002 Mike Spangler 664 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mike: Your letter to the Downtown Association(DA) requesting their assistance to pursue parking at private drive cuffs in the downtown area has been forwarded io our office for response. As you are aware your request was discussed at the July 12,2002 and August 9, 2002 regular monthly meetings of the DA Parking and Access Committee. At both meetings the committee was informed that the City would not support an ordinance change to formally allow use of private drive cuts. There are several factors.that strongly support no change from the current situation of not allowing parking at drive cuts throughout the City. First is the issue of safety. Drive cuts are not intended for regular parking and if the City were to sanction parking at drive cuts, many locations would create sight visibility problems that set-up a dangerous situation that the City is not willing to accept. Second, along with safety is the corresponding matter of liability. Allowing a vehicle to park at an unsafe location sets-up the City as being totally liable for any accidents and/or problems that may arise from this new policy. Third, a whole new level of administrative factors would be created because not all drive cuts are created equal,meaning Police, Fire, Traffic Engineering, Parking, and Public Works would need to review and approve or deny every request for drive cut parking. Closely associated with this would be the potential for many businesses and residents to seek the same type of private reserved parking on a citywide basis. Lastly,your proposal would create private parking spaces in a metered,time limit parking district,which would create an imbalance for other downtown parkers, not to mention the excessive enforcement and staff time to administer. Although we can appreciate your desire to continue to park at your drive cut; the risks for the City and public far exceed any short-term personal gain from this type of parking arrangement. Thus, we must formally deny your request for any further action on this matter. However,the City will continue to pursue the establishment of a commercial loading /O The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. zone on the 600 block of Marsh Street; if it is supported by the affected businesses on the block. S' cerely, Keith alewski . Parking Manger c: Downtown Association Public Works City Attorney Administration Mikespanglerordinance response �'�iiii►i II IIIIIIIII II►►�►� ►�� a ®� san WIS OBISPO IIIII III � Ih PARKING OPERATIONS • 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 - (805) 781-7230 • FAX (805) 781-7267 Mike Spangler 664 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 5, 2004 Dear Mr-. Spangler, . Thank you for your patience in allowing me sufficient time to review your request and consider the ramifications of this proposed program. While your proposal does include some parking benefits for private property owners and marginal benefit to the City Parking Fund, I cannot support your proposal at this time due to the following reasons. You proposed that property owners adjacent to drive cuts in the Downtown pay $50.00 a month to park at drive-cuts adjacent to their businesses, paying for the permit a year in advance. This would be limited to drive-cuts that do not require open access to a city street or multi-tenant parking area. It would be for drive-cuts with access to garage doors or abandoned driveways. You further propose to establish.a drive cut association to administer the program. Your rationale is that it creates additional, self-supporting parking spaces and that this program is authorized under§22507.2 of the California Vehicle Code. While §22507.2 of the California Vehicle Code allows a jurisdiction to create a program such as this, it does not require one to do so. Your initial proposal was reviewed and discussed at two Downtown Association meetings. The former Parking Manager reviewed and denied. this same proposal in a letter dated August 19, 2002. This denial was based on several factors: safety concerns (sight visibility problems); increased city liability; administrative problems (reviewing, approving and signing drive cuts); proliferation of requests for other private reserved parking; and concerns about the creation of private parking areas. I share these same concerns and have a few additional ones. The City of San Luis Obispo has developed an on-street parking system that is, for the most part, open and unreserved for the public and for delivery vehicles. While not perfect, it meets the general needs of the public. Drivers park when space is available on an equal or first come-first served basis. No one is favored over another. Your drive cut proposal is in essence "reserved parking" on city streets for a select group who share the commonality of having a drive cut.adjacent to their business. This is inconsistent with our present on=street parking system and will not significantly improve public parking access in the Downtown area. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. w Another concern is the high potential for erroneous messages it may send to the public that parking is allowed at all driveways in San Luis Obispo. Someone would see a vehicle parked at one approved drive cut, and potentially proceed to another drive cut that does need public access and park. While appropriate signs are to be placed at approved locations under your proposal, signs (and vehicle permits) are often not seen by passing by motorists. Some will not be able to tell there was a permit on a vehicle or see the.applicable sign. It would be confusing and could lead to blocked driveways...something that we can not allow for successful circulation in Downtown. The potential increase in costs and lost time for additional enforcement to preclude this from happening far exceeds the marginal benefits that may occur for a small number of people who may be eligible to participate in such a program. I appreciate you taking the time to research; discuss and show me locations of drive cuts. I also appreciate your effort to increase parking in the downtown area and want to make sure you don't misconstrue this negative response as an unwillingness on my part to work with you and other property owners on-thinking "outside of the box" in getting solutions to our parking woes in the Downtown area. As always, you can contact me at (805) 781-7234 if you would like to discuss this or other issues. Sincere] , Robert Horch, Parking Manager 1260 Chorro St. Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 c: Tim Bochum Mike McCluskey ]:\Document ManagemenANon Geo Based Documents\Citizen Correspondence\S-Z\Spangler,Mike\Spangler Resp.doc doomed to failure; fee on ail new development;Holley will send a memo to Council from committee will send to Opalewski;PAIR Copeland's notice of readiness by June 1; 90 days for City to get Court St. site ready; sites be closed closer to July. Robotic Parking Member to go instead of John Donovan,Mark Rawson. Mike Spangler's 2°d Request Solution to drive cut: requesting City Council pass an ordinance for property owners and leasees to park in front of their drive cuts; submitted proposal for committee's consideration. Issue of"convenient free parking": will pay. Spangler thinks City employees should also pay for convenient free parking. Safety concerns: Spangler said he contacted PD and there have been no instances of problems or accidents; trees falling is a bigger safety concern, his request is a minor,if even valid, safety concern. Rawson said he thinks the proposal makes total sense; Opalewksi said not all driveways are created equal, establishing a private spot in a public street, it may work for some but not others; Spangler said could take care of squabbles internally; creates income at.no expense to the City. Swem said this a way to create income, eliminate problems and tension, provides parking, adds to inventory; Motion by Swem to support Mike Spangler proposal for CC zonelproperties as noted in Downtown core; 2nd by Rawson,PAIF. NARF Consultant will present options; open format meeting. Officer Proll's loading zone proposal: review at Board meeting. Meeting adjourned 9:35 AM. Prepared by D.Holley 5-9-03