HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2006, BUS 3 - CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A DRIVEWAY PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM council
j acEnda nEpoat
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Robert Horch,Parking Services.Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A DRIVEWAY PERMIT PARKING
PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Deny the request to establish a driveway permit parking program under the authority of
California Vehicle Code Section 22507.2.
2. Direct staff to continue issuing parking citations to individuals who park at driveways
adjacent to businesses or residences.
DISCUSSION
During public comment at the January 4, 2006 City Council Meeting, Mike Spangler a Downtown
business and property owner, requested that Council establish a permit parking program at
driveways for property owners or direct staff to stop issuing parking citations to business owners
who park at driveways adjacent to their business. Council directed staff to agendize this issue for
consideration.
Mr. Spangler has made this request to staff twice before, and two different Parking Managers have
denied the requests. The reasons for the past denials are discussed in this report and described in
letters of correspondence to Mr. Spangler (Attachment 1). Mr. Spangler's arguments for the
program are described in Attachment 2. The issue has also been discussed at several Downtown
Association Parking Committee meetings and to date, the Downtown Association has not taken
formal stance on the proposal.. During the previous discussions on this topic, several options were
offered by staff to address the perceived parking concerns for this area including adding a
commercial loading zone or lowering parking meter time limits, but neither of these options was
acceptable to Mr. Spangler. At present, cars continually park at the driveway in the area adjacent to
his business (664 Marsh) and receive parking citations for their driveway violation as would any
other vehicle doing the same throughout the City.
Current Law Enforced in the City
City staff continues to enforce California Vehicle Code Section 22500(e) which states:.
No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or
unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in
compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in
any of the following places:
e)In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged as a
common carrier, schoolbus, or a taxicab may stop to load or unload
passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 2
This law has been in effect since 1959. Clearly it does not make any exception for local business
owners to exclusively park at driveways that access their business on a street. Any vehicle that is
stopped or parked blocking any driveway is subject to a parking citation or removed.
� 1 i
a
Figure 1—Example of Vehicle Parked at 664 Marsh Driveway and Red curb in Downtown
Prior to 2001, the City had a lax practice of enforcing vehicles parked at driveways in the
Downtown area. While not a formal written policy, the intent was to allow some discretion in
enforcement of the above provision. In 2001 that practice changed. The City began receiving
complaints regarding vehicles parked at driveways that were causing sight restrictions, safety
concerns and access issues. In reviewing the complaints, it was determined that the best practice
was to revise our enforcement efforts of the drive cuts and begin enforcing the law in a consistent
and equitable manner. In March 2001 notice was given to adjacent business owners of Downtown
driveways where this decision might affect parking practices.
The Requested Proposal
Mr. Spangler's request is for the City to stop issuing parking citations to certain driveways similar
to the one at 664 Marsh (what we did prior to 2001) or provide a new program pursuant to
California Vehicle Code Section 22507.2 which states:
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 costs of issuing and administering the
,3- 2
1 � 1
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 3
permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize
parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500.
The rationale behind the request is that it would provide more parking for certain businesses (thus
alleviating some parking demand) and make revenue for the City's Parking Fund to administer this
program. While these may be outcomes of the proposed program request, staff continues to
recommend against this type of program.
Driveway Permit Program Background
There is legal authority for the City to consider and implement a permit program under Section
22507.2. The issue is whether it is right for San Luis Obispo to do so. Mr. Spangler's proposal was
previously denied by staff because of concerns regarding fairness, liability and safety
A significant underlying theme of City parking enforcement is a duty to fairly and objectively
enforce all provisions of California Vehicle Code and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. While
we have certain discretions, in order to justify our operations to the public we should strive to make
sure that no business owner, tenant, citizen should be treated differently when enforcing parking
provisions. At its very core, the driveway parking proposal would set property owners with drive
cuts "apart" from other property owners in the Downtown. Simply put, if you are a property with a
drive cut you would have a guaranteed space. If not, you would have to do what everyone else does
- find available parking.
Staff researched other cities that have adopted a reserved driveway parking program and found only
three. Long Beach is going to eliminate their program because no applications were filed. Their
program was limited to residential areas. Hermosa Beach issues permits to residential
neighborhoods because their City lacks adequate parking off street but do not issue permits the in
commercial areas. Santa Monica has issued only two permits issued for commercial properties.
One property with a 30 foot driveway allows parking with a permit perpendicular to the street. The
other permit is rarely used. To quote the Santa Monica Transportation Department staff, "we have
no program." Many cities have considered such a program but did not adopt them for many of the
same reasons included in this report. Many expressed concerns over having inconsistent parking
laws where it is approved for some but not for others.
Reasons for Request Denial
1.Safety and Liability Concerns. Driveways are not intended for parking but to provide access to
property or buildings. Similarly, all driveways are not created equal in San Luis Obispo; they have
different lengths and sizes. An appropriate length of parking stall is generally 22-26' in length.
Staff's review of the five driveways in the Downtown revealed that only half would either meet this
standard. (This is discussed below in Section Four)
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 4
r
r
i
i � Y
n l
s
Figure 2—Example of Delivery Vehicle Half in Driveway,Half parked on sidewalk and red curb
Additionally, staff has monitored these driveways and their continued use by vehicles. Figure 2 is
an example of an illegally and unsafely parked vehicle at one such driveway even though red curb
is clearly marked. This is an example of the problems associated with a lax enforcement proposal or
permit program. If drivers don't obey the laws now, can we expect them to do so when some
driveways may allow parking and others don't?Our conclusion is that we can't.
Similarly, liability is a critical issue to consider. Driveways, in and of themselves are not designed
to have cars parked and pedestrians entering and exiting at the driveway apron. It is unknown what
level of exposure the City might incur if an incident occurred where a pedestrian was struck or hurt
at an officially sanction permit location where it has not been designed to separate cars from
pedestrians.
2. New Administrative System Since driveways are not all created equal, an approval process
would need to be developed. Several city departments and programs would have to review a
proposed location including Police,Fire,Traffic Engineering, Public Works, Risk Management and
Parking. Signs would have to be purchased, installed and maintained. Permits would have to be
ordered, kept track of and monitored. Additional staff time would be needed to field complaints
and enforce another special parking area. This system would require staff time and resources when
of the already severely impacted parking service operations.
3. Inconsistent Message to Public. Staff is concerned about the inconsistent message this type of
program could send. There is a potential for the misinterpretation that parking is allowed in
driveways throughout the City. A driver may see a car parked at an approved driveway, not observe
the permit or permit sign, and park in an unsanctioned driveway. While there would be signs and
permits at approved locations, the public (particularly tourists) may not notice this detail. This
9 -Y
l
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 5
occurs presently with our commercial loading zone permit program that allows non-commercially
licensed vehicles to park at yellow curbs.
Similarly, because the proposed spaces are adjacent to a driveway it is anticipated turnover will be
minimal. From the public's perspective vehicles would be able to park all day in front of the
driveway... Staff feels this will cause the wrong impression with some members of the public who
will see the proposed program as one of privilege geared to those few who have driveways and
money to pay,a premium for their designated parking use.
4. No Driveway is the same. In Downtown, staff has identified five possible driveway locations
that could request a permit. They are all different in character and size. One location (between 686
& 690 Fhguera) is between McLintocks and Vieni Vai, the narrow driveway that is used as a single
off-street parking space. Another location at 579 Marsh is for access to a storage garage for Couch
Potato Furniture. Another driveway located at 640 Marsh is for British Imports who uses the
driveway to move cars in and out of their building. "SLO Works"at 664 Marsh has rollup doors to
move assorted cars and welding projects in and out of the building: The last location, at 657 Marsh
is a shared driveway between Dr. Poe's garage and a storage unit believed to be used by Old
Country Deli. Staff measured each of these driveways to determine their length to compare them to
the general engineering standard for on-street parallel parking spaces of 22 to 26 feet.
a. Driveway.between 686 and 690 Higuera 18' 3"
b. Driveway at 579 Marsh 15' 6"
c. Driveway at 640 Marsh 18' 9"
d. Driveway at 664 Marsh 22' 8"
e. Driveway at 657 Marsh 20' 9"
All of the locations except for 664 Marsh do not meet the minimum general engineering standard of
22 foot length. While some may be able to be parked at, depending on the need for perpendicular
access, the total number of new parking spaces created by such a program would probably be less
than 5 and more likely half. In and of itself, staff does not believe that a new program should be
created to deal with a select few problematic locations.
5. Citywide Issue or A Few Locations. Vehicles in the driveway for the business at 664 Marsh
have made up a quarter of the total citywide driveway violations within the last four years. Records
indicate that of the 478 citations for parking in driveways issued citywide, 122 were issued to
vehicles located at this location.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Loading Zone. In reviewing prior requests, staff proposed other means to meet the needs for the
500 and 600 blocks of Marsh. As mention, one reason for this permit program request is the need
for additional commercial activities in the area. Staff has concluded that space for a commercial
loading zone on Marsh is possible in these blocks however, the trade off would be some conversion
of parking space locations. As seen in Figure 2 above, allowing the driveways to open up as
commercial loading areas can be problematic and at other times, unsafe. If commercial loading is a
v/ —S
Parking Task Force Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Page 6
problem, then the City should work with area businesses to develop appropriate loading zone
locations.
2. Shorter Meters. Another option that staff has proposed is to lower the time limits of the parking
meters next to 664 Marsh. Currently the meters have two hour limits. Staff has recommended
lower time limits of 30 or 15 minutes to provide for increased vehicle turn-over. This option was
previously rejected because the vehicles parked at 664 Marsh are parked for many hours.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Previous Correspondence with Mr. Spangler
2. Mr. Spangler's Request
3. Driveway Cuts in the Downtown
I:\—CAR Reports\2006\Parking\CAR Drivecut Permit Parking.DOC
)ATTACHMENT 1
cityo f sAn IUIS OBISPO
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.
J- 7
NThe 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.
ATIAL:r;w1ENT �-
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) 781-723.4 if
you would like to discuss this or other issues.
Sincerely,
Robert Horch,
Parking Manager
1260 Chorro St. Suite B
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
c: Tim Bochum
Mike McCluskey
LAD=ment Management\Non Geo Based DocumentACitizen Cmrespmdence\S-Wpangler,MikelSpangler Respdoe
. •• ,�1 At I1-'%.,• Av1ENT
citylull OBIS O
PARKING OPERATIONS • 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781.7230 • 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 cuss in the downtown area has been forwarded to 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 packers,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 finther action on this
matter.
However,the City will continue to pursue the establishment of a commercial loading
® The(Sty 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
zone on the 600 block of Marsh Street, if it is supported by the affected businesses on the
block.
S'ncezely,
Keith alewski
Parking-Manger
c: Downtown Association
Public Works
City Attorney
Administration
M kespanglerordiname response
�'
ATTACHMENT 2
5/8/03
Drive Cut Parking Proposal
This is a request to the Downtown Association 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
To start the program,five property owners in the 500 and 600 block of
Marsh are willing to pay$50 per month to continue parking in their drive cuts.
The fee would be paid one year in advance upon approval of the council and
yearly thereafter.
A drive cut parking association would be established to administer the program
to insure that all fees are paid in advance to the city and.handle disputes if they
occur.
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. That action
resulted in those vehicles that used drive cuts to park are now parking on the
street or in the street creating even more parking problems for businesses and
delivery trucks.
By allowing parking in drive cuts new parking is being created at no cost to the
city and revenue is being generated for the parking fund. All of which should be
important to a city administering a parking enterprise fund
Why Not
A letter from the Parking Manager stages property owners with drive.cuts should
not have"convenient free parking". It should be noted that all city workers
"ATTACHMENT 2
enjoy convenient.free parking at an expense of approximately$40,000 to the
parking fund.
Safety was sited as a concern but in 30 years of parking in drive cuts there has
been no reported accidents.
Administration of the program was also sited as a factor in denying a request to
reconsider the decision to for parking in drive cuts.
Conclusion
By allowing property owners to administer parking in their drive cuts, much
needed parking will be created. Employees,customers and delivery vehicles
desperately need this parking. The city should be as considerate to its customers
as it is to its employees and allow some additional parking even if it isn't free.
Best regards,
Mike Span I
Attachment 3
�9 C
c
i
40
�� / �.,t_ � ��',�a�'� VVVV�'"''••••••�"'y�fiyy'� Y N � -"lsx��'T$``st
y,, -
�.p-g"pmYy
O Y'
b L
f
� t
P ti
, • - - RECEIV � ]DIA COUNCIL IRhiAY n 11006 CAO R®ACAO HIEF'ATTORNEY 1/3/05SLO CITY CLERK ®-CLERIVORIG E CHF0 DEPT HEADS IRW W -P/g - IMF-
00 —
U-1
Drive Cut Parlang Proposal -T'�"''-'�
0 ZThis is a request to the City Council for assistance in allowing parking in drive cuts per
P ua California Vehicle Code 2500,which allows parking in drive cuts with council resolution
LU h (see below).
�
p 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 nonrefandable 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 advance and 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.
Safety was cited as a concern;however,in many years of parking in drive cuts,
no accidents have been reported. In fact, more damage 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
• i i
�illl�l Illll i Ii������� Nlllllll►I�� City Or San IUIS OBISPO
® PARKING OPERATIONS • 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7230 • 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 cuts in the downtown area has been forwarded to 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
The 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.
zone on the 600 block of Marsh Street, if it is supported by the affected businesses on the
block.
S' er
ncely,
Keith alewski
Parking Manger
c: Downtown Association
Public Works
City Attorney
Administration
Mikespanglerordinance response
san LUIS OBIS O
II111111111�IA�111111111111 III city ®�I
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.
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) 781-1234 if
you would like to discuss this or other issues.
Since ,
Robert Horch,
Parking Manager
1260 Chorro St. Suite B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
c: Tim Bochum
Mike.McCluskey
I:Oocament Management\Non Geo Based Documents\Citizen Correspondence\S-Z\Spangler,Mike\Spangler Resp.doc
doomed to failure; fee on all new development; Holley will send a memo to Council from
committee will send to Opalewski;PAIF.
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 Spangle>r's 2°" 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 zone/properties as
noted in Downtown core; 2'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
4
June 11, 2002
Keith Opalewski
Parking Operations
1260 Chorro Street
City of San Luis Obispo
We the undersigned would lice to request a loading zone on the North/West side of the
600 block of Marsh Street.
Name Company
���CCIN i aG}�S ! I✓1C' '
G
pep
irl
fYAIR
,Y
It
r
:� 1. , I it ����0 _ ��� ` r,f•
ii
Y � r
.aa _
--_ _ O
�R w
"k
2
1 - j
_moil r.
sw
A `
t
. L--'A 1•. 2 � ��41- 1199( Ic:FY ter`- - {,
1.
a .17a
�� i 1', ,{ a/ . . � fifir. '�F.,M� ,'k`f� r. ♦1 a
r�L n. e. n ��'y'1� {'i`wr�::•qa'�„a` ett a 3.,�'X / ..�.. .{- *� �� "... ..
s � i
-
i
Jr �
'otsr
.4.
.��'•,.dc' ' ' ice--- `--__
4� J
rlo, _
J �PEPSv -
3 �
� f
t �5
Ad
p
1 '
(>—:/ A. II aril �• t� P .. ..
t _
v
tow
L ---
sz-
i
, _ -
�+- s_
TV