HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006, PH5 - PARKING TASK FORCE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Council Febru y
February 21,2006
agenda Repoizt =14 ,5-
C
N s
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: PARKING TASK FORCE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Receive a report on the discussions and recommendations of the Parking Revenue Task Force.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Parking Revenue Task Force's revenue enhancement
recommendations as outlined in the following report.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
As part of the annual rate review for the Parking Enterprise Fund, in June 2005, staff identified to
Council that in the "out years," the Parking Fund would need added revenues due to projected
significant capital outlays, such as the Palm-Nipomo parking structure project. On June 2, 2005 the
Council directed staff to create a Parking Revenue Task Force made up of stakeholders to identify
revenue enhancements needed to fund new parking supply projects, and return in early 2006 with
recommendations for implementation. The goal was to bridge an anticipated annual funding gap of
$1.2 million to operate and cover bond payments if the proposed parking structure at the corner of
Palm and Nipomo is constructed. The City Council considered several revenue enhancement
options from increasing parking fines, increasing meter rates,, increasing structure rates, discounting
the first hour in the structures, eliminating the first hour free in the structures, adding meters to the
perimeter of downtown (Palm, Peach, Pismo, and Monterey), adding meters on Slack near Cal
Poly, operating on Sundays, increasing in-lieu parking fees, and implementing a parking assessment
district.
Council directed staff to bring together a group of stakeholders (the Parking Revenue Task Force)
to consider the parking revenue enhancement options. This group thoroughly discussed the options
and the effect of these options on the downtown and the City. This report presents the group's eight
recommendations, with revenue and costs for each. Not all of the recommendations were
unanimously agreed upon; however, there was consensus on the recommendations presented in this
report. The report also includes discussion of the options not endorsed by the group at this time,
and the reasons for dissenting opinions on the Task Force recommendations.
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 2
DISCUSSION
Selection of The Parking Revenue Task Force
The first step was to put together a group of individuals who have a stake in downtown parking or
who are familiar with parking issues. Even though our goal was to increase parking revenues, staff
wanted a group that could understand the impact these increases would have on the City overall.
The Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce were asked to provide 3 members each
to the Task Force.. The Downtown Association provided a staff member, a downtown retail
merchant, and a downtown service-provider and the Chamber of Commerce provided a staff
member, a downtown property owner, and a tourism industry representative. The San Luis Obispo
Ministerial Association was also approached to provide a representative with knowledge of the
Downtown churches. The remaining stakeholders included. a representative from Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), an Old Town resident, a student representative,- and someone
familiar with alternative transportation and its relationship to parking.
The Task Force consisted of the following:
Brad Bilsten Downtown retailer
Cheryl Burcheri Old Town resident
Deborah Cash Downtown Association staff
Cydney Holcomb Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN)
Daniel Kuhlman Student
Jim Nielsen SLO Ministerial Association
Matt Quaghno Downtown property owner
Pierre Rademaker Downtown service provider
Susan Rains Alternative Transportation
Terry Westrope Tourism Industry
Patricia Wilmore Chamber of Commerce staff
Jay Walter, Director of Public Works, served as the facilitator of the group and Robert Horch and
Madelyn Paasch from Parking Services were present to provide information and to answer
questions. Periodically the group was joined by Bill Statler,Director of Finance, and Tim Bochum,
Deputy Director of Public Works to provide additional information.
The Objective
As part of the annual rate review for the Parking Enterprise Fund in June 2005, staff identified that
in the 3 to 5 years, the Parking Fund would need added revenues due to projections for significant
capital outlays, such as the Palm-Nipomo parking structure project as well as the Chinatown project
and its subsequent conversion of parking lot spaces. The estimated amount needed to operate and
pay the annual debt service for a project such as the Palm-Nipomo structure was projected to be
$1.2 million annually. Current parking revenues would not cover these amounts so staff was asked
to explore several options and return to Council with their findings.
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 3
Meetings
Staff and Administration thought that three to four meetings would be sufficient to reach the
objective. Ultimately, the Task Force needed four meetings to reach its goal, but some members
felt more time was needed to thoroughly evaluate the options. The group was encouraged to have
sub-meetings with their "constituents" to share information or discuss the issues. The Ministerial
Association representative met with Downtown church administrators several times between the
meetings held with the Task Force.
Task Force Recommendations
For discussion purposes, at the initial meeting the Task Force was asked to prioritize various
revenue enhancement measures using a "high" rating for the least controversial, least negative
impact, and the best value measure for the goal of reaching $1.2 million. After this was done each
option was discussed and analyzed, looking at the financial benefit, effect on the total scheme of
parking, and any associated controversy. The following is the Task Force's ranking of each
proposed revenue item in order of highest to lowest likelihood:
1) Increase Parking Fines
2) Increase Meter and Structure Rates
3) Charge for First Hour in Structures,but less than regular rate
4) Eliminate First Hour Free in Structures and charge regular rate
5) Add Parking Meters on 600 Block of Palm
6) Add Parking Meters on Slack
7) Charge&Enforce Parking on Sundays
8) Add Parking Meters on Monterey
9) Add Parking Meters on Pismo&Peach
10) Reduce Meter and/or Structure Costs on Sundays
11) Increase Parking In-Lieu fees
12) Use of Assessment District
The good news: The financial goal of $1.2 million is met with the recommendations within
this report. However, at the time of this report, there are still some financial uncertainties that
could impact the Parking Fund, such as the impact of the new structure at 919 Palm, Chinatown,
and the possible development of Lot 2 (at Broad and Marsh Streets). These potential projects may
have an impact on attaining the additional revenues for the operations and debt service of the Palm
Nipomo parking structure.
Recommendation #1: Adopt a resolution, effective July 1, 2006 that increases parking fines
as follows:
a) expired meter violation to $15, and an additional $1 increase each year
thereafter for five consecutive years
b) no residential permit violation to$25
c) prohibited parking violation to$40
d) overtime parking violation to$20
e) overnight parking(3 a.m.to 5 a.m.) violation to $25
f) commercial loading zone violation to$40
(
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 4
Parking fines were the first option analyzed. Since the revenue generated by this option is being
paid by someone who parks their vehicle in violation of a San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or the
California Vehicle Code, it was the least controversial for the group to consider. The City has the
ability to set individual parking fines under the authority of California Vehicle Code Section
40203.5. Our current fines are less than other public agencies in the County. For example, Cal
Poly has been charging$15 for an overtime meter for many years, yet the City's current fine is still
$12.
Two methods were presented: all fines could be raised by a certain percentage or the top six most-
frequently issued violations could be increased. The group decided on raising the top six because
the majority of the City's fine revenues are derived from these particular violations. The amounts
of the increases range from$3 to$5 per violation.
i Proposed Mnual
If Violation Increase Revenue
Overtime Meter $12 to$15 100,000
No Residential Permit $20 to$25 19,000
Prohibited Parking $35 to$40 6,000
Overtime Parking $17 to$20 4,000
Night Parking 3AM-5 AM $20 to$25 3,000
Loading Zone $35 to$40 4,000
136,000
!costs 1
Printing of New citations _ (5,000)
Net Revenue ^� 131,000
Table 1:Proposed Fine Increases
The group recommended that the meter violation be raised$1 per year over a five year period after
the initial increase is approved by Council. This would add an additional $32,000 annually after the
initial increase, or$160,000 at the.end of the five years. The annual meter violation increase would
serve both as a deterrent and would likely cover inflation over the five year period. Table 1 presents
the recommendations from the group and corresponding estimated revenue enhancement (note: the
$1 annual increase recommended to start.in 2007 is not shown).
Recommendation#2: Adopt a resolution increasing meter rates as follows:
a) Effective July 1,2006:
1) Increase all Downtown core meter rates with two hour limits or less to
$1.00 an hour,
2) Increase 10-hour meter rates to$0.75 an hour.
b) Effective July 1,2009:
1) Increase all Downtown core meter rates with two hour limits or less to
$1.25 an hour,
2) Increase all 10-hour meter rates to$1.00 an hour.
Consistent with the policy of using.time limits and meter rates to organize downtown parking, the
group was asked to take a comprehensive look at all of the rates in the downtown and their
5- q
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page s
interrelation with the structures. Parking occupancies are driven primarily by convenience.
Generally drivers want to park as close as they can to their ultimate destination and pricing affects
their choice. Downtown parkers generally occupy and fill on-street meters first, then the parking
lots, and last the structures. The group recommended charging a higher rate for these higher
demand parking areas. A higher rate coupled with lower time limits will encourage more tum-over,
more available parking at the prime on-street locations, and encourage more parking in structures.
The group also recommended expanding the downtown meter core due to the new Court Street
project as well as other potential redevelopment projects. They also recommend increasing the
rates of this new expanded downtown core to $1 an hour and raising the perimeter, or non-core
meters, to $0.75 an hour. In three years these rates would increase to $1.25 and $1 an hour
respectively to keep up with inflation and construction cost increases.
Presently the downtown core meters have a rate of$0.80 an hour while the perimeter parking areas
are $0.60 an hour. This rate structure recognizes that higher demand areas should have higher rates.
The current downtown core is bordered by Marsh and Monterey on the north and south with
Nipomo and Osos on the east and west. The group decided that the downtown commercial core
should be expanded, particularly near the Palm Street structure and the new 919 Palm structure.
The meters in these areas are less per hour than in the structures, ($0.60 an hour as compared to
$0.75 an hour in the structures) which may be one reason people choose to park on the street as
opposed to the structures. The group recommended an expansion to the downtown core to include
another 154 meters to encourage more use of the Palm and 919 Palm structures. Essentially all
two-hour(or less) time limit meters will increase from $0.60 and$0.80 to$1 an hour in the core of
the downtown.
The current 10-hour meter permit rates were considered by the group as well. They recommended
that this rate should not be changed at this time in order to encourage long-term parking at the
perimeter of the downtown by employees. Table 2 presents the recommendations from the group
and corresponding estimated revenue enhancement for meter rate modifications.
Additionally
Annually 1st Beginning July
Meter Revenues Hourly Rate 3 years Hourly Rate 2009
Increasing Downtown Core Meter Zone $0.60 to$1 100,000 $1 to$1.25 25,000
Increasing Present Downtown Core Meters $0.80 to$1 92,000 $1 to$1.25 23,000
Increasing Perimeter Meters $0.60 to$0.75 110,000 $0.75 to$1 36,300
302,000 84,300
Costs __
New Meter Rate Plates _(5,000)._e____�. .__�__�._..� 5,000)
Net Revenue297,000 79,300
Total Revenue � 376;300
Table 2: Proposed Meter Rates
5S
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 6
Recommendation#3: Adopt a resolution that,effective July 1, 2009,hourly parking structure
rates will increase to a.$1 an hour.
The group considered the relationship of parking structure rates with parking meter rates and felt
that when meter rates increased the structure rates should too. Since the rates of the meters were
increased to provide for more vacancies in higher demand areas on street, the group wanted to
initially keep the structure rates lower but make sure that they increase in time as meter rates
increase. Parking in structures is currently not the preferred location, parking on the street is. The
Task Force recommends keeping the structure rates at the present rate of $0.75 an hour, but
increasing the rate to$1 an hour when the meter rates are increased in July 2009.
Proposed Beginning
Structure Revenues Increase July 2009
Increasing hourly rate(33%increase) $0.75 to$1 195,000
Costs
Signage (5,000)
Net Revenue —--190,000
Table 3: Proposed Increases in Parking Structure Rates
Recommendation #4: Adopt.a resolution that effective July 1, 2006 the hours of operation in
the Marsh Street parking structure on Monday through Wednesday will be extended to 10:00
P.m.
This recommendation was not part of the options suggested by Council in June 2005. Current hours
of operation for collecting parking revenue in the structures are Monday through Wednesday from
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Thursday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Periodically
the parking staff will keep an attendant on for a few hours after the posted ending time of 7:00 p.m.
to ensure vehicles are not staying all day and leaving just after the gate arms go up in the evenings.
The parking attendant only charges users for their parking up to 7:00 p.m. Since the opening of
Court Street the use of the Marsh structure later into the evenings (Monday through Wednesday)
has been higher than in the past. This is an area of potential revenue currently being lost due to the
restricted hours of operation. This option was presented to the group and.they agreed to include this
in their recommendations to Council. The group recommended that the Marsh Structure hours be
increased Monday through Wednesday from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Initially, staff had proposed to extend the hours of the Palm structure as well but upon further
review, determined that there are not that many vehicles parking after 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Wednesday. The Marsh Structure still has vehicles entering and exiting as late as 10:00 p.m.
Council may want to consider including Palm and 919 Palm once the Chinatown development is
open and parking demand increases in the area.
Revenues
Marsh 32,100
Costs -------
Booth Attendant (5,900)
Net Revenue(thereafter) _ 26,200
Table 4: New Hours of Operation for the Marsh Street Structure
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 7
Recommendation #5: Adopt a resolution that prior to July 1, 2006 parking meters will be
added on the following streets:
a) 1400 to 1500 Blocks on the north side and on the south side adjacent to Pacheco
School of Slack(Grand to Hathway)
The group looked at Slack Street from Grand Avenue to Hathway that is next to Cal Poly. This
area is heavily parked by those who seek to avoid paying parking fees to park on campus. There are
residential permit districts on the south side of Slack Street in this area. The option would add
approximately one hundred 10-hour meters to these blocks and capture revenue from this high
demand area. Those wishing to park at these meters could pay with coins or more likely obtain 10-
hour meter permits at a cost of $40 a month. The unanimous consensus of the group was to
recommend this option and install approximately 100, 10-hour meters. Because there is a
Residential Parking District that includes the opposite side of Slack St., the group felt that the
addition of meters would not be a major factor to those residents.
Rev—
enues
Revenue Estimate(100 meters x$40/month x 9) 36,000
[costs
Meter,pole,sleeve,&.installation 100 meters x$550 (55,000)
CNet Revenue(Year 1) (19,000)
(Net Revenue(thereafter) 36,000
Table 5: Slack Street Meters
b) Monterey Street(Toro to California)
The downtown has been expanding north with more commercial activity above Santa Rosa and
therefore more demand for on-street parking has occurred in this area. Currently the parking is
organized with time restrictions of 2-hour and 30 minute time zones using signs and painted curbs.
The group considered adding meters that match these time zones. Along with the increased
revenue the meters would bring, there would be better management of these limited parking spaces.
Time zones require an officer to record license plates and times, and then return after the set time
limit to enforce violations. With parking meters, an officer can quickly see who is in violation and
therefore help to increase the parking space turnover for the area businesses and offices. The group
was unanimously supportive of this option. The group suggested holding a public meeting for
those affected in the area. Staff was unable to schedule this meeting before this report went to
Council; however, notices have been sent to affected businesses making them aware of the Council
meeting to consider the issue.
Revenue Estimate-Coins(50 meters x$600) 30,000
Revenue Estimate-Fines(50 meters x$400) 20,000
Costs
Meter,pole,sleeve,&installation 5 meters x$550 (27,500)
Net Revenue(Year 1) 22,500
Net Revenue(thereafter) 50,000
Table 6:Monterey Street Meter Extension
5-7
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 8
C) 1000 Block of Peach (between Santa Rosa and Osos)
d) 1000 Block of Pacific(between Santa Rosa and Osos)
e) 700 Block of Pismo (between Chorro and Broad)
The group considered all the above streets that are part of the downtown parking meter zone that
currently do not have parking meters. Staff provided aerial pictures and zoning maps of all these
non-metered areas. Staff also provided occupancy reports to show how these streets were being
parked during the day. Based upon the zoning maps, the group recommends installing 10-hour
meters on the 1000 Block of Peach, the 1000 Block of Pacific, and 700 Block of Pismo to coincide
with high demand areas. The rationale is that streets predominantly zoned as office should be
metered, while the streets zoned for higher density residential should not be metered at this time.
The group considered the impact of this decision on the residential areas on the perimeter of the
downtown area. As with many of the recommendations, increased prices and metering may
contribute to future demand of residential parking permit districts caused by downtown parkers who
avoid paying for parking. There was unanimous support of the addition of meters on the 1000
blocks of Peach and Pacific. The RQN representative and Old Town resident representative
objected to adding meters on the 700 block of Pismo. They were concerned about adding meters
because they felt it would push the employees seeking free parking further into the surrounding
neighborhood. (See Attachment 2 for proposed meter locations.)
1000 BLOCK OF PEACH
Estimated Revenue(28 meters x$480) 12,600
Installation Costs(28 meters x$550) (15,400)
Net Revenue(1 st Year) (2,800)
Net Revenue(Thereafter) 12,600
1000 BLOCK OF PACIFIC
Estimated Revenue(26 meters x$480) 12,480
Installation Costs(26 meters x$550) (14,300)
Net Revenue(1st Year) (1,820)
Net Revenue(Thereafter) 12,480
700 BLOCK OF PISMO
Estimated Revenue(23 meters x$480) 11,040
Installation Costs(23 meters x,$550) (12,650)
Net Revenue(1st Year) (1,610)
Net Revenue(thereafter) 11,040
Total 36,120
Table 7: Meter Extensions on Peach,.Pismo and Pacific
J X
I .
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 9
Recommendation #6: Adopt a resolution that effective July 1, 2006, the City will implement
meter rates and enforcement for on-street meters and meters in public parking lots on
Sundays between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. There will be no charges for parking in public
parking structures.
This option generated the most discussion, consideration and controversy. The City has a long
tradition of not charging or enforcing parking on the Sunday. Traditionally, there was not as much
commercial activity downtown generating parking demand so many church attendees and shoppers
could park for free with minimal parking restrictions. In recent years, downtown commercial
activities have increased on Sundays. Many of the downtown merchants are in favor of this
recommendation because parking is not as available for customers as it is from Monday to
Saturday. It is theorized that many employees park on the streets and in the lots near their place of
work which discourages customer parking. Parking staff randomly sampled the downtown to get
an idea of average Sunday business hours. The average hours were 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Based on this
sample along with the merchants' support of managing parking on Sundays, it appears there is a
need for this option beyond just the revenue benefits. The downtown churches strongly opposed
this option. They have had a long tradition of parking without having to pay for parking or
worrying about posted time limits on Sundays. The feeling was that having to pay for parking on
Sundays was potentially disruptive to church services and activities, and that they were somehow
being treated differently than other interests. (See Attachment 3 for map of downtown churches.)
Staff presented multiple scenarios with several hours of operation for the group to consider.
Scenarios ranged from charging at the 2 hour meters (or not), 10 hour meters (or not), and in the
structures (or not). Within each scenario were times ranging from 9 hours a day(9 a.m.-6 p.m.)to 5
hours a day (1 p.m.-6 p.m). The group came to a consensus on one scenario that seemed to work
for most competing interests. All on-street meters and parking lot meters would operate from 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. and leave the parking structures at no-charge for employee and church use. Parking
enforcement would be in effect during the same time frame. The group reasoned that the higher
demand was on the street, the structures have higher operating costs, and it would provide some
free parking for Sunday vehicles including the church attendees. The Ministerial Association
representative remained opposed to this or any option of charging on Sundays. The continued
opposition was based on the idea that other options, such as increased in-lieu fees or assessment
districts, have not been evaluated enough. The Churches felt that further work needed to be done in
order to consider which options could provide revenue with less impact. Even this compromise
position, free parking in the structures, could be reversed later, causing a greater impact to the
church congregations.
Staff supports this "compromise" for the Sunday service recommendation. It meets the needs of
retailers and merchants in downtown and it provides a free parking option for employees and
church attendees. Sunday parkers are using public parking facilities and contributing to the
maintenance and upkeep without currently paying for this benefit on Sundays. Another reason for
supporting this option is the proximity of the three main churches to the existing parking structures.
It was reasoned that church attendees could utilize the closest structure with minimal inconvenience
and not be charged for parking.
�- 9
I
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 10
SI unday'Meter Operations&En"forcements 9AM 6PM
Parking meters&Fines(1st 3 years) 143,600
Parking meters&Fines(After 3 years) 35,900
Costs
Contract Services-Officer (5,900)
Contract Service-citation processing (8,000)
Laundry-Uniforms (500)
Printing _ (3,000)
Net Revenue 162,100
Table 8: Sunday Parking
Summary of Recommended Revenue Enhancements
Table 9 indicates the cumulative net revenue associated with the proposed parking revenue options.
It recognizes and assumes that the meter increases previously recommended are adopted. If any of
the previous recommendations are not adopted, the figures below would have to be recalculated.
Recommendations Net Revenue
Increase top 6 parking violations 131,000
Increase meter violation$1 a year for 5 years 160,000
Increase Meter Rates&Expand Downtown Core 376,300
Increase Structure Rate(3 years after Meter increase) 190,000
Add Meters to Slack Street 36,000
Sunday-Charging and Enforcement of the Meters 162,100
Add Meters on Monterey(Toro to Calif.) 50,000
Add Meters on 1000 Peach,1000 Pacific&700 Pismo 36,120
Extend Marsh Hours-Mon.to Wed 26,200
_1,167,720
Table 9: Parking Revenue from Task Force Recommendations
Options Considered But Not Recommended at this Time
a) Charge less for the V Hour in City Structures; or Eliminate the V Hour
The group considered charging a lower rate for the first hour in the parking structures or eliminating
the first hour free entirely. Since the parking structures are not currently the preferred parking
choice and higher meter rates are being recommended, every effort should be made to encourage
parking in the structures. There are twice as many vehicles that park for less than an hour than
those who pay. If the City charged a discounted rate or charged the regular hourly rate there would
be a financial benefit however, more of those vehicles would decide to park on the streets, in
parking lots, or the adjacent neighborhoods.
b) Add Parking Meters on the 600 Block of Pahn
Staff had proposed to add parking meters on the side of the 600 block of Palm next to Mission High
School. The residential side of the street is metered and under utilized because parking is open and
free of charge across the street. Staff estimates the annual revenue could be up to $12,000 once
initial start up costs have been covered. However, Mission High School is opposed to metered
parking because the street is used by students, staff and faculty who are unable to park on site and
parking on site is very limited at this time. The group did not think that the revenue was significant
5-10
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 11
enough to add the meters at this time. The group agreed with staff that once the Palm-Nipomo
structure is built, meters would have to be added on this block. It would not make sense to build an
expensive structure with open street parking in close proximity.
C) Reduce Costs on Sundays
This option was discussed by the group and not recommended. Since the group is recommending
charging at the street meters and parking lots with structures at no cost on Sundays, this option
became moot. There was also concern for having different rate structures during one day of the
week with another rate structure 6 other days. This would lend itself to confusion for the public
using the City's parking facilities..
d) Increase Parking In-Lieu Fees
There was limited discussion on this option. Although the group accepted the fact that it costs the
City significantly more than our present rate of$12,000 a space, they recognized that higher In-lieu
fees can deter redevelopment. The group considered some options for increases but failed to reach
any consensus on increasing these fees. They left this issue alone, not feeling confident that they
could accurately come up with an appropriate amount for an in-lieu fee.
f) Assessment District
There was limited discussion on this option. The special legal requirements and special elections
that an assessment district requires were a large deterrent. Also, the City has used Parking In-Lieu
fees to serve the same purpose. As with the In-lieu fee option, the group failed to come to a
consensus on this option or a firm recommendation for Council consideration,except for Council to
direct staff to investigate the option further.
FISCAL IMPACT
If all recommendations are approved, it will result in an annual net increase of $1,167,720 to
parking revenues, with some increase over time due to annual meter increases recommended for the
next five years.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could revise and/or change the recommendations provided by the Task Force.
2. Council could extend or shorten the recommended implementation dates.
3. Council could recommend additional revenue enhancement options.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution
2. Maps of Existing and Proposed Meter Rates
3. Relationship of Churches to Parking Structures
I:\_CAR Repom\2006\Parking\CAR Pkg Task Force Recommendationsv&DOC
5� �
I
ATTACHMENT j
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INCREASED PARKING CITATION FINES;
INCREASED PARKING METER& STRUCTURE RATES; INCREASED HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR THE MARSH STREET STRUCTURE; INSTALLATION OF
ADDITIONAL PARKING METERS; THE ADDITION OF SUNDAY PARKING
SERVICES; AND REPEALING INCONSISTENT FEES, FINES,AND HOURS IN
PRIOR RESOLUTIONS.
WHEREAS, State law provides, in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5, that cities establish
the amount of parking penalties, fees and surcharges; and
WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City to recover administrative fees,parking
penalties, fees and collection costs related to civil debt collection, late penalties and other related
charges; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS,the City has the support of the Downtown Association and the Chamber of
Commerce to implement changes in the parking structure and lot rates;and
WHEREAS,the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of
the parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the City needs to financially support the operation and debt service of the
next City parking structure; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff report and held a public hearing on the
proposed changes to the parking structure rates and hours and monthly and daily fees for
parking.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Effective July 1, 2006 Modify Parking Fines as follows:
a) increase expired meter violation (SLOMC Section 10.52.050) to $15, and an
additional $1 each year thereafter for five subsequent years,
b) increase no residential permit violation (SLOMC Section 10.36.200) to $25,
c) increase prohibited parking violation(SLOMC Section 10.36.040)to $40,
d) increase overtime parking violation(SLOMC Section 10.40.010) to $20,
5-r0
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. _(2006 Series)
Page 2
e) increase overnight parking, 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. violation (SLOMC Section
10.40.080)to $25, and
increase commercial loading zone violation(SLOMC Section 10.44.030) to $40
SECTION 2. Modify Parking Meter and Structure Rates as follows:
1.) Effective July 1, 2006:
a) increase all Downtown core meter rates with 2 hour limits or less to $1.00 an
hour,
b) increase all 10-Hour meter rates to $0.75 an hour.
2.) Effective July 1, 2009:
a) increase all Downtown core meter rates with 2 hour limits or less to $1.25 an
hour,
b) increase all 10-Hour meter rates to $1.00 an hour.
3.) Effective July 1, 2006 increase hours of operation in the Marsh Street parking
structure Monday through Wednesdays until 10:00 p.m.
4.) Effective July 1, 2009, increase all hourly structure rates to $1 an hour.
SECTION 3. Prior to July 1, 2007, install additional parking meters as follows:
a) add parking meters on Slack Street (1400 to 1500 Blocks on the north side and
on the south side adjacent to Pacheco School) from Grand to Hathway
b) add parking meters on Monterey Street (between Toro and California)
c) add parking meters on 1000 Block of Peach(between Santa Rosa and Osos)
d) add parking meters on 1000 Block of Pacific (between Santa Rosa and Osos)
e) add parking meters on 700 Block of Pismo (between Chorro and Broad)
SECTION 4. Effective July 1, 2006 begin Sunday Parking Services as follows:.
a) Implement meter rates and enforcement for on-street meters and meters in
public parking lots on Sundays between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. There will be
no charges for parking in public parking structures.
Upon motion of Council Member ,seconded by Council Member_and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution No. _(2006 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21 st day of February, 2006.
David F. Romero,Mayor
ATTEST
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED
IgnathAdLowell, City Attorney
�5�y
� o
L L
O C wQ'
O
♦ moi+ Ej O
♦ 2
-ate ei �
YL Ck o 2 Qj`QYoQ
O C
eq
`�y�
rr ��
♦ �°,, e� m�p3a o
m _
♦ J �°= pa
100 �fl° rev
o
r g
d
s a Y so
WMCS `�•4 p � C
o �
O
.. rl
en O
C ri L�
O
y
O
u
0
w
a�
L
y N �
z �
L
0
� - -fir-- -- -- -V- - - a
o
I �
s
ATTADA 993
w
U
2 w Vsoa V1NVS
U) J
D) CF) L
L)
li CL U
r
LLl L
W
Z Q V
K d
c9 Soso
= o
}L
T
ianoo
ONNOW
LL
O
Oaa0HO m
y
c a
0
N
in
S
d
� NaaaVo
W
J
J
aVOaa
avoaa
u
W
z
z
OWOdIN
a I E
0
-� 7
iii!IIIIIIIIIIII���������IU��������
council mcm-oizanoum
lciq of sanLuis obis a. anmmim;ka ion & aiitment.
DATE: February 21, 2006 RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETINCIAGENDA
TO: City Councilp T 0 ITEM # FEB 21 2006
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SL0 CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: Sunday Parking: A Tough Decision With.Many Considerations
The question of whether or not to institute parking meter charges on Sundays creates a tough and
emotional issue. This is understandable. Clearly, people attending church on Sunday's are
doing a good thing, for the right reasons. No one involved in this process wishes to discourage
church attendance. Indeed, some people involved in this process attend the same churches that
are expressing concerns about the proposed meter charges on Sundays.
When it comes to public policy making, however, we must keep the issue of equitable treatment
at the forefront of our considerations, and in this respect, the following should be said: People
use downtown San Luis Obispo to support innumerable good causes and to perform innumerable
good deeds every single day of the week—but we do not waive parking meter charges for
parkers promoting these other good purposes.
People use the downtown during the week for church business or to attend funerals. People park
downtown in order to serve as volunteers at the Library,the Children's' Museum, the Historic
Museum, the Little Theater, and many special events. People come downtown to meet in
support of important human service causes, such as homeless services, cancer prevention or child
abuse. People visit the downtown to participate at public meetings, like the Board of
Supervisors, the Human Relations Commission or the City Council. The list of good causes
hosted within Downtown buildings or in public places is very long, indeed.
In fact, it is not uncommon for staff to be asked to waive parking tickets because the parking
violation was incurred while the driver was visiting the downtown for a "good cause." However,
our parking policies are not designed to judge one parking purpose as more worthy than another;
they are simply designed to create appropriate parking turnover in support of all downtown
users, services and businesses. On Sundays, however, we have terrible parking turnover and
individuals are dominating parking spaces to the detriment of the downtown overall.
To deal with this problem, the Task Force has recommended the initiation of parking meter
charges on Sunday's—but with a"twist" that does not rigorously adhere to "perfect equity."
Instead, by recommending all-day free use of nearby parking structures, the Task Force is
promoting an approach that is more sensitive to one particular group of parking users: those who
attend Sunday services at the Mission, Presbyterian and Grace churches. Staff concurs with this
recommendation and believes that it holds the added benefit of getting downtown employees
"off the street" and into the structures (rather than further into the surrounding neighborhood).
Sunday Parking CAO Memo
Change is always difficult, and for many years parking has been free on Sundays. It is
understandable that people would not be happy about that practice changing. The Council, as
usual, is in the difficult role of making the decision. The decision, in my opinion, must strongly
consider three main things:
1. Equity with respect to other downtown parking meter users (which includes church
services that take place on other days of the week);
2. Your level of satisfaction with the status quo in terms of Sunday parking meter turnover;
and
3. Your comfort in waiving an important component of the funding needed to support our
next parking structure.
Given these considerations, it is my recommendation that the Council adopt the compromise put
forth by the Parking Revenue Task Force. This compromise does create some change, but it also
assures that over 1,100 parking spaces remain free on Sundays — a number that will climb even
higher, if we have the resources needed to complete another structure in the future.
One final, related closing note: The Council has directed the staff to reactivate study of an Old
Town Parking District after 919 Palm is open and our new baseline better understood.
W
lW COUNCIL CT $,CDD DIR
E�-CAO &c FIN DIR
E4ACAO i�FIRE CHIEF
MATTORNEY DPW DIR
4;5 CLERK/ORIG �'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 5�—REC DIR
Pig 2�UTIL DIR
C7 '�a3u..eF gHRDIR
RED FILE FFEB
ED
MEETING AGENDA 0062/21/20067ATEa i to ITEM #�S LERK
Dear Members of the Council,
1 am writing this letter to inform you of my concerns of adding parking meters to the
1000 block of Pacific Street. In the Parking Task Force Review it states that the 1000
block of Pacific is predominantly "zoned" as offices. The area is zoned as offices,but
there are also many residences the council may be unaware of. There is an apartment
complex, a four plex and several single- family homes on the block. The offices in the
area have their own parking lots leaving most of the street parking for residents. As a
resident of this area I feel adding parking meters to the area is unfair to the residents. I
also feel by adding parking meters the street will lose its neighborhood charm.
In addition the home my husband and I live in shares a 1 car garage and driveway with
my neighbor. This leaves only street parking for us and my neighbors. I believe there
are better areas in the core downtown area to generate revenue.
Denise Lamed
1060 Pacific St
San Luis Obispo
CA 93401
gajfaaw[d- l-w.n
I9 COUNCIL -5L CDS DIR
CAOFIN D,R
ACAO 6-FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DiR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS �-: REC DIR
i �� FRUTIL DIR
tyH;;r),R
RECEIVED
RED FILE FEB 21 2006
MEETING AGENDA
DATE-12-"ITEM #� S SLO CITY CLERK
2/20/06
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Linda Hampton. I am 101 years old. Due to my
advanced age I am unable to attend the meeting in person, but do
want my feeling on adding parking meters known. I own the
house at 1060 Pacific Street and have owned it since the 1940's.
The residences on this block use the street to park because of
limited garage and lot space. I have seen many many changes to
the downtown area good and not so good. Adding parking meters
this block would fall under not so good.
I understand the need to raise funds to provide more
downtown parking. However, the residents of my block will be
providing an unfair share of cost for future parking structures if
you install meters. Please target downtown shoppers and not
community residents for your parking revenue needs. Please look
for revenue solutions in the heart of downtown and not outlying
neighborhood and office areas.
15 COUNCIL U CDD DIR
�Q �� 'P CAO FIN DIR
�� � IR ACAO FIRE CHIEF
10 ATTORNEY Y PW DIR
13 CLERK/ORIG [>POLICE CHF
❑ D T HEADS a REC DIR
Linda HamptonIV UTIL DIR
� ?'EIlyi.�aF SHR DIR
AEETING., ; AGENDA # RECEIVED
)ATE - i'a°° ITEM #.P..t._5 COUNCIL -K CDD DIR I
FEB 21 2006 JQ CAO �R FIN DIR
R ACAO ;Fc� FIRE CHIEF
SLO CITY CLERK 15�ATTORNEY fns PW-DIR
9 CLERK/ORIG -R POLICE CHF �I
02-19-06 ❑ DEPT HEADS F REC DIR
p 1 ® UTIL DIR
6-d�2�bunN �rHRDIR
Dear City Council Members,
I can't describe how vehemently I oppose plans to begin charging on Sundays for parking in the downtown
core without protecting the surrounding neighborhoods from another day of takeover.Do any of you have
any idea what it is like to live with cars coming into your neighborhood,parking all day(and often badly at
that,by taking more than one space)and into the night. Yeah...around 7:30am.Now till 12pm.,with space
availability under 5 minutes during peak demand hours. So I ask why do myself and all of my neighbors
have to practice adaptive living skills to function in our neighborhood? Conditions weren't like this before
and have gone from bad to worse.We now have employees of downtown parking a full two blocks out of
the metered core and not in the garages where they belong.
As you know or may not know 8 years ago The Downtown Neighborhood Association tried to form a
parking district encompassing Pismo and Buchon Streets from Toro to Beach Streets with an 89%support
rate for the district.We met all the guidelines to form such a district and the city council was shocked. To
close to downtown. Let us build another parking garage(Marsh St. expansion built). You've already raised
parking rates once or twice.What have you done for us,the residents who have to put up with difficulty in
parking in front of our own homes let alone having someone come over to visit or a contractor come for
service work.How about the trash and cigarette butts left in the gutters that never get swept.Aggravating
car alarms set on hair trigger sensitivity that go off when a car with modified exhaust or a subwoofer pass
by. Ever been wedged in so you can't get out or it takes you 8-10 tries.Did somebody park in front of
your garbage cans again so they didn't get emptied.Need I go on.Downtown is the problem and I don't
believe the City and the B.I.A.are treating us as patrons and supporters of the downtown with the respect
we deserve. These feelings are echoed by many of my neighbors.
Saturday and Sunday mornings are the one time that we can run errands till about loam. And still have half
a chance of returning to a spot near our residence.By making the meters active on Sundays you will foist
more church patrons in the early hours into my immediate neighborhood and that will be followed up by
employees and shoppers later in the day. Please give us a break! The Parks desire to rent out the new
gazebo in Mithchell Park for weddings and concerts, art in the park,W.O.W.week etc.,Farmers
market(which I truly enjoy) only add to our woes.
Personally I feel it is time to consider placing parking meters a full two blocks out from where they exist
now,issue residential placards allowing residents to park in the metered areas,and take the revenue
generated by the neighborhoods and use it exclusively to benefit the community(not downtown)ie keep the
library open one night a week,aquire more open space, street trees,park improvements without reducing
existing funding levels. I also believe that some sort of monetary incentive program be started to get
employees to leave their cars at home, carpool, ride the bus,ride a bike,or walk. In City generated parking
literature remind them that parking and tolls are a tax deductable expense. Please paint or sleeve parking
meters with different colors to denote their different rate structures. Maybe you should start a shuttle from
the railroad parking area to get employees downtown. I can only say;get the all day, everyday people out
of our neighborhoods now. We'll take transient shopper traffic,then at least we have a chance to park
ourselves. I know what I have just said goes against the B.I.A.s stance of wanting employees to park in
the neighborhoods leaving parking for their patrons;but all day,everyday and into the night is to much to
ask of us on a continuing basis. I for one and my neighbors signed below are residents for residential access
yam,
iyw/ye-zoze
U�
, -_-
�
Eeu
i
a>
+ c F
� v.. *..-.fl n s-w tc�� rbC.¢ .S- rw /a..,fc• n
s -� �` r c Y�e,,xyrt^{xa r cayYv t.':w�'^�.;.o.�s ��.x�Y''�'.•'� 4.,.» I
�YrY ...Let +n'c�i� %��:, - A�Si'e� _,Sri ,�✓Stw I n- � '
♦ � yy .� TDF �Ia �i I� :.39
�. � f� U�' ,. �fir -c`v��`t�•�,�.. II
Ut
• 11 E 1
-90
lu
+M
u
1� _ <1tr0i J 'r ••_� _
l