HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.5.15 Downtown Parking Final MinutesASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 5, 2015
Page 1 of 5
AASSHHLLAANNDD DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN PPAARRKKIINNGG MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT && CCIIRRCCUULLAATTIIOONN AADD HHOOCC AADDVVIISSOORRYY CCOOMMMMIITTTTEEEE
MMIINNUUTTEESS
August 5, 2015
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1175 East Main St.
Regular members present: Pam Hammond, Emile Amarotico, Lisa Beam, Dave Young, Bob Hackett (in Cynthia
Rider’s absence), Marie Donovan, Lynn Thompson, Michael Dawkins, Joe Graf, and John Fields (arrived at 3:40)
Regular members absent: John Williams, and Joe Collonge
Ex officio (non-voting) members present: Bill Molnar, Katharine Flanagan, Michael Faught, Pam Marsh, Rich
Rosenthal, and Lee Tuneberg
Ex officio (non-voting) members absent: Mike Gardiner, and Sandra Slattery
City of Ashland Staff members present: Tami De Mille-Campos
ANNOUCEMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of July 1, 2015
Approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
None
FINALIZE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Williams apologized for so much background material on short notice. But at the end of the last meeting he sensed a
high sense of urgency to get into the plan. He added it isn’t a full plan; it really is just an eighteen month work plan.
He reminded the committee of something he said earlier on in this process which is, the only way to get going is to
take the first step. He thought it was best to relate it to the first eighteen months and then we can have people react
to it and adjust. There are a lot of pieces from the U of O plan in it but his approach is more of an approach to
activate some of the ideas that were in that plan as opposed to a more conceptual level plan.
He stepped through the slide presentation (see attached).
Priority Customer
Thompson asked if this does not include residential areas where the homeowner may have an interest in having at
least some parking. Williams answered it is a really good question and is why he said they could define “customer”
as being the resident and their guest. His intent of customers and visitors was that it represents however they define
it moving forward. He added they even talked about district plans and in each district the priority customer would be
defined but in the downtown, visitors are a key. He said if it isn’t clear enough they could change it. First they define
the priority customer and then move on from there. Thompson clarified, customers would include residents.
Williams reminded them of an earlier conversation they had regarding parking 101. The “customer” would be zone
based so if the zoning were residential that would be a different customer than if it were a commercial or mixed use
zone.
Amarotico stated the priority user should include: visitors, residents, employees.
Williams suggested changing guiding principle number one to “Provide sufficient parking to meet resident and
employee demand, specifically in conjunction with other reasonable travel mode options”. He added the intent is on-
street parking within a residential zone; the discussion would begin with how to accommodate the residents. Within a
commercial zone the discussion would begin with how to accommodate the visitors by time stay.
Thompson suggested a change to guiding principle number two “The most convenient on-street parking will be
ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 5, 2015
Page 2 of 5
preserved for the priority user as defined in relation to the zone”. And you would basically define the user somewhere
else and it would depend on what area you were talking about. Young agrees with Thompson and added essentially
what matters is that they define priority user and in that it is all zone based, every zone would have its own list of high
and low priorities.
Williams stated he will work on the language but he thinks they are right, he needs to tie it back to what he began
with which was best practices as you start with zoning.
Active Capacity Management
No changes
Information Systems
No changes
Integration with Other Modes
Williams said he would really like this to be a foundation piece that the group endorses and this is the filter in which
the ides and decision making are run through.
Thompson/Amarotico m/s to adopt the guiding principles as presented with the exception to the change to
guiding principle #1.
The committee decided to strike the guiding principle “Leverage alternative modes to free up parking capacity” and to
modify the guiding principle “Encourage and facilitate increasing percentages of users into alternative travel modes,
particularly employees….to free up parking capacity”.
There was discussion about adding back the guiding principle which states “Leverage parking to support and
increase the use of alternative modes of transportation”.
The committee decided to add a guiding principle which states “Develop parking strategies that encourage
alternative mode use”.
Approved unanimously with changes
REVIEW AND DISCUSS STRATEGY ACTION STEPS
Williams said the strategies that are being proposed are comprehensive and complex and they are going to require
ongoing focused implementation. The reason he only did an eighteen month plan at this point is because a full
parking management plan, which he intends on providing a framework for, is a lot of material. If the committee can
understand the first eighteen months then they will be off to a good start. He added everything they are being asked
to do is currently not in place. Resource identification is going to be critical to this plan. It also requires active
participation of the private sector in the plan. He said a representative group is also going to be essential. These
eighteen months set the stage for the big questions that everyone wants to get to (circulator system, new supply).
You really can’t have the discussion until you get control of that supply you have because you don’t know how much
you can get out of the system you have. The plan is very iterative; you need to take step 1 in order to take step 2,
step 2 to step 3 and so on. Sometimes you can run them concurrently but you have to make sure if you’re doing step
4 that you haven’t skipped step 2. The timeline gives a sense of parking management.
Step 1 - Centralized Parking Management
Williams said Ashland has a complex system. High volumes of traffic, good areas of time stays, good enforcement
but there isn’t anyone working on it every day. He thinks the system has become so sophisticated that parking should
become a division within the city.
Rich asked about the timeline in terms of what has already been budgeted.
Step 2 - Stakeholder Input – Parking Advisory Committee
ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 5, 2015
Page 3 of 5
Rosenthal voiced concern with adding another commission and the workload that it adds to staff. He wonders if it is
something the current Transportation Commission could take on since it already has staff assigned. Williams said it
probably could until such time as this group would wear that commission out. In the interim the real key message is,
will they have two hours a month to spend on parking?
Williams shared there are other cities out there who have accomplished this in a variety of ways; hiring a consultant
to do the work, through their downtown booster group or through their main street program. He added he feels the
Transportation Commission could be a good place to start or even through the Chamber of Commerce.
Hammond said as previously having served on the Transportation Commission she feels it would probably be a good
starting place but she would just want to make sure the interests of the downtown businesses are represented.
Faught stated his thought process is, no matter how you look at it this is staff intensive so he is sort of looking at this
Parking Manager position no longer being a half time position but maybe more of a full time position since we have
that public responsibility. He also worries about having the Transportation Commission in charge of this because
their focus is much broader within the community and it also needs representation of those that are affected by these
decisions.
Williams said ideally the parking advisory committee would be appointed for staggered two-year terms and they
would agree to meet on a routine basis over those terms. He added you would definitely want a representative of the
Transportation Commission as part of the advisory committee. He added this current committee could easily do it but
is there a commitment to serve for 2 more years and is it representative of all the user groups? But that is all it takes
to make it work (commitment to a charge, longevity and representation).
Marsh shared as she thinks about a new staff position (Parking Manager), she thinks there’s another really important
function that needs to be coupled into there and that is alternative transportation. It is a very common position in a lot
of other communities but missing here. She added there would probably be broader support if the position was
looked at that way.
Williams mentioned there are a few cities where the position is actually Parking and Access Coordinator or Manager.
Faught agrees with that and said it is so much more than just the parking management. He said we talked earlier on
about the public/private partnerships. He asked if there is a sense that public/private partnerships, in terms of funding
these positions (pricing, fees fines), is feasible.
Graf said the advisory committee is going to work on parking but it has to have a baseline to start from. It has to have
a plan in place and presumably the current committee will be the one to develop that plan. He added right now they
wouldn’t have anything to enforce or to manage because there’s no plan. He thinks this committee needs to work its
way through this timeline before it can be handed off to this advisory committee. Williams said the goal is to have that
plan in three months so that they have this eighteen month plan to go off of. He said he has written and seen a lot of
parking plans but very few of them have become management plans so that is his intent.
Donovan shared she had assumed the city had already been thinking about & pre planning for the need to eventually
have someone at the city level to manager this plan.
Williams said the sooner the city had a parking professional doing this the better off you would be but the city may or
may not have the resources to do that. The hope would be that when the city embraced the plan they would say it is
their intent to get a Parking Manager. It will move faster if you have someone working on it 20-40 hours a week.
These are solutions but they’re only good if there is someone who can move it forward. Faught said given there is
interest; staff will explore various options for this position.
Step 6 - Simplify On-street time stays
Williams said he really likes U of O’s recommendation about simplifying the time stays on street. One of the issues
though is the timing of when you do it because the recommendation was that it be combined with a program of on
street permits. The idea was in the 4-hour areas you could sell employee and residential permits but the problem is
ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 5, 2015
Page 4 of 5
you can’t put 4-hour parking in a residential zone during the day unless the residents are willing to use a permit
program. This recommendation should be done over a 12-18 month period because the first thing you would have to
do is notify the residents and they would have to agree to that. The committee was curious who the 4-hour parking
serves. Williams said it came from the U of O study and it was to encourage people who needed longer term parking
to park in the residential areas. Linda Fait (Diamond Parking) pointed out when they originally brought the idea up
there was talk of perhaps making the south side of say B Street all residential parking and the opposite side would be
4-hour permit parking.
Step 9 - On-street Pricing
Williams said the committee should begin to consider on-street pricing. This is 18 months out but if the data is
coming back and you’re continuing to have occupancy problems and resources are needed to fund some of the
solutions priced parking is something that needs to be looked at. He added he doesn’t think we should price now,
they need to go through steps 1-8 first and then you would have a better idea of where things are at.
Thompson isn’t sure why charging for parking is the way to go versus establishing parameters of permissible parking
(2-hour, 4-hour etc.). She asked what the added benefit is to paid-parking. Williams said it is meant to influence other
modes and it provides resources for other solutions (signage system, communication system, new supply etc.). He
said pricing is just a tool but it has to be employed strategically. The outcome is, it helps motivate behavior and it
helps provide a revenue base for solutions. It isn’t intended to do anything other than maximize supply. The people
we most want to influence are employees.
Step 10 - Infrastructure Upgrades
Williams said this is another thing that priced parking can help with, if other sources are not identified. He added
Faught and Kim Parducci have been working together on installing counter systems on public parking lots. They
believe every facility should have a counter system on it that counts cars in and counts cars out so that over time we
will minimize the cost of collecting data. Right now cars are coming in and out of facilities and nobody knows the
occupancy unless someone is hired to go count. An investment in that type of counter technology on all of the public
facilities now and in the future will be very beneficial.
NEXT STEPS
Williams said he would like to hear back from everybody in September regarding thoughts on this plan, other ideas
on things that should be put into it and they can begin to develop phase 2 in a more detailed manner.
John Williams asked if in his experience he finds that other cities that provide more bicycle parking if that leads to
more people using bicycles. Williams answered you have to have 2 ends of the spectrum; where they’re originating
from & they’re destination. He said the first thing you have to do is create a safe and secure route from the
origination to the destination. He pointed out a lot of cities do that and then they stop so this is why he has this 4-step
plan. The first step is to get the bike lane network determined. Step 2 is you need a place to park. Step 5, which he
didn’t include in the plan because it is expensive, is shower and locker facilities. He mentioned that when the Lloyd
district began bicycle parking in 1997 they had less than a 1% mode split for biking. They put in bike lanes, bike
sharrows, bike corrals, off-street parking, shower/locker facilities, pricing etc. and today there is a 9% mode split for
biking.
Marsh Said the reason Ashland has a parking problem is because traditionally they didn’t require parking of the
downtown core businesses. She asked how common it is for other communities to have an assessment district that
applies to the people who are not providing their share of parking. Williams answered they aren’t very common. He
said what is becoming more common is called a parking benefits district which is where the city guarantees that after
expenses (maintaining meter systems, enforcement etc.) that all surplus revenues are reinvested back into those
districts based on priority projects plan developed by the parking advisory committee.
Young asked Williams about future trends in terms of the demographics and their transportation choices and how
that might play into this. Williams said the trends they are seeing, particularly on the employee side, in the industry
now indicate nearly 50% of the employees moving into the market between the ages of 18-24 don’t own a vehicle
and that trend is continuing to increase around the country, partially due to wage disparity and lifestyle choices. He
ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 5, 2015
Page 5 of 5
knows people that are building garages who are beginning to downsize because they know there is a trend of lower
car ownership and drivers. He also mentioned that a lot of developers are designing garages to not be garages 10
years from now and a lot of the developers are afraid of building a garage because they won’t need it in the future.
Faught asked if it is common to charge an in lieu of parking fee. Williams said there a lot of cities that have fee in lieu
of programs in which the developer is encouraged not to build parking themselves. They would pay a rate less than it
would cost them to build it themselves for what are called access entitlements.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant
— AUGUST 5 , 2015—
Parking Management Principles and Priorities
City of Ashland, Oregon
Rick Williams
Rick Williams Consulting
Agenda
1.Finalized Guiding Principles (30 minutes)
2.Review and discuss strategy options (45 minutes)
3.Next Steps
Study Area Boundary
Study Area Boundary (Zoning)
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Statement of Purpose
Statement of Purpose
It is the primary objective of the City of Ashland to implement a
Parking Management Plan for the downtown that supports the
development of a vibrant, growing and attractive destination for
shopping, entertainment, recreation, living and working. The
components of this plan need to be simple and intuitive for the user,
providing an understandable system that is affordable, safe, secure,
and well integrated into other access options (i.e., transit, bike and
walk).
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Principles of Parking Management
CITY ROLE AND COORDINATION
Centralize management of the public parking supply to ensure efficient
and optimal use of the supply.
Coordinate parking in a manner that supports the unique character of
emerging downtown districts and neighborhoods. Where appropriate,
manage parking by zone.
Ensure that a representative body of affected private and public
constituents from within downtown routinely informs decision-making.
Provide safe secure and well-lit parking to allow a sense of security at all
times on-street and off-street.
The key role for the City in public parking is to facilitate customer and
visitor access.
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Principles of Parking Management
PRIORITY CUSTOMER
The on-street parking system is a finite resource and will be managed to
provide a rate of turnover that supports “district” vitality.
The most convenient on-street parking will be preserved for the priority
customer user – customers and visitors.
Provide sufficient parking to meet employee demand, specifically in
conjunction with other reasonable travel mode options.
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Principles of Parking Management
ACTIVE CAPACITY MANAGEMENT
Manage all public parking using the 85% Occupancy Standard to inform
and guide decision-making.
Supplies in excess of the 85% Occupancy Standard will require best
practice strategies to minimize parking constraints.
Encourage/incentivize shared parking in areas where parking is under-
utilized. This will require an active partnership with owners of private
parking supplies.
Capacity will be created through strategic management of existing
supplies, reasonable enforcement, leveraging parking with alternative
modes and new supply.
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Principles of Parking Management
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (Supply and Customer-based)
Supply-based
Implement and monitor performance measurements and reporting to
ensure Guiding Principles are supported and achieved.
Provide safe secure and well-lit parking to allow a sense of security at all
times on-street and off-street.
Customer-based
Improve existing, and create new, information and educational resources
(outreach, education, maps, websites, etc.) for use by the public and
private sectors.
Develop and implement a unique and creative wayfinding system for the
downtown that links parking assets and provides directional guidance to
users; preferably under a common brand.
Ashland- Downtown Parking
Principles of Parking Management
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER MODES
Leverage parking to support and increase the use of alternative modes of
transportation.
Leverage alternative modes to free up parking capacity.
Encourage and facilitate increasing percentages of users into alternative
travel modes, particularly employees.
Increase bike parking on and off-street, using it to connect and enhance
the broader bicycle network
Explore remote parking locations and transit/bike connections to
minimize the need and cost for new parking structures.
SOLUTIONS – STEP 1 (0 – 12 months)
Centralized Parking Management
Parking issues are too complicated and prevalent for status quo
approach.
Ashland parking requires a more routine, focused and targeted
management approach.
0 – 18 month action plan is comprehensive and detailed
By July 2016
SOLUTIONS – STEP 2 (0 – 12 months)
Stakeholder Input – Parking Advisory Committee
Downtown Parking Management is a partnership
between City and the community.
Establish a Downtown Parking Advisory Committee
(DPAC).
Need on-going input into plan implementation (no
less than quarterly) with a representative and
committed leadership group that is well informed on
parking.
DPAC is charged with assisting in plan
implementation, on-going review of performance
measures and liaising with community
SOLUTIONS – STEP 3 (0 – 12 months)
Additional Data Collection
There is a need for more
data related to the off-
street parking supply.
Necessary to Shared Use
opportunity.
August – October 2015
Continuing data collection
(on and off-street) will be
critical element of parking
management plan.
Annual data collection plan
SOLUTIONS – STEP 4 (0 – 12 months)
Establish Near-term Outcomes
There is a need to set quantifiable or
date specific outcomes necessary to
activate parking management.
Set specific goal for the number of
employees to move off-street
Create critical path to a new parking
brand.
Complete branding process and
determine design.
October 2015 – June 2016
SOLUTIONS – STEP 5 (0 – 12 months)
Shared Use Outreach
Schedule meetings and outreach to potential shared use partners.
Negotiate and finalize agreements to provide shared parking.
Integrate into branding
By June 2016
Assign employees into lots
July 2016 and beyond
Downtown Oregon City Off-Street Occupancies – Downtown Subzone
Block # Lot Identifier Total Stalls
Specific Site Peak Hour Occupancy Peak Hour # of Stalls Available at Peak
4 Private Permit Only (north) 49 65.3% 2:00 – 3:00 pm 17
4 Restricted Private Lot (north) 42 50.0% 1:00 – 4:00 pm 21
6 US Bank 11 36.3% 5:00 – 6:00 pm 7
6 River Crossing Professional Center 43 60.5% 10:00 – 11:00 am 17
8 KFC 24 50.0% 1:00 – 2:00 pm 12
18 Municipal Lot (day use) 56 10.7% 2:00 – 6:00 pm 50
23 Permit only (10th/Main) 25 44.0% 10:00 am - Noon 14
25 Private lot (closest to 8th St.) 23 56.5% 10:00 am - Noon 10
25 Private lot 27 77.8% 10:00 – 11:00 am 6
27 CC Territorial Building 34 73.5% 3:00 – 4:00 pm 9
27 Private lot 30 63.3% 1:00 – 3:00 pm 11
TOTAL – Combined Lots 364 52.2% 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. 174
SOLUTIONS – STEP 6 (12 - 18 months)
Simplify On-street time stays (Per UO Study)
SOLUTIONS – STEP 6 (12 - 18 months)
Simplify On-street time stays (Per UO Study)
There is a need to revise on-street time stays to better accommodate
customer need.
―Eliminate 1 hour time stays, increase to 2 hours .
―All block faces with retail/office/restaurant should be 2 hours.
―Implement residential permit program in areas zoned R (if feasible)
―By July 2016
―Increase 4 hour stay options - assess feasibility of Residential Permits in
select 4 hour zones – i.e., areas currently zoned R .
―Before December 2016.
―Assess supply capacity (based on data update) for feasibility of employee on-
street permit program(s) in 4 hour parking areas (contingent on residential
program).
SOLUTIONS – STEP 7 (12 - 18 months)
Deploy brand through off-street signage upgrade
Improve the visibility of public off-street and shared use (visitor)
facilities with new brand.
Deploy new off-street signage package at public facilities
By December 2016
SOLUTIONS – STEP 8 (12 - 18 months)
Expand bike parking network
Increase bike parking opportunities throughout downtown.
Four step approach
―Bike lanes
―On-sidewalk
―Bike Corrals
―On-private property
―By August 2016
Identify funding/incentives and install
―By December 31, 2016
Next Steps (August meeting)
New set of Guiding Principles
Strategy Recommendations tied to GP’s
Immediate, near, mid and long-term organization
What more would the Committee like to see?
THANK YOU!
Study Area
Study Area Boundary (Zoning)