HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2002, 2 - STUDY SESSION: PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES cou y�`CilFebmwy5,2002
aGEnaa izEpoizt 2
C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Workd4 l
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSIONt PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should: (1) receive a report on providing a more deliberate review of parking,
transportation and access issues; (2) provide staff with direction regarding the Council preferred
advisory body alternative; and (3) authorize staff to consult with various advisory bodies and to
return to Council with final recommendations.
DISCUSSION
Background
As a part of the City's 2001/2003 financial plan process, the City Council established a major goal
to create a citywide parking and access advisory body (see. Attachment 1, Major City Goals-
Parking and Access Advisory Body). In pursuit of this goal, Council held a study session on
November 27, 2001 to discuss the scope of responsibilities of a parking and access advisory body.
At the study session, Council directed staff to pursue input from the involved committees and
commissions on several proposed alternatives for a parking and access advisory body. In order to
have more clarity before requesting commission and committee input, staff has refined the advisory
body alternatives further and is seeking Council consensus on a preferred alternative. Staff has also
notified the involved committees and commissions about this second study session.
November 27,2001 Study Session
Three areas for improvement were raised during the Council's discussion of the scope of
responsibilities for a parking and access advisory body at the November 27, 2001 City Council
study session.
1. PC Role. There is a desire to have the Planning Commission (PC) be more active in
discussing parking, transportation and access issues.
To address this issue, staff proposes to work with the Planning Commission to enhance their annual
report on the General Plan (beginning with the 2001 report) to include more information on the
implementation of the Circulation Element. Additionally, staff would include parking,
transportation and access issues within the discussion section of Planning Commission reports to
facilitate discussion of these issues.
a-�
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Advisory Body(Study Session#2)
Page 2
2. Synergy. There is a desire to create more synergy among existing City committees as it
specifically relates to parking, transportation, and access issues.
To address this issue, staff suggests working with the Planning Commission (PC), Architectural
Review Commission (ARC), Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC) to prepare an annual report on the Circulation Element of the General Plan for
review and discussion at a joint meeting at the Planning Commission and to provide input to the
Planning Commission's annual report on the General Plan. This new coordinated effort would
begin with the 2002 report on the General Plan because the General Plan annual report for last year
has already been drafted and scheduled for Planning Commission review. Additionally, staff would
send a memo to the committees informing them of the Council's request for their participation in
the preparation of the General Plan annual report and encouraging them to hold other joint meetings
to discuss common areas of purview and committee recommendations for the Council goal setting
process.
3. Void. There is a desire to fill a void in the City's review of parking, transportation and
access issues.
The Council indicated that they would like to increase the level of discourse regarding parking,
transportation and access issues. To address this issue, staff has developed five alternative advisory
body solutions for Council consideration.
Advisory Body Alternatives
Staff recommends the Council consider pursuing one of the following alternatives described below
and detailed in the attached comparison table(see Attachment 2):
Recommended Alternative:
Parking and Access Committee. This committee would advise the Council on parking
and access issues. The committee would meet quarterly. Staff support of the Downtown
Association (DA) Parking Committee would be eliminated with the creation of this new
committee. Typical topics this committee would address include: Review of the City's
proposed Pedestrian Transportation Plan; amendments to the City's Parking Management
Plan, requests for neighborhood parking districts; review of parking rates,fees and fines;
review of citywide parking standards; and updates to the Circulation Element as they relate
to parking and access.
Staff believes that this committee most closely reflects Council's goals for a new
committee. This committee would provide additional discourse and input on parking and
access issues. The committee, which reports directly to the City Council, would provide
separate recommendations from the Planning Commission on updates to the Circulation
Element and review of citywide parking standards. No other duplication of effort with
existing advisory bodies is envisioned.
a-�
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Advisory Body(Study Session#2)
Page 3
Alternative A:
Enhanced Planning Commission Responsibilities. Although no new committee would
be created, the Planning Commission could become more focused on the review of parking,
transportation, and access issues with direction from the City Council. Additional topics
the Planning Commission would address include: Review of the City's proposed Pedestrian
Transportation Plan and amendments to the City's Parking Management Plan.
With these new Planning Commission responsibilities, the only duties that would remain
the sole responsibility of the City Council would be the review of parking rates, fees, and
fines and requests for neighborhood parking districts.
Alternative B:
Ad Hoc Committee. An Ad Hoc Committee would operate on an as-needed basis as
determined by the City Council. Members of the committee would be appointed by the
City Council for their ability to address the specific parking/transportation issue before
them. Typical topics this committee could address include: Review of the City's proposed
Pedestrian Transportation Plan; the proposed LOVR interchange design; amendments to
the City's Parking Management Plan; and proposed roadway alignments.
An Ad Hoc Committee would provide additional discourse and input regarding specific
parking,transportation and access issues,filling any void as identified by the City Council.
Alternative C:
Parking and Access Subcommittee. On an as needed basis, the subcommittee would
advise the Planning Commission on parking, transportation and access issues. The
membership of the Parking and Access Subcommittee would consist of a representative
from the MTC, BAC, ARC, and Downtown Parking as well as three members-at-large.
Typical topics this committee would address include: Review of the City's proposed
Pedestrian Transportation Plan; amendments to the City's Parking Management Plan;
parking rates; and updates to the Circulation Element.
A Parking and Access Subcommittee would address the same issues as the Recommended
Parking and Access Committee with the exception that the subcommittee would not review
requests for Neighborhood Parking Districts. The subcommittee is also different from the
Recommended Parking and Access Committee in that it would report to the Planning
Commission on all issues with the exception of recommendations on parking rates, fees,
and fines which the Subcommittee would report directly to the City Council.
Alternative D:
Parking and Transportation Committee. This committee would advise the Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Commission on parking and transportation issues.
The committee would meet monthly. With the creation of this new committee, the Bicycle
Advisory Committee and the Mass Transportation Committee would be disbanded and staff
support of the DA Parking Committee would be eliminated. Typical topics this committee
would address include: Review of the City's proposed Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
01
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Advisory Body(Study Session#2)
Page 4
amendments to the City's Parking Management Plan; review of parking rates; updates to
the Circulation Element; review of Long and Short Range Transit Masterplan updates;
Bicycle Transportation Plan updates; and review of transportation/circulation components
of subdivisions, speck plans, and planned developments.
A Parking and Transportation Committee would provide the additional discourse and input
Council is seeking filling the identified void.
Evaluation of Alternatives
If the Council prefers an alternative to the staff-recommended committee, we suggest Alternatives
A and B as the most viable options. They would both allow for additional evaluation of parking
And access issues, without overlapping responsibilities of existing committees and causing
confusion. Alternative C creates an additional layer of organization that could be cumbersome in
getting recommendations through to the Council. Alternative D eliminates the Mass Transportation
and Bicycle Advisory Committees,both of which are functioning well at this time.
Next Steps
With Council direction on the preferred advisory body alternative, staff will seek input from
affected advisory bodies (which may include the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission, Mass Transportation Committee, and Bicycle Advisory Committee). Staff will then
return to the Council for approval of the advisory body's formation, including a more detailed
statement of purpose, membership categories, and specific duties. At this point, staff simply wishes
to assure that we are on the right track.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The attached advisory body alternatives comparison table (see Attachment 2) identifies which
advisory body alternatives will require additional staff resources.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Major City Goals- Parking and Access Advisory Body
2. Comparison Table of Advisory Body Alternatives
L\Council Agenda ReportsTarking and Access Advisory Body Study Session#2.doc
a -�
POLICIES AND OBJECI IVES -
ATTACHMENT I
MAJOR CITY GOALS—PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
I
OBJECTIVE CommunityBased Groups. The Chamber of I
Commerce has created a subcommittee on parking
Establish a Citywide parking and access advisory issues, and in recent years has also made
body. recommendations to the Council and provided a
different venue for community input on parking
DISCUSSION issues. Additionally, other community-based groups
such as Save SLO Downtown have emerged to
Background advise the Council on such issues. These groups
have promoted a higher level of awareness of-
Council Advisory Bodies. Through the years, the pedestrian access issues to be considered
City has received parking "advice" from various simultaneously with downtown parking issues.
bodies. When the City's first Parking Management
Plan was being developed in the mid-1980's, there Proposed Advisory Body Scope. Not Just the
were two advisory bodies on parking issues: Downtown. The many points of view concerning
Citywide Parking Committee and the Downtown how Downtown parking should be provided, and
Association's (then called the Business how pedestrian access should be addressed, led the
Improvement Area Committee) Parking Council to request forming a specific advisory body
Subcommittee. Because there was a high-level of on these key issues. Further, the Council was
overlap in membership between these two advisory concerned that the City be treated as a whole and
bodies, the Council eliminated the City-wide that the new advisory body be charged with
advisory body shortly after approval of the Parking reviewing parking and pedestrian access issues
Management Plan in 1987, and delegated the throughout the City rather than just in the
primary advise role to the Downtown Association's Downtown.
(DA) Parking Subcommittee. This group has been
the primary source of community input on parking The work program for this objective will detemune
issues since then. the best fit of the advisory body and its relation to '•
the existing commissions and committees that
In addition to overlapping membership, the Council currently advise the Council on transportation
also based this change on their conclusion that with related issues regarding parking and pedestrian and
adoption of overall policy guidance in the Parking bicycle access.
Management Plan, main concerns would be focused
on the day-today operations of parking facilities, Challenges We Will Face in Achieving this Goal
and the DA Parking Subcommittee would be closer
to these issues. In short, this approach was There are many major challenges to achieving thus
predicated on the belief that major policy issues on goal:
parking were resolved. In hindsight, this conclusion
was pre-mature. 1. Developing duties and authority of the body as
it relates to other Council advisory bodies.
The Council has also created"ad hoc"task forces as
needed on focused parking issues. For example, our Advisory bodies that deal with these issues in
highly-successful rate structure resulted from a one form or another include the Planning
special task force formed by the Council in 1991 Commission, Architectural Review
composed of representatives from the Downtown Commission, Mass Transportation Committee,
Association, Chamber of Commerce, citizens at- Downtown Association, Bicycle Committee and
large and City staff from Administration, Finance occasionally the Cultural Heritage Committee.
and Public Works. As such, reaching a clear understanding of the
purpose and role of this new advisory body will
B-47
a-�
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES ATTACHMENT I
MAJOR CITY GOALS—PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
be essential in gaining "buy-in" from the other. ACTION PLAN
advisory bodies and the community at-large on -Task
Date
its
. -
its new role.
1. Complete research into other 7/01 to
2. Determining the make-up and representation of jurisdiction's methods of similar 10/01
advisory body members. advisory bodies;receive input
from current advisory bodies on
3. Determining a work program and scope of the governance issues with and
advisory body,including the nature and scope of between advisory bodies
the"City-wide"responsibility.
2. Hold Council study session to 12/01
Although not requested by the Council, this discuss advisory body issues,
might include the combining of various other such as purpose,scope of duties,
committees that deal with transportation issues membership and staff support and
such as the Mass Transportation Committee or receive direction
Bicycle Committee into one advisory body on 3. Council approves formation of 01/02
transportation matters. advisory body; staff begins
4. Ensuring resources for adequate staff support. recruitment
4. Council hold interviews with 03/02
Providing the necessary staff reports, research advisory body candidates
and attendance at meetings to appropriately staff 5. New advisory body holds first 6/02
this new advisory body will take time from other meeting
currently performed work Advisory bodies
tend to set their own work programs that may or
may not coincide with Council goals and RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
objectives. This will be one of the key items to
be addressed as part of the Action Plan. 1. Public Works will act as the lead department on
this goal.
5. Meeting any expectations that this advisory
body will make addressing parking issues easier. 2;. Administration will assist in determining project
objectives and coordinating discussions with the
This advisory body will provide an added and Council, community organizations and the
hopefully improved forum for public discussion public.
on parking issues. However, this should not be
viewed as a vehicle for expediting conflict 3. City Clerk's Office will assist Council members
resolution. Due to the intensity of diverse in recruiting and interviewing candidates.
community opinions on the parking and access
issues that will be heard by this advisory body, FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES -_
it is highly unlikely that forming it will result in REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
fewer speakers, less confrontation or shorter will be incin
hearings at Council(or other public)meetings. Minimal direct costs meeting"
coordinating public. workshops,
recruitments and interviews. We believe these can
be absorbed within existing resources. Assessing
advisory staff and other support needs for the new
advisory body and its impact on other City programs
B-48
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES - ATTACHMENT-1
MAJOR CITY GOALS-PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
i
is part of the Action Plan workscope. Accordingly,
i
we will not know added resource needs or impacts
(if any)until we complete this analysis in Fall 2001.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL
It is unlikely that forming a new parking and.access
advisory body will produce any new revenue for the
General Fund.
OUTCOME--FINAL WORK PRODUCT
Creating a parking and access advisory body will
provide an additional resource to the Council in
determining the appropriate policies, programs and
projects regarding parking and access issues
Citywide; and provide the community at-large,
neighborhood groups, downtown organizations,
property owners and merchants with an additional
forum to express public opinion regarding often
emotional and controversial issues.
I
B-49
a - 7
C
00 r
y a o
... i U
F
d
z z z
Qo°0Qa d
r ... o
v v�
m
w
QQ�o vi QU
e
R
' DC k yC yC k k iC k it k z z z
� U
67
b
0� d
C bD V i.
£ L E X X yC k DC k k X U ca
z �. z
93 o a
AS
U UU
U � F F F C d U U U — U
Ua � � � Q a � �mm a � � dU
z a dd
N = 2
V) V1 V1 Vi N Vl .�
R 0 co 0D R R n R cc R R cEp C 00 0 �
�. t t C� t t u R C U x
00 00 00 o to 00 b0 00= a O ami
B O O O` O� Oy O` i 60�. C O ti C O
aZ o R ., 0. a — a a s a c „ .
y N R s �- n N N V y y 0 y ' O E ccz CL U M cn 0 °� E
Cm X00 o 'v cc L e=a m � = c sOD = a p -u O y °� U s
E Qm s
� T > T T = E" T o > C avi - a� i y C/] E
a � G.
d Z y U R U U U U F" O (y� (,� it f� C�] pyOU Vl Q y to
U y
a >
f� a c � OcG Ex Qa m � a oCrnd ooCa � xcG . cC a cG � � cc oW u] .E
• • • • A • • • • • • • • _. • • • • • • LQ
.02
c
> e
Q G, A, 0. A4 F p1 A O d d v
DATE a-5-o ITE M #
I -
MCMORAnoum
February 5, 2002
TO: . Council Colleagues
FROM: Ken SchwartzV
SUBJECT: Item 2 on 2/5/02 Council Agenda
Parking & Access Advisory Body Report on Alternatives
The attached reprint is to remind you of my reasoning for supporting Planning Commission
responsibility for this work.
Attachment
CINCIL ld CDD DIR
0 FIN DIR
RCHIEF
A7rQ
ORNEY WW DIR
:ss CLERK/CRI® C7 POLICE CHF
C7 EAD 0 AEG DIR
M UTIL DIR
O HR DIR
✓eZe�
MEMO -
November 23,2001
To: Council Coll
From: Ken Schwartz
Copies: Ken Hampian, endy George,John Mandeville,Peggy Mandeville,Mike
McCluskey and Jeff Jorgensen
Re: Item 1, Parldng and.Access Advisory Body Scope of Responsibilities,
Council Study Session,Tuesday,November 27,2001
The staff report leaves out one viable option we are all familiar with when we read EIR's—
specifically,"no project" or in this case, "no advisory. body." I favor the `no advisory body'
option for these reasons:
1. First and foremost, the proposed new body would be redundant. We need less
redundancy,not more.
2. The tentative responsibilities listed by staff will further emasculate the responsibilities
that properly belong to the Planning Commission. We need to make the Planning
Commission more responsible,not less.
3. Creation of a new advisory body that has such obvious redundancy with the Planning
Commission will place the City Council in a position of having to referee between two
citizen advisory groups. This is not.good. We need to nip this problem in the bud.
4. We are paying far too much attention to"policy planning"and not enough attention to
"physical planning"(This became painfully evident during the PC's first report to the
Council on the Big Box size cap issue.) City planning is a process that ultimately
translates"goalstpolicies"into physical form. What makes a city work well and be
attractive(or work poorly and appear ugly)is found in its physical reality. If those who
recommend or who make policy do not have the ability to see physical ramifications of
diose policies that are positive, the result will be chaos. We need to hold the Planning
Commission to its fundamental duty to produce a workable,attractive and economically
viable city. We should do nothing that would dilute this responsibility of our PC..
5. The Planning Commission has a lawful duty to intertwine land use and circulation issues
—these are the key elements of our general plan and are translated into standards found in
our zoning ordinance(which includes parking requirements)and street ROW
specifications. We need to remind ourselves that the PC is the one advisory body the law
requires to carry a comprehensive understanding of how a city works as a whole. Again,
we should do nothing to dilute that responsibility.
6. Judging from reviews of recent PC agendas,I don't believe asking the PC to be the
responsive and responsible advisory body for this work would be an undue burden.
7. Since the Goals Setting Workshops in February,The Council has instib ited aRECEIVED
structuring of Council agendas that gives greater attention to the advice rendes,by our
w�J�l ? 6 2001
SLO CITY CLERK
i
Page 2 of 2
various citizens' advisory bodies. Council members now have a much more clear
understanding of the reactions of the public and our advisory body members to the
professional recommendations of our staff as well as_the reasoning of our advisory bodies
for the recommendations they make to as. It is my considered opinion that this change in
agenda structuring has and will continue to have a beneficial effect on the members of
our advisory bodies. I believe it will hold each member more responsible not only for
their individual positions and votes,but for the collective work of their advisory body.
This should bring significant benefits to the City! We need to give this new process
breathing room.
g It would be far better for the Council to sit down with our PC and planning staff and
review our expectations of them. In my opinion,these expectations should include all of
the concerns raised on the matter of parking and access. We need to stimulate initiative
and new ideas;we should not squash that spirit by imposing a new layer of advice simply
because that stimulus has been previously missing.
Please take my thoughts into consideration as we go into this study session. Thank you..
- MEETING AGENDA 2
(TEM#E#), ..._.,_v„.
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
January 30, 2001
11ONnoo kin ois
Mayor Allen Settle
Members of the City CouncilQ3n�E103a EUNCIL CDD DIR
IE�7'�k0 ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo �d"
0 ❑ "E CHIEF
990 Palm Street , OT CRNEY PW DIR
�"CLERK/ORIa ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ T EAos C] REO DIR
� ❑ UTIL DIR
Re: Parking and Access Advisory Body � ❑ HR DIR
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members, ✓
In the opinion of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, the Planning
Commission is the appropriate venue for the open, public discussion that citywide
parking and access issues require. For this reason, our Board of Directors does not
support the formation of a new San Luis Obispo Citywide Parking and Access Advisory
Body. It is our belief that the proposed function and purview of this body would
overlap that of the City's Planning Commission.
At the Planning Commission, the overall scope and effects of a project are brought into
focus. Their level of responsibility,gives this existing advisory body the ability to
address parking, transportation and access issues within the context of the entire
project, a significant advantage, in our view.
It makes sense for the Planning Commission to become more active in the review of
parking, transportation and access issues with direction from the City Council. Such a
broadened view by the Planning Commission would serve to enhance the quality and
effectiveness of projects in serving the community's parking, access and transportation
needs.
We do recognize that major policy issues related to parking remain to be resolved. But
again, we would suggest that they be taken up at the Planning Commission level
where a more multi-faceted evaluation could take place. Using this approach would
enhance the synergy that is desired among the City's advisory bodies.
We agree with the Council's wish to increase the level of discourse regarding parking,
access and transportation issues. Toward this end, Alternative A in the advisory body
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org a websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com
alternatives presented by staff in.its report for the February 5 study session presents
the best choice for reaching our common goals.
Thank you for considering our thoughts on this issue.
Sincerely,
/Jeanne Potter
Chairperson of the Board
cc: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate