The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/01/2008, BUS 3 - REVIEW OF OLD TOWN RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT SURVEY k council M� Dm April 1,2008 j acEnaa REpont CITY O F SAN L U I S OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF OLD TOWN RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT SURVEY CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive and consider the survey results for the Old Town Residential parking permit district, but do not take further steps to form a district at this time. DISCUSSION Staff has recently completed the Old Town Residential Parking Permit district survey and tabulated the results. Although the formation of a residential parking district in this area received positive support in years past, this most recent survey resulted in a significant opposition (71% against / 29% in favor). Based on the guidelines adopted by Council, these results indicate that the processing of a residential permit district in this area is not sufficiently supported at this time. Brief History of the Old Town Residential Parking Permit District In 1998, the residents of the Old Town residential neighborhood submitted petitions to the City for consideration of a residential parking permit district. The original petitioners, primarily from the 700 to 1000 blocks of Buchon Street, had 45 residents out of 61 in favor of a residential permit district. The petitions were based on high concentrations of non-residential parking during the day-time hours. Employees of the downtown were parking in nearby streets to avoid paying for parking downtown. During consideration of the request, staff surveyed additional streets to determine if other streets were concerned with a "domino" effect of shifting parkers or if there were more residents in favor of a district in the immediate area. On May 5, 1998, Council held a public hearing to consider the establishment of the Old Town Residential Parking Permit district. Council conceptually endorsed the district; however they postponed formal adoption until after the opening of the Marsh Street structure expansion and directed staff to work with the County staff on their parking plan for their County Government Expansion project. At the August 20, 2002 Council meeting, the Downtown Association sent a letter requesting Council delay processing of the district for at least a 6 month period after the opening.of the Marsh Street structure expansion to better establish a "baseline of the parking impact. It was reasoned that if more parking was available downtown, it would alleviate the parking in the Old Town neighborhood. Council agreed with this request and directed staff to re-survey the district six months after the opening of the Marsh structure expansion. In its decision, Council further considered a variety of other projects influencing the downtown parking baseline such as the loss r � Review of Old Town Residential Parking District Survey Page 2 of parking lot 6 for the Court Street project, the addition of the County Government building's parking structure, and the opening of the 919 Palm parking structure; all of them impacting parking demand, supply and parking demographics in downtown. In July 2007, a little more than a year after the opening of 919 Palm, Council directed staff to re-survey the district. The 2007 Survey In 2004 Council approved a new process to establish all residential parking districts to allow for more deliberation and consideration of the pros and cons of a parking district, which includes the following steps: 1. Residents conduct a"grass roots" informal survey with the assistance of City staff. 2. If more than 50% of the households are in favor of pursuing a residential parking district the City hosts a town hall meeting. 3. The City mails out a formal survey. 4. If more than 60% of households are in favor of the parking district, staff presents it to City Council for approval. If there is less than 60% support, the district must wait 12 months to be reconsidered. Thus, this older district formation request (that preceded the new guidelines) presented initial questions of how to best process the request in light of the new process. After several internal meetings it was decided that staff would take the lead and conduct the initial survey to determine if more than 50% of the residents were still interested in forming a residential parking permit district. Staff met with a representative of the Old Town neighborhood and a "Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) representative prior to conducting the survey to determine the survey boundary, proposed times of the district, and the timing of the survey. The group further agreed that some preliminary information sharing was needed to reacquaint residents with the request to form the district and inform them that a survey will be forthcoming. In order to encourage residents to respond to the survey, the Old Town and the RQN representative agreed to spend a few weekends going door-to-door with City brochures. On November 8, 2007, staff sent 971 mailings to the residents of the proposed area which included a letter, map, voting survey, the City ordinances and a brochure. The letter explained that they had until November 28, 2007 to respond. Due to a low response rate and the Thanksgiving holiday, staff added an extra week past the initial due date to promote adequate results to analyze. A copy of the packet is attached (Attachment 1). Survey Results Parking Services received 212 responses from the 971 surveys mailed in November 2007 which represents 24% of the 891 mailings actually delivered. Seventy (70) envelopes were returned as undeliverable and ten (10) were received past the deadline. 62 recipients were in favor of moving forward with the district (29%) and 150 were not in favor (71%). 3-�- Review of Old Town Residential Parking District Survey Page 3 Total Response Not In %In % Not In Surveys %p In Favor Favor Favor Favor 891 24% 62 150 29% 71% Survey Conclusion The City sent out the informal survey to determine whether a majority of the residents concerned would favor a residential parking permit district. Looking at the survey results as a whole there was clearly not sufficient support. However, viewing the results on a street-by-street basis, there are individual streets that favor a parking district at the 50% threshold as follows: In Not in IF o o 'Current Parking Block Favor _Favor Residents Respond_ Mix Controls 1400 Broad 1 0 14 7% Predominantly residential 800 Buchon 2 1 11 27% Predominantly residential 900 Buchon 2 0 9 22% Predominantly residential 1500 Chorro 1 1 4 50% Predominantly residential 1400 Garden 2 2 8 50% Predominantly residential 2-hour time limit 1300 Morro 1 1 10 20% Office/Parkin /residential Metered 1400 Ni omo 1 1 4 50% Pr-edorninantly residential 1400 Osos 1 0 6 17% Predominantly residential 700 Pismo 2 0 16 13% Metered 1000 Pismo 2 1 6 50% Church/Residential/Park Metered 1100 Pismo 4 3 42 17% Predominantly residential 1400 Santa Rosa 1 0 5 20% Residential/Park. In evaluating the numbers, it is important to note the very low overall response rates in these areas. If the blocks showing a majority interest were considered as a district, the gaps separating these blocks would present significant problems from both a public perception and enforcement perspective. In addition, many of the blocks in the above table currently have parking meters or time zones. The meters are subject to the residential meter permit program where residents can obtain permits for $5 a year to park at meters adjacent to their household. The spaces with time zones are designated for the properties with mixed office and residential uses. The adoption of a residential permit system on the blocks with time zones would restrict parking for the office and business uses. Overall Summary Ten years ago the 700-1000 blocks of Buchon Street (one of the primary groups supporting district formation) found overwhelming support for the formation of a district. The most recent survey, however, shows considerably different results. The residents indicating support of pursuing a district were sporadic by location and not concentrated in any logical boundary (See Attachment 2). While Council had "conceptually endorsed" a parking district in the area 10 years ago, the Council also recognized that the Downtown parking baseline was changing and postponed more formal action until this new baseline was established. Over the last 10 years, the 3 , 3 Review of Old Town Residential Parking District Survey Page 4 Council also modified the process for establishing districts to assure ample "grass-roots" support and boundaries that are coherent, enforceable and- to the extent possible - do not simply shift the problem to adjacent streets or neighborhoods. Both of these actions appear to have been wise ones. Due to change in parking demographics and lack of neighborhood response to the survey, the formation of a residential parking permit district does not appear to be needed at this time, and the kind of significant neighborhood-wide support that our policies seek prior to forming a district is not present. In looking at the largely "scattered" nature of those favoring a district, staff cannot foresee the potential at this time for an effective district with coherent boundaries that will minimize shifting "the burden" to adjacent streets. The guidelines recommend a 12-month period between surveys for district support and Council could ask staff to pursue another survey at that tithe. In the meantime, per earlier Council direction, staff is working with residents of the Buchon-Pismo-Johnson neighborhood to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTM) and traffic issues may change parking and access issues in the immediate areas surrounding the district once a plan is implemented. If so, a new survey of the neighborhoods might be warranted. Policies notwithstanding, the Council always maintains discretion in the formation of a district, and other alternatives are offered at the end of this report. CONCURRENCES The staff has discussed the survey results with the neighborhood and RQN representatives who initially assisted with this latest survey process. Staff informed them of the CAO recommendation and requested their feedback on where to go from here. At the time of this report, no feedback was received. FISCAL IMPACT The 2007 survey cost approximately$1,300 for the printing of surveys and maps, and postage. ALTERNATIVES Council may want to consider the following options or alternatives: 1. Council may direct staff to continue working with residents using the normal process of a grass roots survey, then a town hall meeting, and again perform the formal City survey returning to Council if there is sufficient support for the restrictions. This may generate more discussion and interest by allowing the residents to discuss the pros and cons of a residential district before the City gets further involved. However, staff would not recommend pursuing this option at least until the Buchon-Johnson NTM process has run its course, and only if the resulting plan appears to significantly alter traffic or parking habits in the larger area. 3 — q l Review of Old Town Residential Parking District Survey Page 5 2. Council may direct staff to conduct a town hall meeting with some of the streets that have 50% or more in favor of moving forward. It is not known if this will generate more interest — or more opposition - with residents. Given the overall lack of response, the lack of support for the district among those responding, and the time and cost of hosting meetings, this is not recommended by staff. 3. Council may want to go forward with conducing a subsequent public hearing and establish a district themselves. This option is not recommended because there is not sufficient support from the last survey and there may be a higher level of unknown opposition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Survey Materials 2. Map of Survey Voting Locations G:\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CAR\2008\Parking\CAR Old Town RPPD.doc 3 - � ATTACHMENT 1 l�►��i�IIhI�illllll pIIIINi�IIIA city of sAn luis O PARKING SERVICES• 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B •San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7230 • FAX (805) 781-7267 November 8, 2007 Resident/Property Owner San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Re: Proposed Residential Parking Permit District(Old Town District) Dear Resident/Property Owner: On several occasions the City has received petitions from residents living in the Old Town area regarding the formation of a residential parking permit district. The petitions were based on high concentrations of non-residential parking during day-time hours. The petitioners sought restricted parking between 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. City Council postponed consideration of this district until downtown parking supplies were improved in order to assess the parking in Old Town. It was hoped these parking expansions would decrease non-resident parking in Old Town. The City is sending out an initial survey to determine whether there is enough interest to move forward with the process. The map boundary is the survey area, not the final district boundaries which are determined by your voting. This may be the start of a phase of residential parking districts that surround the entire downtown. If the Old Town residential parking permit district is approved and implemented, the non-resident parkers will move to other residential locations around the downtown. It is very important to consider this and look at other streets around your neighborhood before making a decision. The enclosed survey allows a household to let the City know whether you are interested, or not, in pursuing a residential permit parking district on your street at this time. If 50% or more of the households are interested in moving forward, a"town hall'meeting will be scheduled to discuss the pros and cons of being in a parking district. Then, following the meeting, you will be mailed a final survey and if 60% or more households per block support the parking district, it will be taken to City Council for consideration. The initial survey form is enclosed for your feedback regarding parking in your neighborhood. Please return the survev form in the enclosed envelope no later than November 28,2007.Please remember if you do not respond you will not be counted in the percentage for or against the district. Only one vote per household is counted. A copy of pertinent Municipal Code sections regarding residential parking permit areas is enclosed for your information. A Residential Parking Permit District Information Guide is also enclosed. They provide the pros and cons of a residential permit parking district on your street. If you need more information regarding residential parking districts please contact our office. Sincerely, PARKING SERVICES Enclosures : Initial survey, applicable municipal codes sections, maps, and brochure. GATransportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuf wking\Residential Districts\Ncw District Research\01d Town\City lnitial Survey 2007 v4.doc 3 1 1/1 /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. c® �Y V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410 � • � 1 1 11 1 ' 1 1 1 • " 1 1 r � ProposedDuAntown Care Parking • Downtawn Parking District s. .L �� jt� VIII �► ''� � � T�111� �I..�ylr,X1111= '�■` Il+►� .Y° ....a �_Ii111f� adIIJ.' � IIL�..1111 i11NNN 1 Ii�dINIIN Mimi aNllt� .It1N11��i IIPNq: IIII 1111: �11ri11 INS INII�1� N�tirawlNl iAlli� WIN r, .,gill .*N� � �■ ., � ■ 11 li r �1�11 r�lr �• +� 1 1�. nulul 11111 to � 1®1 - 1111 li7<iM1 ii1'/1 ,. „� H• i1��G ■ tll/I' X11 ��M�1 .r►�1 � =� � X11■1 �� _n� : �� _ �1 111 :•-1�.. .� "�ihl 1 + 111lN r_ �.. :� =111: .a 111111 �NMhu� hrr + -:.� �... 1 .. tom'• �� ti�' !�: N .. �� Illli�iill' liL �+i;j s+r�;' i Yll ialtll: ?�� Ott, "nlri r :ttu� ri irll�li III �IiRii '1� 1 f•.bU1 = 11 ! !Illpll! et1iIIN �11111'� �,ri_ :Iq INiNAi =INIIII' ili IF,� f * =,aillt/IIB! Illi X111 '�!! .111 '�" 1'itil. �I'�II� 001 - « C ."IN1= Gi.lil ♦ 4 p� Lay,_ �Ir W, �� "�y •• �.1:4'x.. . 1 I I 1 -i� ! �,+: ATTACHMENT 2 � Af � ` m I � 1600 1500 1400 1300n . -"- All?, 77-� o 200 00 '� l o00 GARDE - 0 w TiD L XL CHO O _ T C . �..-. .......... 000• ,Htl :Ellp, • �r i ! I • • • C MOKKU \ L { (D CD ............ -V---5 rT OSO - tQ - G __ ................ n i -� - 0) : T - • r _ _ zt , i - - - - - - --- TI MI -0 3 -�