HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/2002, B3 - REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARKING AND ACCESS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITI 1
' 1
1 I
I
council .g°�
September 3,2002
j acEnaa izEpont
CITY OF SAN LUI S O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Transportation AssociateyM
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PARKING AND ACCESS OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITIES
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding added duties; and
2. Provide staff with direction relative to the formation of a new committee.
DISCUSSION
Background
As a part of the City's 2001/2002 financial plan process, the City Council established a major goal
to create a citywide parking and access advisory body (see Attachment 1). In pursuit of this goal,
Council has held three study sessions (including a joint study session with the Planning
Commission held on April, 30, 2002) to discuss the pros and cons of creating a parking and access
advisory body, the scope of responsibilities the advisory body would have, and how the advisory
body would fit into the organization.
At the joint study session with the Planning Commission, the Council made five separate decisions
(see Attachment 2, Action Update) to increase the level of discourse regarding parking,
transportation,and access issues citywide:
Decision #1: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to include the review of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Access and Parking Management Plan
(formally called the Parking Management Plan), NARF Transit and Parking projects, and the Short
Range Transit Plan.
Decision #2: The City Council retained the responsibility for neighborhood parking districts,
parking rates, and fees and fines.
Decision #3: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to enable review of selected
transportation projects.
�-1
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 2
Decision #4: The City Council approved three staff recommendations that will increase
communication and synergy between all advisory bodies, including the Planning Commission,
dealing with parking and access issues. More specifically, the City Council directed that:
a) City Council staff reports regarding development projects will include a separate discussion
section that addresses parking,transportation and access issues;
b) Every City advisory body will hold two separate meetings to discuss their recommendations
for the Council Goal Setting process utilizing the second meeting to review the draft
recommendations of other advisory bodies (ie. the BAC, MTC, PC, ARC, and PRC)before
finalizing their recommendations with a better understanding of the other advisory bodies
priorities and possible cross over issues; and
c) Advisory body chairs will expand their quarterly reports delivered at the Mayor's Advisory
Body Chair Quarterly meeting to include a forecast of significant upcoming issues their
advisory body will be hearing so all advisory bodies can be better informed of issues facing
the City.
Decision#5: The Planning Commission was asked to review Tier 3 measures and other access and
parking management issues (the subject of this report) and forward recommendations to the
Council.
Planning Commission Input
At the joint study session, the Planning Commission agreed to schedule a meeting in response to
the Council's Decision#5, to review, discuss and recommend`whether or not it has the capacity to
take on the additional responsibility of reviewing certain outstanding components of the Parking
and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) ...". Those outstanding components, called Tier 3 activities,
mostly related to parking demand reduction activities proposed in the old Draft PDAP. These
measures were never formally considered for either deletion or adoption.
On July 10, 2002 the Planning Commission developed the following recommendations (see
Attachment 3, Table of Planning Commission recommendations) to the City Council regarding
what outstanding parking and access activities and responsibilities the Planning Commission would
like to add to their area of responsibility:
PC Recommendation#1-Tier 3 Issues:
a) That the Planning Commission evaluate the use of outlying parking lots by downtown
employees with connecting shuttle service. Because this is a land use planning issue, it is
appropriate for the Planning Commission. to accept this responsibility.
b) That the Planning Commission review proposed amendments to City codes to require the
use of parking demand reduction activities for new development. The Planning
3 .2
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 3
Commission feels, and staff agrees, that this would fall within their current area of
responsibility.
c) That the City Council provide sufficient staff to enable enhanced parking enforcement. The
City Council is the appropriate body for handling staffing issues, and when additional
staffing becomes necessary, a request for funding will be included in a future budget
process.
d) That the City Council limit free parking on Sunday's to AM only. Consistent with previous
Council direction,financial decisions should remain with the City Council. The Council
may wish to consider this option at some point in the future when additional parking
revenues are needed.
e) That the City Council establish a program for DA financial participation in the parking
program. Again, financial decisions are a Council responsibility. The Downtown
Association and Chamber of Commerce have previously indicated an interest in bringing
forward a proposal to the City Council.
f) That the City Council contract with a vendor for downtown employee trip reduction
planning and vanpool services. Financial decisions are a Council responsibility. The
Council may wish to consider an amendment to the Access and Parking Plan to include
these activities, with funding to come in a future Financial Plan.
g) That the City Council provide vanpool fare subsidies for downtown employees. Once
again, this is a financial responsibility of the City Council and couldbe handled in the same
manner as 69 above..
PC Recommendation#2-Parking and Access Issues:
a) That the Planning Commission review updates/amendments to the Access and Parking
Management Plan. This recommendation is consistent with the City Council's Decision #1
(above).
b) That the Planning Commission review the master planning of parking facilities. Although
the Planning Commission recommended that they accept this additional responsibility, the
City Council decided on July 16, 2002 that the City should plan for parking facilities when
dictated by circumstances and opportunity and not by master planning for locations into
the future when it is not possible to predict future circumstances and opportunities and
therefore this issue is moot.
c) That the Planning Commission evaluate the land use compatibility of new parking
facilities. This is a responsibility that the Planning Commission currently undertakes when
reviewing use permits and General Plan conformity of any City land purchase or sale for
parking facilities.
g• 3
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 4
c) That the Planning Commission evaluate the land use compatibility of new parking
facilities. This is a responsibility that the Planning Commission currently undertakes when
reviewing use permits and General Plan conformity of any City land purchase or sale for
parking facilities.
d) That the Planning Commission provide input on directional signage programs for locating
parking facilities. The Planning Commission has more familiarity with the Land Use and
Circulation elements than the Architectural Review Commission, therefore they felt their
input would be beneficial.
e) That the Planning Commission evaluate a master list of transportation demand management
(TDM) activities. The Commission felt that reviewing a framework for transportation
demand management activities was in keeping with their charge of reviewing land use and
circulation policy issues.
f) That the City Council provide financial planning for new parking facilities and
transportation demand management (TDM) activities. Consistent with previous Council
direction,financial decisions should remain with the City Council.
g) That City staff provide enforcement of parking facilities. This is consistent with current
staff responsibilities.
h) That City staff implement and manage the Access and Parking Management Plan, TDM
activities, and neighborhood parking districts. This is consistent with current staff
responsibilities.
i) That City Staff provide recommendations to the City Council on the formation of
neighborhood parking districts. Pursuant to Council direction, review of neighborhood
parking districts should remain the responsibility of the City Council.
j) That the City Council be responsible for decisions regarding the use of the Parking Fund;
in-lieu fees; subsidies; parking rates, fees, and fines; pricing strategies; and financial
partnerships. Financial decisions are a Council responsibility.
Planning Commission Recommendation#3-DA Advisory Body Issues:.
a) That the Downtown Association retain their role in providing input on parking and access
issues. The process over the last several months has clarified the role of the Downtown
Association (DA) and its parking subcommittee as follows: The DA has a Parking and
Access Sub-Committee that is advisory to. the DA Board. The DA Board ultimately
provides input to the City Council. The DA Director staffs the Parking and Access Sub-
Committee, not City staff; however staff attends their monthly meetings held at the DA
offices, not City offices, and will continue to do so as a "resource person". City staff will
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 5
issues that drove the desire for a new committee have been resolved. Thus the formation of a
parking and access advisory body no longer appears to be necessary at this time. This certainly
does not mean that the process of evaluating the merits a new advisory body has not been
productive. The background section of this report and the Planning Commission staff report (see
Attachment 5) outline numerous changes that are being made to the current process to provide a
more deliberate and broad based review of parking,transportation and access issues.
Conclusion
The process that the City has undertaken to implement the Council goal of creating a parking and
access advisory body has resulted in many positive improvements and clarifications in the City's
review of parking and access issues. It has also resulted in a more deliberate and broad based
review of parking, transportation and access issues and has cleared up the DA's role in these issues,
including the role of its subcommittee. The duties remaining are operational/technical in nature and
do not appear sufficient to sustain an entirely new committee. Should an issue surface that requires
broader based input than can be provided by the Planning Commission, staff, or the Downtown
Association, the City Council is able to appoint an ad hoc committee. Additionally, the Council
can reconsider the creation of a Parking and Access Committee during a future goal setting process,
should the need arise.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Parking and Access Committee. A new committee no long appears to be needed now that the
Planning Commission has agreed to expand their area of responsibility.
2. Ad Hoc Committee. This committee could be activated at any time Council determines the
need, therefore this option could be pursued if the expansion of the Planning Commission role
did not produce the desired outcome for the review of parking, transportation, and access issues
or if the Planning Commission felt the need for specialized feedback on a specific issue.
3. Parking and Access Subcommittee. This subcommittee also could be activated by Council at
anytime. The Planning Commission could forward recommendations to the Council to form
the subcommittee when it felt the benefits of a multi jurisdictional membership would be
beneficial.
4. No Action. The No Action alternative would leave the current processes and procedures in
place. This alternative was not pursued because it would not address Council's desire to
provide a more deliberate review of parking,transportation and access issues.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No additional staff resources are needed to implement the staff recommendations identified in this
report.
S-S
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Major City Goals-Parking and Access Advisory Body
2. City Council Action Update of April 30,2002
3. Table of Planning Commission Recommendations
4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10,2002
5. Planning Commission Staff Report of July 10,2002
I:\Council Agenda ReportsTarking and Access Advisory Body Study Session#4.doc
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES ATTACHMENT I
MAJOR CITY GOALS—PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
OBJECTIVE Community-Based Groups. The Chamber of
Cormnerce 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 fast Parking Management
Plan was being developed in the mid-1980'x, there Proposed Advisory Body Scope. Not Aust the
were two advisory bodies on parking issues: Downtown. The many points of view concerning
Citywide Parking Committee and the Downtown how Downtoam parl®g should be provided, and
Association's (then called the Business bow pedestrian access should be addressed, led the
Improvement Area Committee) Parking Council to request foaming a specific advisory body
Subcommittee. Because there was a high-level of on these bey 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 determine
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 t wsporbition
also based this change on their conclusion that with related issues regarding parldng and pedestrian and
adoption of overall policy guidance in the Parking bicycle access.
Management Plan,main concems would be focused
on the day-to-day operations of parking facilities, Challenges We VVW 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 this
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
3•� �-
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES ATTACHMENT 1
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
its new role: Task Date
1
2. Determining the make-up and representation of . Complete research into other 7/01 to
advisory body members jurisdiction's methods of similar 10/01
advisory bodies;receive input
3. Determining a work program and scope of the from current advisory bodies on
advisory body,including the nature and scope of governance issues with and
the"City-wide"responsibility. between advisory bodies
2. Hold Council study session to 12/01
Although not requested by the Council, this discuss advisory body'
aright 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.begms
4. Ensuring resources for adequate staff support. raa�uutment
4. Council hold interviews with 03/02
Providing the necessary staff reports, research advisory body candidates
and"attendance at meetings to appropriately staff
this new advisory body will take time from other 5. Near advisory body holds first 6/02
currently performed work Advisory bodies meeting
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 Joey items to
bo 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 organisations 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
hearings at Council (or other public)meetings. Minimal direct costs will be incurred m
coordinating public workshops, meetings,
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 3-$
/ - ATTACHMENT I
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
MAJOR CITY GOALS—PARKING AND ACCESS ADVISORY BODY
is part of the Action Plan workscope. Accordingly,
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 tmlikely that forming a new parking and access
advisory body will produce any new revenue forthe
General Fund.
OUTCOMY—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 e
projects regardmg parking and access issues
Citywide; and provide the commmity at large,
neighborhood groups, downtown organizations,
property owners and mercbants with an additional
form n to express public opinion regarding often
emotional and controversial issues.
I
i
B49
3-��
ATTACHMENT Z
council agen6A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, April 30, 2002
ACTION UPDATE
7:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING OF THE Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL AND THE 990 Palm Street
PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Allen K. Settle
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland,
Ken Schwartz, Vice Mayor Jan Howell Marx,
Mayor Allen K. Settle
All Council Members were present
Planning Commissioners Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, James
Caruso, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Orval Osborne, and
Stephen Peterson
All Planning Commissioners were present
PRESENTATION
STUDENT-DESIGNED HOUSING PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY CAL POLY. (10
MINUTES)
Jonathan Reich, Cal Poly Professor of Architecture, and students from
"Implementing Sustainable Principles of Planning"course presented an overview
of student projects demonstrating possible housing solutions.
3'!0
Council Agenda Action Update Tuesday, April 30, �f 2
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA(not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda or items on the
Consent Agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not
on the agenda,except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by
persons exercising their public testimony rights(Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.
Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk's
Office in Room 1 of City Hall.
Andrew Carter, urged the Planning Commission to review the issue of affordable
housing. He also supported building more on-campus student housing.
Phil Ashlev voiced concerns regarding the adoption of Ordinance 1412 (City's
Property Maintenance Regulations).
Pamela Heatherinaton, ECOSLO, expressed concerns regarding dog excrement in
the creek and urged Council to consider installing plastic "doggie bag"dispensers
in strategic locations along the creek. Staff noted that the Council will consider the
new Creek and Flood Protection program on May 21, 2002.
Sifu Kelvin B. Harrison reiterated claims of discrimination and harassment
Mary Beth Schroeder, voiced support for increasing on-campus student housing to
eliminate traffic and parking congestion in surrounding neighborhoods. She
reiterated support for a senior center and expressed opposition regarding rezoning
and marketing in the downtown.
Mike Spanaler urged Council to reexamine its position regarding zoning for
wireless communication facilities and complained about a specific parking issue in
the downtown.
STUDY SESSION
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE RELATIVE TO PARKING AND ACCESS
ISSUES AND PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT ON POTENTIAL FORMATION
OF A NEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (2 HOURS)
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) The City Council and Planning Commission should
receive this report regarding added advisory body review of parking, transportation and
access issues. 2) At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council may want to provide
direction to staff as appropriate.
DECISIONS: 1) Planning Commission role to be enhanced to include
review of City plans and projects including: Bicycle Plan, Pedestrian
2
3-1+ 1
ATTACHMENT z
Council Agenda Action Update Tuesday, April 30, 2002
Transportation Plan, North Area Regional Facility Transit and Parking
Projects, and the Short Range Transit Plan. 2) Issues relating to
neighborhood parking districts, parking rates, fees and fines will remain
the sole responsibility of the Council. 3) The Planning Commission will
review, when deemed appropriate by staff and/or the Commission, other
City projects that include parking, transportation and access issues.
4) Council approved Staff Recommendations #1, 2, and 3 for increasing
synergy: 5) Planning Commission will consider whether or not the
Commission has the capacity to take on the additional responsibility of
reviewing certain and outstanding components of the PDAP and the
Parking Management Plan, or if-that role would be more appropriate for a
new standing or ad hoc advisory body.
A. ADJOURNED.
3
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Table 1 of 2-Planning Commission Recommendations
Tier 3 Parking Demand Reduction Actions
# Who Should evaluate? Planning Other Body,e.g.New Standing Committee,Ad-hoc
Commission Committee,Current Downtown Association Parking
Committee, Staff/Council Committee
1 Limit.free parking on Sundays Staff/CC
to AM only.
2 Establish a Program for DA Staff/CC
financial participation in the
parking program.
3 Contract with vendor for Staff/CC
downtown employee trip
reduction planning and vanpool
services.
4 Provide vanpool fare subsidies Staff/CC
for downtown employees.
5 Evaluate use of outlying parking X
lots by downtown employees
with connecting shuttle service.
6 Amend codes to require use of X
PDR activities for new
development.
7 Provide sufficient staff to enable Staff/CC
enhanced parking enforcement.
3-l3
Table 2 of 2- Planning Commission Recommendations
Staff Recommendations for Policy and Operational Issues
# Source of Issue Over- Final Advisory
seeing Decision Body
Body Making Impact
Body
Parking Management Plan:
1 • Updates/amendments (includes current
proposal to change title and expand to
include access and transportation demand
management issues) PC CC < 1 mtg/year
2 • Master planning of parking facilities to
maximize the use of parking structures and
surface lots PC CC < 1 mtg/year
3 • Financial planning for new facilities2 CC CC
4 • Land use compatibility/design of new
facilities PC/ARC CC - 1-2 mtg/year
• Directional signage for locating facilities PC/ARC CC < I mtg/year
• Enforcement ofparkingfacilitiesl Staff Staff
• Implementation/management ofplanl Staff Staff
Tier 1,2 and 3 Issues:
Transportation Demand Management
5 Master list of transportation demand
management(TDM)activities PC CC < 1 mtg/year
Financial planningfor TDMactivities2 CC CC
Implementation/management of TDM activities Staff Staff
Neighborhood.Parking.Districts
Approval ofNPD's Staff CC
Implementation/Management ofNPD'sI Staff Staff
Financing
Use of the Parking Fund2 CC CC
In-lieu fees2 CC CC
Subsidies2 CC CC
Parking rates,fees,finest CC CC
Pricing strategies as incentives/disincentives2 CC CC
Financial partnerships w/public or private
entities2 CC CC
' Items in italics and where"staff' is identified as providing oversight are considered
"operational" in nature and would not be reviewed by an advisory commission.
2 Items.in italics and where "City Council" is identified as overseeing and decision making
responsibilities reflects previous Council direction.
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 10, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 10, 2002, in the Council Chamber of.City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, James
Caruso, Vice Chair Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: Commissioner Jim Aiken.
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Water Division
Manager Gary Henderson, Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville,
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Utilities Director John Moss,
Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCETANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of May 29, 2002, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
MaryBeth Schroader, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented about the water situation.
She mentioned that the hydrologists view was absent from the housing report on San
Luis Obispo County. She feels adding homes at whatever costs requires additional
water and suggested that particular attention be paid to draining the water sources.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Citywide. GPA and ER 15-02: Request to amend the General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element policies concerning a reliability reserve, and
environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Water Division Manager Gary Henderson presented the staff report recommending that
the City Council approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and amend the
Water Management Element to eliminate the policy of obtaining a reliability reserve,
while keeping other policies meant to assure adequate water supply even during
droughts.
3-15
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATfAQWW 4
July 10, 2002
Page 9
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Chairwoman Loh, Cooper, and Vice-Chair Osborne.
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Caruso.
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-2.
3. Citywide. Study session of remaining parking and access issues raised at a joint
Planning Commission / City Council study session on 4-30-02 and referred to the
Commission for recommendation on the appropriate advisory body to review these
items; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report
recommending the Planning Commission review the list of Tier 3 access and parking
measures and recommend which body should consider each measure and formulate
recommendations for incorporation into the Access and Parking Management Plan.
She also requested they review the listing of policy and operational issues associated
with the City's access and parking program and concur with the proposed division of
oversight responsibilities. She explained the Commission should look at these seven
items and decide which governing body should take on these responsibilities.
Planner Mandeville proposed a chart of policies and operation issues.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum discussed the Sunday parking issue. He
noted that many feel this is non-controversial because it is Sunday morning, but there
are issues in the downtown that occur, such as services at the Mission. He felt it is
important for people to come on Sunday and not be charged for parking. He
commented that the Planning Commission could handle all of these items, but if specific
issues become controversial, they might establish sub-committees of their body to
specifically focus on those issues.
Planner. Mandeville proposed a second chart. She explained that the Parking
Management Plan is an existing document that has not been seen by the Planning
Commission in the past. She would like to have this document and any updates or
amendments go to the Planning Commission for review, and those recommendations
would be forwarded to the City Council. She presented an explanation on each of the
issues listed.
Community Development Director John Mandeville mentioned that the Commission is
being asked two questions; (1) do they feel they have the resources and the time to
review these issues, and (2) do they feel they are the appropriate body with the
expertise to provide the Council with meaningful recommendations.
Commr. Caruso felt the information on Attachment 1 is too detailed for the Commission
to make decisions on.
Associate Mandeville explained table 2 is directly from the Parking Management Plan.
Attachment 1 is the draft PDAP that has not yet been reviewed and contains many tiers
3-r�
Draft Planning Commission Minutes /'ROW 4
July 10, 2002
Page 10
of different policies. She noted that Council requested that the Commission look at the
Tier 3 items in the PDAP, and felt that many of the items could fall in the Attachment 2
chart.
Deputy Director Bochum explained these are the remaining elements from the PDAP
exercise that Council could not make a decision on and they will get modified and
incorporated into the Parking Management Plan.
Commr. Peterson noted that the Council wants to know if the Commission can take on
this responsibility or if there should be a new advisory body created. If a new advisory
body is created, it should be addressed as to whether it be an Ad hoc Committee or
permanent committee.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that the Council indicated their preference is that the
Planning Commission assume these responsibilities. He asked if the Commission feels
comfortable with this based on their time commitments,. and expressed the importance
of these responsibilities.
Planner Mandeville suggested working on Attachment 2 first.
Commr. Cooper noted that this body has a unique opportunity to integrate many issues
into a discussion vs. launching into detailed, in depth implementation. He mentioned
they might be involved in Attachment 1 activities and expressed concern that many of
the other capable committees that were set up to address these issues may not be a
position to take on these responsibilities.
PUBLIC.COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. .Peterson .moved that thev recommend the Council follow Attachment 2 as
presented by staff pertaining to which advisory body has the responsibility on each of
these issues, with the following two exceptions: # 3 should be broken out in two lines
that states "land use compatibility and 'new facilities PC" and "design of a new facilities
- ARC". #4 modified that directional signage on the location of these signs is PC/ARC.
Seconded.bV Commr. Cooper.
Chairwoman Loh suggested an amendment to the motion to have staff recommending
to the City Council, rather than the City Council under Neighborhood Parking Districts.
The motion maker and the seconder accepted the amendment.
Commr. Boswell supported this motion and mentioned that, as the Planning
Commission, they should have an overall review of-TDM programs to ensure that there
aren't already adequate TDM programs in place so they could develop appropriate
mitigations when they review projects.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATTAR 4
July 10, 2002
Page 11
AYES: Commr. Peterson,.Cooper, Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, and Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0.
Deputy Director Bochum noted if the Commission wants the Parking Management Plan
under their purview, even though the Commission may chose to have someone else
reviewing them, these issues would ultimately come to the Commission for discussion.
Commr. Caruso commented that all of these items fall under the purview of the
Planning Commission in isolation from one another. They are all part of Transportation
Demand Management, which he felt should all come to the Planning Commission as
part of a policy document that recommends that the City do some of these things.
Commr. Caruso moved that all of these issues be placed into their proper policy setting
in the City and should not stand in isolation of one another. Seconded by Commr.
Boswell.
Commr. Cooper commented that evaluation of outlined parking lots could be used for
shuttle service and felt that is a land use and a transportational logistical analysis that
could very easily be part of the Commission's agenda.
Commr. Peterson asked if it would come to the Commission when it is the whole plan.
Commr. Caruso responded updates and amendments to these plans would be coming
to the Commission.
Deputy Director Bochum mentioned because there are seven items, that seem to be
individual in nature, but they aren't. He stated these are the remaining items and what
Council has mentioned is they would prefer that the Commission thandle these issues
for them, or the Commission could make a recommendation on who they think should
do it.
Commr. Caruso commented that there is no PDAP and noted if they had a PDAP, it
could implement all of these leftovers.
Chairwoman Loh noted that there is Parking Management here in the City.
Planner Mandeville mentioned that the Parking Management Plan is going to be
expanded to the Access and Parking Management Plan.
Commr. Caruso noted that the items on the Tier 3 actions are all implementation.
Deputy Director Bochum offered some comparisons between Attachment 2 and
Attachment 1.
3-�8
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ��A� M• 4
July 10, 2002
Page 12
Commr. Boswell asked if the master list of transportation demand of management
activities were part of the new Parking Management Plan.
Deputy Director Bochum replied yes, the City has approved the existing Parking
Management Plan. He explained this plan contains policies regarding establishing
Transportation Demand Management programs for the downtown.
Commr. Boswell asked if the PDAP is a policy document or an implementation
document for the Parking Management Plan.
Deputy Director Bochum explained the intention was to supply the technical information
and to establish a long-term financing and revenue system for the parking elements in
the downtown to identify the locations for the parking garages and parking facilities.
Commr. Boswell noted that this is an enhanced PMP that contained policy measures,
but also contained detailed implementation measures. He felt the appropriate level of
review for the Commission would be to have a broader view of implications.
Director Mandeville noted that the Commission is frequently presented with
implementation programs from the General Plan.
Commr. Peterson suggested a new advisory body be created that handles these more
technical components of the parking and detail orientated things.
Commr. Boswell suggested they look at these as a comprehensive set of polices to
address whether they are achieving a larger goal of the Transportation Demand
Management.
Deputy Director Bochum asked if they would be willing to entertain these issues as they
come to the Commission in a Master Plan Policy Document. If not, would the
Commission be willing to make a recommendation to the Council on trying to improve
the public input process on this issue.
Commr. Caruso amended his motion to state that numbers 1 through 4 are a Staff and
City Council involved process; 5 & 6 Staff, Planning Commission and City Council;
number 7 would be Staff and City Council. Seconded by Commr. Boswell.
Commr. Cooper supported the motion, and suggested that in the future they discuss
forming a task force.
Commr. Caruso mentioned that he did not want to take the Downtown Association out
of any decision making process that they might already be involved in on any on these
issues.
Vice-Chair Osborne commented that the City would be best served by creation of a new
standing committee.
&I of
•
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 4
July 10, 2002
Page 13
Commr. Peterson stated that there are a number of implementation issues that would
have large impacts; the only advice being given is from the Downtown Association
Parking Committee. He felt these kinds of questions should go through somebody
besides them, and suggested there be a two-tiered structure.
Chairwoman Loh supported the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Boswell, Cooper, and Chairwoman Loh
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Caruso
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 4-2.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
No agenda forecast was given.
5. Commission:
Chairwoman Loh expressed appreciation for Commissioner Caruso's appearance at the
City Council meeting.
Commr. Cooper commented that the role of a Planning Commissioner was expanded at
this meeting this evening, and felt that something was accomplished.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday 24,2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
3_ad
CITY OF SAN LUIS Or 'PO ATTACHMENT 5 J
PLANNING COMMISStQN AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 3
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Trans ortation Associate, 781-7590 MEETING DATE: July 10, 2002
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
FILE NUMBER: N/A
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Access and Parking Program Content and Oversight Responsibilities
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should:
1. Review the list of Tier 3 access and parking measures listed on Attachment 1 and
recommend whether the Planning Commission or some body should consider each
measure and to thereafter formulate recommendations for incorporation into the Access
and Parking Management Plan.
2. Review the listing of policy and operational issues associated with the City's access and
parking program (Attachment 2) and concur with the proposed division of oversight
responsibilities.
BACKGROUND
On April 30, 2002 the City Council and Planning Commission held a study session (see
Attachment 3, Council Agenda Report) to discuss the Planning Commission's role relative to
parking and access issues and the potential formation of a new advisory body to address these
issues. The City Council made five separate decisions (see Attachment 4); decisions 1, 3 and 5
affect the Planning Commission and are summarized below:
Decision #1: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to include the review of the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Plan, NARF Transit and Parking
projects, and the Short Range Transit Plan.
Decision #3: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to enable review selected
transportation projects.
Decision #5: The Planning Commission was asked to review Tier 3 measures and other access
and parking management issues (the subject of this report) and forward recommendations to the
Council.
The remaining two decisions directed certain responsibilities stay with the Council and increase
synergy between advisory bodies. They were:
Decision #2: The City Council retained the responsibility for neighborhood parking districts,
parking rates, and fees and fines..
Decision #4: The City Council approved three staff recommendations that will increase
3-ar
Access and Parking Pror ► Content and Oversight Responsibil ATTACHMEW 5
Page 2
communication and synergy between all advisory bodies, including the Planning Commission,
dealing with Parking and Access issues.
At the April 30th Study Session, the Planning Commission agreed to schedule a meeting in
response to the Council's Decision #5, to review, discuss and recommend "whether or not it has
the capacity to take on the additional responsibility of reviewing certain outstanding components
of the Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) ...". Those outstanding components, called
Tier 3 activities, mostly relate to parking demand reduction activities proposed in the Draft
PDAP. These measures have never been formally considered for either deletion or adoption.
At its July 10`" meeting, the Commission is not being asked to recommend deletion or adoption
of Tier 3 measures, but rather to recommend who should formally evaluate and consider these
measures and formulate recommendations to the Council. Commission resolution of this issue is
the subject of Recommendation#1 above.
In addition, various Council and Commission members may have different concepts about what
constitutes parking "operational" and technical issues (that are typically handled by staff and
consultants) and which are "policy issues" that warrant consideration by advisory bodies and the
Council. To address this concern and to clarify the Planning Commission's expanded role, staff
has prepared a matrix that is included as Attachment 2. Recommendation #2 provides a
resolution of this issue.
DISCUSSION
Tier 3 Parking Demand Reduction Measures. Between 1997 and 2001 the City Council
reviewed the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP). While the Council could not
reach consensus and adopt this plan, it decided to pursue a more "incremental approach." The
PDAP includes a variety of parking management and demand management activities. Staff
prepared a list of these activities, sorted into three "tiers" (see Attachment 5). Tier 1 and 2
activities are relatively inexpensive, simple, and easy to implement, have already been approved
by the City Council. The City Council has directed that these activities be included in the Access
and Parking Management plan and will act on these amendments on July 16, 2002.
Tier 3 activities mostly deal with parking demand reduction measures. These measures can be
costly, may be complex or controversial to implement, but have potential for significantly
reducing the demand for downtown employee parking. Each of these measures is listed in the
table accompanying this report as Attachment 1. Staff recommends that the Commission use this
table as a worksheet to craft recommendations concerning which activities the Planning
Commission would feel comfortable considering, and which might be reviewed by another body,
e.g. anew standing committee, an ad-hoc committee, or staff/council.
When considering oversight issues, the Council directed that the Commission first review memos
authored by Council members Schwartz and Marx (Attachment 6) as background prior to making
a final recommendation.
Access and Parking Progr -ontent and Oversight Responsibiliti., ATTACHMENT 5
Page 3
Sorting Out Advisory Body Responsibilities. The City Council has supported expanding the
Planning Commission's role in the area of transportation planning and policymaking. However,
there is a significant difference between policymaking and "operational" and technical issues.
An example is provided below:
The Planning Commission currently reviews environmental impact reports, which often
include chapters on traffic and circulation. The Commission reviews these chapters, often
prepared by a traffic engineer who summarizes findings and draws conclusions from
technical data. The Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Council regarding
the document's adequacy in describing significant environmental impacts and feasible
mitigation; thus: a policy making decision. It is not the Planning Commission's
responsibility to determine the accuracy of the data generated; an "operational" or technical
decision. These `operational" or technical issues are the responsibility of staff and
specialized consultants.
Because each project is unique in the City no two traffic reports will ever show the same data.
The City's traffic model is updated on a five-year basis and it becomes the basis for each traffic
study but since some projects are approved and others denied each individual project must be
analyzed on its own merits and impacts for that one point in time. Thus the Planning .
Commission or even a new advisory body will never see two projects that project exactly the
same traffic data. As the Planning Commission knows,under CEQA each project must be
individually accountable for its own impacts. City staff is charged with determining the accuracy
of the individual traffic studies and the Planning Commission is charged with the policy
decisions of judging the entire project and its mitigation measures.
Attachment 2 lists a number of activities and responsibilities. Each is given either as a staff
recommendation for oversight or as a Council decision. In addition where Planning Commission
oversight is recommended, Attachment 2 provides an estimate of how many Commission agenda
items might be required to handle the anticipated workload. Items identified in Attachment 2
where staff is recommended as providing oversight are,by their nature, "operational"or technical
and do not really lend themselves to oversight by a Commission, a new advisory body, or an ad
hoc committee. Items identified where the Council is the overseeing and decision making body,
reflect previous Council direction.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the five recommendations shown
in the first column on Attachment 2 and forward it to the City Council for consideration. It is
important to note that general agreement on several items was reached at the April 30`s meeting,
as noted in the footnotes and Attachment#4.
Result of Planning Commission Accepting Added Responsibilities. If the Planning
Commission accepts added oversight responsibilities, the need for a new advisory body or ad hoc
advisory body would be diminished. If the former were created, staff continues to recommend
that its purview be limited to those areas where the Council presently only receives input from
staff and the Downtown Association Committees. This more focused purview would avoid an
overlapping of responsibilities with existing advisory bodies, which could cause considerable
3�3
Access and Parking Prog 1 Content and Oversight Responsibili
Page 4 - ATTACNMEW $
confusion. If the an ad hoc committee were created, it could be tasked with any unique new idea
or controversial issue that might arise and the membership assigned with community members
qualified or interested in that particular issue.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may:
1. Recommend that the City Council retain oversight responsibilities for all Tier 3 items.
2. Continue this item with direction to staff regarding the need for additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
Attachment " "
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment PDAP Implementation Activities (in tiers)
Attachment Memoranda Authored by Council Members Schwartz and Marx
GATransportation CommitteesTarking&Access0anning Commission Report(v6).doc
6-a4
Downtown Access ; (_fisif Tier impl6rn ati6n1V3.doc
ATTACHMENT 5
PDAP IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Fiscal Measures:
Tier I Eliminate the maximum charge limit for garage parking.
Tier I Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes.
Tier 1.5 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better reflect the
cost of downtown parking. * Might be ready for introduction within 120 days)
Tier 2 Reduce monthly parking ass costs for high-occupancy vehicles.
Tier 3 Limit free parking on Sundays to AM only'.
Tier 3 Establish a program for DA financial participation in the parking program.
Parldng Demand Reduction Measures:
Tier 1 Transit pass subsidies for downtown employees.
Tier I Advertise the availability of preferential parking spaces in garages for car pools
and provide sufficient spaces to meet demand.
Tier 2 Improve bicycle access to the downtown. (Note: Morro Street Bike Boulevard is
being designed)
Tier 2 Establish an advertising program for downtown PDR activities
Tier 2 Encourage the County to establish a trip reduction program like the City's (City
Administrative staffhave already pursued this item).
Tier 3 Van Pool fare, subsidies for downtown employees.
Tier 3 Contract with vendor for downtown employee trip reduction planning and vanpool
services.
Tier 3 Evaluate the use of outlying parking lots by downtown employees with
connecting shuttle service.
Tier 3 Amend codes to require PDR activities for new development.
Parldng Management Measures:
Tier 1 Consider increasing parking fines for overtime violations.
Tier 2 Increase 2-hour parking in commercial core and limit long-term parking
Tier 2 Increase long term parking a pperiphery of downtown for employees.
Tier 2 Work with DA to establish program for discouraging habitual violators.
Tier 3 Provide sufficient staff to enable enhanced parking enforcement
Tier 3 Respond to citizen proposals to establish Residential Parking Districts in
neighborhoods adjoining the downtown
Increased Parking Supply Measures:
Tier 1 Continue to work with the Copeland brothers on the joint development of the
Palm II parking structure.
Tier .1 Continue to discuss with County officials a potential joint parking garage-transit
center project east of Santa Rosa Street.
Tier I = Begin Implementation or continue past Council-authorized efforts
i
Tier 2 = Suggested Tier Activities (Review & bring back to CC by November 2001)
Tier 3 = Suggested Tier Activities (Schedule To Be Determined)
3-a�
SETING ATfAr�HME1�tT
5
DATE aVt AAffEFEm ##qq
MEM® frCOUNCIL C✓CDD DIR
[,�9('CAO ❑ FIN DIR
u ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
November 23, 2001 / 12rAT70RNEY POPW DIR
Q"CLERK/ORIG ❑, POLICE CHF
To: Council Colle4des ❑3 DEPT HEAS ❑ REC DIR
bIR
From: Ken Schwartz Y 11e ❑ HR IR
,1�l��; � / p��t'Q�BuN� ❑ HR DIR
Copies: Ken Hampi 'Wendy George, John Mandeville, Peggy Man evi e, Ike
McCluskey and Jeff Jorgensen
Re: Item 1, Parking 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:
I. First and foremost, the proposed new body would be redundant. We need less
redundancy, namore.
2. The tentative responsibilities listed by staff will firrther 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"goals/policies"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
those 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.
S. 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 instil ted a[R@CEIVED
structuring of Council agendas that gives greater attention to the advice rend )py our
2001
SLO CITY CLERK
�-a�
ATTACHMENT 5
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 us. 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.
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.
- 3-a�
AMENT 5
MEETING AGENDA.
DATE so REM j
TO: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Vice Mayor, Jan Howell Marx
DATE: April 30, 2002
RE: Enhancement of Planning Commission Role
and Formation of Parking and Access Committee
I am in favor of enhancing the Planning Commission role regarding planning access and
parking matters. I am also in favor of implementing Alternative#1, the Parking and Access
Committee regarding parking and access operations. Enhancing the PC role alone will not
adequately address the problems the City faces and will face in the future. We also need to take
practical steps to enhance our city's mobility, identity and quality of life. Plans need to be
implemented,just as mitigation measures need to be monitored.
The Past: In 1992 the City-wide Parking Management Committee was dismanteled for being
"redundant". (See Attachment#1) Since then, the only advisory body authorized and staffed to
give the City Council advice'on parkinglaccess operations is the Parking Subcommittee of the
Downtown Association. The Downtown Association Parking Subcommittee members may or
may not live in the City, and are selected by the Downtown Association.
Although parking is an all-city concern and the Parking Fund is an all-city enterprise fund, only
Downtown business people are designated by the City to make recommendations regarding these
issues. This advice has not proven adequate in my opinion, due partly to the fact that the
Subcommittee by definition is so narrow in scope and approach, due partly to the fact that it has
not made any progress in solving the'8 hour employee parker" problem, and due partly to the
fact that a lot of things in the City have changed over the past ten years. But, the City's"parking
philosophy" has not kept up with change. This has deeply concerned city residents and polarized
the community.
The Future: We need to prepare for the future. The City is about to undergo a number of
changes in the next few years resulting from increased density in the urban core and
accompanying zone changes, such as expansion of the CC zone into the'uptown"north of Santa
Rosa and increasing mixed use. The City needs to develop a strategy for infill of the urban core,
which goes beyond PLANNING and includes OPERATIONS, so that intensification of uses
occurs in an orderly fashion and does not harm our quality of life. To achieve this goal, the city
must create a sustainable transportation system,which includes walking and bicycling. Last year
even CalTrans indicated that walking and biking should be considered to be transportation options
that are as important as the automobile or transit. The new paradigm is how to move people, not
only cars. We need to promote active community environments, places where people can easily
and safely walk or bicycle for most routine trips.
The Present: At present, forward-thinking programs, strategies and perspectives regarding
access/parking are simply left out of the advisory body equation. (see Attachment#2). Also,
parking and traffic data is incomplete and inconsistent, varies from project to project, from study
to study. The city needs a special purpose and technical advisory body to develop expertise in
this area, regarding parking and traffic study data. We need a database of reliable information
D
- RSC.. E�_:VE�, ta 111
S .0 CIT`/ COUNC_i j
3.�
ATTAMMENT 5
which is accessible to the public, developers and decision makers.
Right now, for instance, we do not know how many 8 hour packers(employees)there are in the
Downtown. How many spaces would be freed up if the City created a park and ride/shuttle
system? What would that cost per space?Is the building parking garages in the Downtown the
best solution to accommodate employees? Are there better alternatives? What will be the effect
of expanding the CC zone on parking operations/supply/demand? Are there places in the City
where free parking should be metered?Where metered parking should be free?
The upcoming update of Parking Management Plan(which I would rename the Access and
Parking Management Plan) should include operational alternate transportation and parking
demand reduction measures, as well as analysis of traditional approaches. While the Planning
Commission could take on these operational functions, I believe that it would be best for all
concerned if the PC reviewed such technical spade work in the form of recommendations from the
Parking and Access Committee, much as it does from the Cultural Heritage Commission at
present.
RECOMMENDATION: The City should a.) revive, rename and redefine the city-wide
technical and special purpose advisory body which was dismantled in 1992, (see Attachment#3),
and b.) designate it as a"think tank"to research and compile data and make recommendations
regarding levels of service, parking requirement formulas, operational strategies to reduce
congestion and achieve mobility, access and a walkable urban core. I have drafted an initial
proposal for discussion purposes(Attachment#4).
3raq
J00 17:07 8057sl7267 SLOPARKINGOPF-K _ PAGE c
-7
► ill �ll8 �III�}SIIcitysan 1115 om1S o�
990 Palm Street/Post Off f
pftst-IV brand fax transmittal memo 7671
- FJune 16, 1992 P mb
MEMORANDUM Fax
e
TO: city Council
FROM: John Dunn
SUBJECT: ation "sunset." of Par a ent Comm'tte
The attached memo sets forth the staff recommendation that the
City's Parking Management Committee be allowed to "sunset" as was
intended when the City last extended it in 1990. Under the present
circumstances, there is an inadequate workload for the Committee
and it is largely redundant with the BIA Parking Committee.
Lacking " any further Council action to extend the committee, the
Committee appointments have expired and appropriate thank you
letters to the committee members will be prepared for the Mayor's
signature.
If requested by a Councilmember, this issue will be placed back on
the agenda and further discussed. Otherwise, as stated we will
allow the Committee to expire and send appropriate notes to the
present membership, some of whom are not residents of the City.
JD:mc
Attachment
h/pmcl
3,�
Administration The public works administration program helps plan,
direct and evaluate all of the public works operating programs. Public works
administration also assists the operating programs with various administrative and
property management services.
Engineering The CIP project engineering program oversees design aimc
construction of all prcjects in the City s Capital Improvement Plan(CIP). These
projects include improvements to buildings, parks, and streets as well as water,
wastewater, and flood control systems. The program also provides inspection
services for public infrastructure improvements constructed by the private sector in
addition to those by the City.
GeoData Services The Geodata Services Division operates and
maintains the City's integrated geographic information system(GIS),which uses
computes to link various digital City maps and databases. This program also
provides graphic support services to other City programs.
Developme eW The engineering development review program RIC
oversees desigif and construction of various public works projects built by private
i developers for City ownership. These projects typically include additions to the
' City's water,wastewater.street,flood control,and park systems.
j Transportation Pla raffia Engineering .. ���� ���•
The transportation planning and engineering program analyzes the City's traffic
circulation systems and proposes changes to these systems. EMNEM
Transit The transit program(SLO Transit)provides daily fixed carte transit qmv •
service to the general public within the City limits and Cal Poly State University. MAW
This program also provides downtown trolley shuttle service.
Parking The parking program implements the Parking Management Plan o �pp�„we40tNr1 Avfft
and directs the operation and maintenance of the City's parking facilities. These �• �
i facilities include 13 parking lots,two parking garages,five residential parking
j permit districts and about 1,550 parking meters, pP E'q-Tf pNS
I
I Street Maintenance The general street maintenance program C,
i maintains curbs,gutters, sidewalks, signs,and pavement markings on City streets.
The pavement maintenance program maintains the paved portion of all streets
under City jurisdiction. &GO04
Signal Maintenance The signal maintenance program operates and d"
maintains traffic signals on City streets.
Flood Control The flood control program maintains all storm drain facilities ri Z AAL
and creeks within the City streets and on City property.
Park and Landscape Maintenance The park and landscape e •
maintenance program maintains parks, landscaped areas and open spaces wtthIn
the City.
Tree Maintenance The tree maintenance program plants, maintains,and a "rilVt
:.` preserves trees along City streets and on City property
Fleet Maintenance The fleet maintenance program maintains and
repairs all City vehicles and construction equipment except those used in fire and
transit programs.
Building Maintenance The building maintenance program provides
full maintenance service for all City buildings except.the fire and police stations
and the utilities plants.
Programs and Projects Coordinates Community Information
Program,Community Volunteer Program, Storm Drain Mapping and Replacement
Programs, Sidewalk Repair Projects, Street Lighting, Underground Service Alerts,
Landscape Maintenance Projects,and Special Events.
7�CJt
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. 6052 (1986 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ESTABLISHING A PARKING MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the need for a technical and
special purpose advisory body to assist in the implementation of the
City's Downtown Parking. Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council. wishes to establish a Parking Management
Committee to assist with the comprehensive and effective management of the
quantity, location, cost and availability of parking in the Central
Business District of the' City of San Luis Obispo.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that:
SECTION 1. A eight-member technical Parking Management Committee is
established consisting of two representatives from the BIA, one
representative from the Chamber of Commerce, one downtown property owner,
one representative from the County of San Luis Obispo, and three citizens
at large:
A. The Committee as established, on July 15, 1988 shall "sunset" on
July 15, 1988, unless extended by action of the City Council;
B. The Committee shall work under. the direction of the City
Administrative Officer and within the guidelines of the Advisory Body
Handbook.
SECTION 2. The Parking Management Committee shall have the following
principal responsibilities:
2 .^cncq
ATTACHMENT 5Cl)
A. Provide advice and serve as a community public information link as
the city increases its parking inventory through the development of
parking decks, surface lots and private expansion;
B. Advise on the management of the location, cost and availability of
parking in the Central Business District. Programs to be 'administered
would include:
(1) improving the effectiveness of parking supply;
(2) Providing accessible, inexpensive parking for shopping;
(3) Discouraging employees using parking intended for shoppers;
(4) Examining and introducing measures to reduce employee parking
demand;
(5) Protecting residential neighborhoods.
SECTION 3. This resolution replaces and supersedes Resolution 6026
(1986 Series) of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
On motion of Councilman.Settle seconded by Councilwoman Rappa
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa, Dovey and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Griffin
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12thday of. Au ,c ,
1986.
ATTE
City Clerk Pamela V es
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer City At rney
3'33
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT#4
(DRAFT) Access and Parking Management Committee
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined the need for an all-city technical and special
purpose advisory body to assist in the implementation of the Access and Parking Management
Program;
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to promote an active community environment where
walking and biking should considered to be transportaiton options that are as important as the
automobile or transit;
WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to establish an Access and Parking Management Committee
to assist with the comprehensive and effective identification and implementation of parking
management, parking demand reduction and alternate transportation strategies and management
of the quantity, location cost and availabiltiy of parking in the City of San Luis Obispo;
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that;
SECTION 1. A seven member technical Parking Access and Management Committee is
established consisting of
- one Eason-representative from the Planning Commission,
-one Eason representative Bicycle Advisory Committee,
-one Eason representative from the Mass Transit Committee,
-one representative from the Downtown Association,
-one representative who lives in a Parking District,
-one representative from the Chamber of Commerce;
-one appointee at large
A The Committee as established on shall"sunset" on ,unless extended
by action of the City Council;
B. The Committee shall work under the diction of the City Administrative Officer and
within the guidelines of the Advisory Body Handbook;
SECTION 2. The Access and Parking Management Committee shall have the following principal
responsibilities:
A. Provide advice on operational issues of access, parking demand reduction, parking
management, alternate transportation and addition or loss of parking spaces and other issues as
requested;
B. Provide advice on the management of the location, cost and availabiltiy of parking and
alternatives in the City.
C. Serve as a"think tank"to research and assess the consistency of parking and traffic data
3 •���F
ATTACHMENT 5
and make recommendations regarding how best to achieve mobility, access and a walkable urban
core.
D. Programs to be administered would include:
1. Improving the effectiveness of the operation and management of City's existing
parking supply;
2. Improving the effectiveness of parking demand reduction and alternate
transportation programs; encouraging ridesharing and other alternatives to the usse of the private
automobile;
3. Examining and introducing measures to reduce employee parking demand, such as
employer incentives and park and ridelshuttle systems;
4. Reviewing city's parking and.traffic data, parking requirement formulas, traffic
studies, levels of service for vehicles and pedestrians
5. Recommending strategies for reducing traffic congestion, achieving mobility,
access and a walkable urban core; -
6. Protecting residential neighborhoods and business districts;
7. Promoting pedestrian access and safety,
8. Monitoring the implementation of the Circulation Element and transportation
plans, including the Pedestrian Transportation Plan, making recommendations on the traffic
implications of certain projects as referred, and propose changes to operations.
9. Research, hold community forums and report on strategies to enhance our
mobility, community identity and quality of life.
SECTION 3.. This resolution replaces Resolution No. 6052 (1986 series) of the Council of the
city of San Luis Obispo.
3-3.5
5
RED FILE
11AE INO AGENDA
DA a o _ ITEM #$_a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 3,2002
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works, rr
SUBJECT: Item B3,September 3 City Council Staff Report
There was a printing error on the Parking and Access staff report(Item#B3). Attached are revised
pages 4 and 5 of the staff report denoting the repeated and missing text.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 3 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
UNCIL 0D'C' Dir;
O [I FIN DIR
CAO
p FIRE CHIEF
MI
TOfINEY PW DIR
13'CLERWORIC# C] POLICE CHF
�
D DFADS 1:3 Rt-Go NkH
Oft Di�
$ �] HR DIR
S
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations Tex-r
Page 4
SPT�D c) That the Planning Commission evaluate the land use compatibility of new parking
1%RDM facilities. This is a responsibility that the Planning Commission currently undertakes when
P 3 reviewing use permits and General Plan conformity of any City land purchase or sale for
parking facilities.
d) That the Planning Commission provide input on directional signage programs for locating
parking facilities. The Planning Commission has more familiarity with the Land Use and
Circulation elements than the Architectural Review Commission, therefore they felt their
input would be beneficial.
e) That the Planning Commission evaluate a master list of transportation demand management
(TDM) activities. The Commission felt that reviewing a framework for transportation
demand management activities was in keeping with their charge of reviewing land use and
circulation policy issues.
f) That the City Council provide financial planning for new parking facilities and
transportation demand management (TDM) activities. Consistent with previous Council
direction,financial decisions should remain with the City Council.
g) That City staff provide enforcement of parking facilities. This is consistent with current
staff responsibilities.
h) That City staff'implement and manage the Access and Parking Management Plan, TDM
activities, and neighborhood parking districts. This is consistent with current staff
responsibilities.
i) That City Staff' provide recommendations to the City Council on the formation of
neighborhood parking districts. Pursuant to Council direction, review of neighborhood
parking districts should remain the responsibility of the City Council.
j) That the City Council be responsible for decisions regarding the use of the Parking Fund;
in-lieu fees; subsidies; parking rates, fees, and fines; pricing strategies; and financial
partnerships. Financial decisions are a Council responsibility.
Planning Commission Recommendation#3-DA Advisory Body Issues:
a) That the Downtown Association retain their role in providing input on parking and access
issues. The process over the last several months has clarified the role of the Downtown
Association (DA) and its parking subcommittee as follows: The DA has a Parking and
Access Sub-Committee that is advisory to the DA Board. The DA Board ultimately
provides input to the City Council. The DA Director staffs the Parking and Access Sub-
Committee, not City staff; however staff attends their monthly meetings held at the DA
offices, not City offices, and will continue to do so as a "resource person". City staff will
Council Agenda Report:Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 5 EXT
need to be diligent in advising the DA of significant parking issues soon enough to allow
the DA process to include a formal board recommendation.
With these recommendations (also described in Attachment 4, Meeting Minutes), the Planning
M�yh�us� Commission has accepted the additional responsibility of Tier 3 and parking and access policy
"f OXI- issues and has suggested that staff (with direction from the City Council) take on remaining
�,( o erational issues. If Council follows through with this recommendation, much, if not all, of the
. issues that drove the desire for anew committee have been resolved. Thus the formation o a
parking and access advisory body no longer appears to be necessary at this time. This certainly
does not mean that the process of evaluating the merits a new advisory body has not been
productive. The background section of this report and the Planning Commission staff report (see
Attachment 5) outline numerous changes that are being made to the current process to provide a
more deliberate and broad based review of parking,transportation and access issues.
Conclusion
The process that the City has undertaken to implement the Council goal of creating a parking and
access advisory body has resulted in many positive improvements and clarifications in the City's
review of parking and access issues. It has also resulted in a more deliberate and broad based
review of parking, transportation and access issues and has cleared up the DA's role in these issues,
including the role of its subcommittee. The duties remaining are operational/technical in nature and
do not appear sufficient to sustain an entirely new committee. Should an issue surface that requires
broader based input than can be provided by the Planning Commission, staff, or the Downtown
Association, the City Council is able to appoint an ad hoc committee. Additionally, the Council
can reconsider the creation of a Parking and Access Committee during a future goal setting process,
should the need arise.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Parking and Access Committee. A new committee no long appears to be needed now that the
Planning Commission has agreed to expand their area of responsibility.
2. Ad Hoc Committee. This committee could be activated at any time Council determines the
need, therefore this option could be pursued if the expansion of the Planning Commission role
did not produce the desired outcome for the review of parking,transportation, and access issues
or if the Planning Commission felt the need for specialized feedback on a specific issue.
3. Parking and Access Subcommittee. This subcommittee also could be activated by Council at
anytime. The Planning Commission could forward recommendations to the Council to form
the subcommittee when it felt the benefits of a multijurisdictional membership would be
beneficial.