AD-HOC JACK LONDON
DISTRICT ON-STREET PARKING IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
248 Third Street #845, Oakland, CA 94607
feedback@jlda.org or call Gary Knecht at
(510) 893-9829
www.jlda.org
MEETING NOTES
FOLLOW-UP FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS
AUGUST 25-28, 2003, 6:00 – 7:00 PM
229 Harrison Street (Egghouse)
ANGLE PARKING ISSUES (Monday, August 25, 2003)
Participants (Committee): Joanna Adler, Gary Knecht, Steve Sacks, Steve Lowe
1) Will the city install stop signs to slow traffic where there is angle parking activity? [IF PETITIONED. City's Public Works Agency says it does not install stop signs to slow traffic. It installs them when warranted by traffic conditions, usually after receiving a petition from affected property owners, residents, and/or businesses. Call 238-3466 for petition and additional information. A petition has been submitted for 3rd and Alice and will soon be submitted for 3rd and Clay.]
2) What about handicapped parking? [CALL 238-3466 and request curb painting: blue zone.]
3)
Will city
require that property owners install curb, gutter, and sidewalks as a
consequence of adding angle parking? [HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Committee is seeking
confirmation from city staff. Plan will specify – probably in section listing
Assumptions – that the Plan proposes nothing (no changes at all) for the 8 or
so block faces that have never been "improved" by installation of
curb and gutter.]
4)
Should new
angle parking NOT be proposed near Jackson and 2nd due to trucking
and warehousing? [Discuss with affected business owners – including Jim Croft
of Monahan Paper.]
5)
Should existing
angle parking be removed and new angle parking NOT proposed on all blocks of
Jackson to facilitate truck access to and from freeway? [Discuss with affected
business owners.]
6)
Does the Plan maximize
proposed angle parking or are there additional opportunities? Consider adding
the following blocks:
a)
north side of 4th
Street, Clay to Washington and Washington to Broadway [YES]
b)
west side
Washington, 4th to 5th [NO. Washington St has signs
designating it a bike route, so two other blocks on Washington cannot be
proposed for angle parking. The following streets are also bike routes,
requiring elimination of additional blocks from our proposal: MLK (3 blocks),
Broadway (none proposed), Madison (1 block), and Oak (none proposed).]
c)
south side of 3rd,
Brush to Castro and Castro to MLK; [YES]
d)
north side of 3rd,
Washington to Broadway [YES]
7)
Is the wording
of Proposal #1 okay? "The
Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency adopt criteria and policies for
angle parking in the Jack London District that are consistent with and similar
to those adopted in the City of San Diego." [YES] See Figure #2. [NO,
revise]
8)
Is the wording
of Proposal #2 okay? "The
Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency prepare a resolution pursuant
to OMC 10.28.050 designating those streets in the Jack London District
(illustrated in Figure #3) which are eligible for angle parking in accordance
with criteria and policies adopted pursuant to Proposal #1 (above)." [YES]
9)
Is Figure #3
okay? [NO, revisions noted in items #4, #5, and #6 above will be on 8/25 map
revision.]
10) Is the wording of Proposal #3 okay? "The Committee proposes that the Public
Works Agency install angle parking spaces as rapidly as possible in accordance
with approved criteria and policies."
[YES]
11) Are any additional proposals needed related to angle parking issues? [NO]
12) Are there any other issues that need to be considered at subsequent follow-up meetings? [YES, items #4 and #5 above may require additional revisions to Figure #3.]
TIME-LIMITED PARKING ISSUES (Tuesday August 26, 2003)
Participants (Committee): Joanna Adler, Mike Bartlett, Gary Knecht, Steve Lowe, Margaret Partlow, Merritt Sher, Mark Seiler
Participants (Community): Rosemary Allen, 8/14 attendee, Greeno Bldg (4th & Alice); Edward Andrews (for Joy Keeton, A Bite to Eat, 581 5th Street [Bret Harte Boardwalk]); Lynne Huntting, 4th St Lofts; George Vukasin, Jr, 8/14 attendee, Peerless Coffee
1) Shall the cost of enforcement be addressed in the
plan? [NO, unless City requests some sort of a discussion and provides relevant
data.]
2) Shall street sweeping frequency or other street
sweeping issues be addressed in the plan? If so, we will need a district-wide
survey of where and when it currently is scheduled. [NOT NOW: specific problems
can be reported by calling 510-434-5101 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM.]
3) Currently the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) has
provisions for 1-hr, 2-hr, and 4-hr parking signs. Shall the Plan propose
adding a provision for 3-hr parking signs to the OMC? [NOT NOW]
4) Currently time-limited parking zones are enforced
Mon-Sat, 8-6 (except holidays). Shall the Plan propose changing days of
enforcement to Mon-Fri (except holidays), and/or hours of enforcement to 9-5?
Or shall the Plan propose enforcement 7 days a week? [MAYBE. Proposals should
be coordinated with Parking Meter proposals – add to Thursday's agenda and
resolve on Thursday.]
5) Shall permit parking be allowed in 3-hr and 4-hr parking zones and prohibited in 1-hr and 2-hr zones as well as at parking meters and painted curbs? [YES, definitely. Great solution to a vexing problem.]
6) The plan currently proposes 4-hour time limits for about 917 on-street parking spaces that currently have unlimited parking: shall shorter times be proposed on specific blocks? [YES, see revised draft of Figure #4 dated August 26.]
7) Is the wording of Proposal #4 okay? "The Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency prepare one or more resolutions pursuant to OMC 10.28.180, 10.28.190, and 10.28.210, to authorize installation of signs limiting parking to no more than four hours throughout the district, or fewer hours in accordance with the attached map (Figure #4). The resolution should include criteria for adding, changing, or removing signs on a block-by-block basis and notification procedures that include property owners, business owners, and residents on both sides of the street." [YES]
8) Is Figure #4 (August 25, 2003 revision) okay? [NO, see revision dated August 26.]
9) Is the wording of Proposal #5 okay? "The Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency install approved signs in conjunction with adoption and implementation of the proposed Mixed-Use District Permit Parking Program." [YES]
10) Are any additional proposals needed related to time-limited parking issues? [NO]
11) Are there any other issues that need to be considered at subsequent follow-up meetings on Mixed-Use District Permit Parking Issues (Wednesday) and Parking Meter Issues (Thursday)? [YES, see item #4 above]
MIXED-USE DISTRICT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM ISSUES (Wednesday, August 27, 2003)
Participants (Committee): Joanna Adler, Mike Bartlett, Gary Knecht, Steve Lowe, Margaret Partlow, Steve Sacks, Merritt Sher
Participants (Community): Rosemary Allen, 8/14 attendee, Greeno Bldg (4th & Alice); Jim Croft, 8/14 attendee, Monahan Paper; Lynne Huntting, 4th St Lofts, Chris Inverarity, Tower Lofts; Janet Stickmon, 8/14 attendee, Allegro
1) How can permit parkers (and others) be kept away from parking in front of or next to loading docks? [CALL 238-3466 and request curb painting: yellow zone and/or red zone, as needed. CALL 238-3099 for enforcement if needed]
2) Is the wording of Proposal #6 okay? "The Committee proposes that the City Attorney and the Public Works Agency work with the Ad-Hoc Committee to draft an ordinance that includes the [following] points and present it to City Council for approval within three months." [YES]
3) Is the boundary shown in Figure #4 (August 26, 2003 revision) okay? [YES] Shall it be enlarged? [YES, but only if information and proposals are provided VERY soon with same degree of completeness as existing proposals.]
4) If I work in a building in the Port area (or in a County Building or in any building located outside the boundary), can I buy a permit? [NO] So far, I have been able to find all-day, free on-street parking. Now, my only option for parking will be a $78 a month (or more) paid space or walking from on-street parking spaces in west Oakland. Is there any way I can participate in the permit parking program? [NO. Speak to your landlord or employer and ask them to contact the Committee.]
5) Is one permit per mailing address adequate (and fair) for residents who may have 3 cars per unit? [YES; neighbors, friends, and colleagues can help out.]
6) Shall the Plan propose an “extended stay visitor” category for people eligible to get a permit? [YES; it already exists in residential districts: 1-day or 7-day permits are available for $1 and $5 respectively.]
7) Should the total number of permits issued be limited in order to make city staff comfortable? [NO, unless city staff provides guidance to assist in setting limits.] Why not limit the number of permits per business? What about issuing permits via a lottery? What about increasing the price for additional permits and letting the market limit the number of permits issued? [UNNECESSARY without limits.]
8) Is $100 per year ($8.33 per month) too costly for a permit? [MAYBE] Shall the Plan propose a lower amount? [MAYBE: plan will include two proposals, one as proposed above ($100 each) and the other with the first permit costing $78 for first permit and $100 for all additional permits.]
9) Shall the permit be made transferable from vehicle to vehicle (not attached to a specific vehicle)? [YES as per #6 above. Transferable permits would cost $1/day ($365/year) or $5/week ($260/year).]
10) Are any additional proposals needed for mixed-use district permit parking program issues? [NO]
11) Are there any other issues (unfinished business) that need to be considered at the final follow-up meeting on Parking Meter Issues (tomorrow, Thursday, 8/28)? [NO]
PARKING METER ISSUES (Thursday, August 28, 2003)
Participants (Committee): Joanna Adler, Gary Knecht, Steve Lowe, Margaret Partlow, Don Puccini, Merritt Sher
Participants (Community): Edward Andrews (for Joy Keeton, A Bite to Eat, 581 5th Street [Bret Harte Boardwalk]); Uffé Gustafsson, World Ground Café II; Lynne Huntting, 4th St Lofts
1) Shall the Plan propose reducing the cost per hour of parking meters to fifty cents per hour? [NO]
2) Shall the Plan propose reducing the cost of parking tickets? [NO]
3) Shall the Plan make every effort to be "revenue neutral" or "revenue enhancing" as a matter of principal and/or politics? [YES]
4) Shall the Plan propose that parking meters be replaced by centralized "pay stations"? [NO. Most participants would prefer working towards eventual elimination of most (or all) parking meters]
5) Is the wording of Proposal #7 okay? "The Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency and the Financial Services Agency work with the Ad-Hoc Committee to draft criteria for adding, changing, or relocating parking meters in the Jack London District, including specific notification procedures." [YES, with revisions now incorporated]
6) Currently parking meters AND time-limited parking
zones are enforced Mon-Sat, 8-6 (except holidays). Shall the Plan propose
changing days of enforcement to Mon-Fri (except holidays), and/or hours of
enforcement to 9-5? Shall it do so for both parking meters AND time-limited
parking zones? For all types of time-limited parking zones? Or shall the Plan
propose enforcement 7 days a week? [NO changes at present;
"enforcement-free Saturdays" should be implemented during holiday
season in conjunction with "shop Oakland" program, and should also be
implemented and widely promoted in conjunction with ALL Port-sponsored
festivals and events.]
7) Over the years, around 200 parking meters appear to have been installed without approval of City Council via ordinance (see OMC 10.36) – Only 100 or so meters are on blocks listed in the Oakland Municipal Code. Shall the Plan propose removal of unlisted parking meters and reinstallation in accordance with criteria and notification procedures adopted pursuant to Proposal #7? [NO but Plan should include this information in "Background" section]
8) Shall the Plan propose relocating parking meters in order to improve retail? [YES, relocate around 35 parking meters as shown on new map in Figure #5, which shows a net increase of around 8 meters]
9) Shall a new Proposal #8 be drafted and added to the Plan to specify where parking meters are proposed for relocation? "The Committee proposes that the Public Works Agency relocate 36 parking meters and add 8 new parking meters as shown on the attached map (Figure #5)." [YES, wording shown is okay; counts will need to be verified]
10) If we decide to add Proposal #8 and Figure #5, who will review them with affected business and property owners and when? [Margaret Partlow will discuss with owners on 4th Street and has already contacted one of the owners on Washington Street]
11) Are any additional proposals needed related to parking meter issues? [NO]
OTHER ISSUES
12) Is Figure #1 (map of existing conditions) okay or are corrections needed? [Corrections will be made]
13) Is revised Figure #2 (table comparing angle parking standards in Oakland and San Diego) okay? [NO]
14) Is the 8/25 revision of Figure #3 (map of proposed angle parking) okay? Are any changes needed on Jackson St as a result of discussions with affected business owners? [NOT KNOWN]
15) Is the 8/26 revision of Figure #4 (map of proposed time-limited parking zones and permit parking program boundary) okay? Or are any additional revisions needed? [Corrections are needed]
16) What are the next steps? [Gary Knecht will revise Plan and maps, send to all committee members and post on the website] Who edits and proofs the Final Draft? [Margaret Partlow and Steve Lowe] How and when do we approve it? [After revisions, Committee members will vote yes or no on presenting document on to Nancy Nadel on September 15] Committee should consider sending a postcard notice of Nadel's Community Meeting on September 24 to same mailing lists, and distributing the postcard to county workers, etc.
PLEASE send your comments to feedback@jlda.org
or call Gary Knecht at (510) 893-9829