CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
"The Pass of the Oaks"
City Council Agenda Addendum
Tuesday, May 7, 2024, 6:30 PM
Library/Conference Center Council Chamber
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Residents can livestream the meeting at www.prcity.com/youtube, and call (805)865-7276 to provide public comment via phone. The phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting and remain open throughout the meeting to ensure the opportunity to comment on each item heard by the Council, other than brief reports and announcements by staff or the Council.
Written public comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to 12:00 noon on the day of the Council meeting to be posted as an addendum to the Agenda. If submitting written comments in advance of the meeting, please note the agenda item by number or name. City Council meetings will be livestreamed during the meeting and also available to play later on YouTube by accessing the following link: www.prcity.com/youtube. Any writing or document pertaining to an open session item on this agenda which is distributed to a majority of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public inspection at the time the subject writing or document is distributed. The writing or document will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA, during normal business hours, and may be posted on the City’s web site at www.prcity.com/meetings.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Any individual, who because of a disability needs special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, may request assistance by contacting the City Clerk’s Office (805) 237- 3960. Whenever possible, requests should be made four (4) working days in advance of the meeting.
Pages
K. DISCUSSION ITEMS
*5. Discussion Regarding Downtown Parking and Potential Next Steps Regarding the Implementation or Continued Suspension/Repeal of Ordinance Number 1135 2 - 14
Ty Lewis, City Manager
Elizabeth Hull, City Attorney
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.
Recommendation: Staff has no recommendation.
City Council Agenda May 7, 2024
Council Agenda Report
From: Ty Lewis, City Manager
Elizabeth Hull, City Attorney
Subject: Discussion Regarding Downtown Parking and Potential Next Steps Regarding the Implementation or Continued Suspension/Repeal of Ordinance Number 1135 CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.
Date: May 7, 2024
Facts
1. In late 2023, early 2024, the City Attorney’s office conducted a review the City’s Parking Management Ordinance and actions taken by the City to implement the Parking Management Program (hereinafter referred to as the “Program”).
2. Following that review, the City paused the Program, effective February 7, 2024.
3. On February 20, 2024, the City introduced for first reading, Ordinance No. 1135, which modified the Parking Management Ordinance to establish the boundaries of the paid parking area in the Downtown and other clarifying changes to that ordinance.
4. On March 5, 2024, the Council held the second reading and adopted Ord No. 1135 modifying PRMC Chapter 12.42.
5. On March 17, 2024, the City was emailed a copy of a referendum petition being circulated to “Require Voter Approval of Paid Parking Zones Ordinance.”
6. On March 19, 2024, City Manager Ty Lewis reached out to the proponents of the referendum to alert them that the City had received a copy of the referendum and had concerns about the validity of the form being used.
7. The proponents of the referendum were not available to meet with the City Manager to discuss the form of the referendum. The proponents indicated they had legal counsel and were confident the referendum complied with state law.
8. On April 2, 2024, the proponents provided the referendum with 2281 signatures to the City Clerk. The City Clerk conducted a prima facie examination of the petition. There is no requirement to verify the validity of the referendum at this stage. In essence this is simply a raw count of the number signatures affixed to the paper. If the number of signatures is equal to or exceeds the signature threshold the City Clerk shall accept the referendum.
9. Following receipt of the referendum, the City Clerk has 30 business days to determine whether the petition is valid. Based upon the April 2, 2024, submittal, the City Clerk has until May 14, 2024 to make a determination.
10. On April 16, 2024, Councilmember Gregory requested that the issue of the Parking Management Ordinance be returned to Council for further discussion.
11. Following receipt of the referendum petition, the City reviewed it and has found that it fails to comply with state law.
12. The City Clerk anticipates issuing a Notice of Rejection pursuant to Sections 9240 and 9114 of the Elections Code on Wednesday, May 8, 2024.
Options
1. Take no action (if the Council takes no action and the City Clerk rejects the Petition on May 8, 2024, Ordinance No. 1135 would become effective);
2. Direct the City Manager to continue the suspension of the Paid Parking Program;
3. Take no action on this item and consider an ordinance repealing Ord No. 1135 which is Agenda Item ___ on this agenda;
4. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis and Conclusions
Initiatives and Referendums
Both the initiative and referendum process allow citizens to collect signatures to place legislation on the ballot; however, they serve very different purposes. An initiative allows the electorate to place a new statute or law on the ballot for consideration by the voters. A referendum is a process for the voters to approve or reject ordinances/legislative acts which have been adopted by the legislative body, in this case the City Council. A referendum is limited to the specific action/ordinance that is being challenged and does not create future law or set future process for adoption of law.
A referendum may only be placed on the ballot after the proponents have successfully met a series of requirements set forth in the California Elections Code. To be placed on the ballot a referendum petition must satisfy all of the requirements of the Elections Code.
If the referendum petition submitted to the Clerk regarding the parking ordinance had satisfied the requirements of the Election Code and received more than 50% of the votes cast in the November election it would have repealed the identified portions of Ordinance No. 1135. It would not have repealed PRMC
12.42 in its entirety or the Parking Program set forth therein. Also, it would not require a vote for future actions by the Council on parking issues.
Defects in the Referendum Petition
There are a number of defects in the referendum petition submitted to the City Clerk on April 2, 2024, that prohibit the Clerk from proceeding with the review of the signatures and certifying it to be placed on a future ballot. Among others, the referendum petition as presented omits the notices required by Election Code Section 101(a)(1) and (2) and omits the ordinance number and title, required by Elections Code Section 9238(a).
Although it has been asserted that the Clerk or the Council should waive these deficiencies or that the Petition “substantially complies” with the law, the case law does not support this position and “substantial compliance” is not a determination the City Clerk or the Council can make. The City Clerk is limited to a determination of whether or not there is full, technical compliance, and with respect to the provisions of law referenced herein and others identified by the City there has not been compliance. As such the Clerk cannot allow the referendum petition to proceed.
For example, the omission of the notices prescribed by Section 101(a)(1) and (3) prohibit the Petition from being certified.
Elections Code § 101 provides:
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition required to be signed by voters shall contain in 11-point type, before that portion of the petition for voters’ signatures, printed names, and residence addresses, the following language, in order:
(1) “NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:”. This text shall be in
a boldface type.
(2) If the petition includes the disclosure statement
described by subdivision (b) of Section 107, the text
“SIGN ONLY IF IT IS THE SAME MONTH SHOWN
IN THE OFFICIAL TOP FUNDERS OR YOU SAW an
“Official top funders” SHEET FOR THIS MONTH.”
This text shall be in a boldface type.
(3) “THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK.” This text shall be
in a non-boldface type.
(b) A state initiative petition shall contain, in the same location and type size described in subdivision (a), the following language in a non-boldface type: “THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS PROPOSED INITIATIVE
MEASURE HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THIS
PETITION AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEASURE
QUALIFIES FOR THE BALLOT.”
None of this language was included on the Petition.
Whether or not the Petition was required to include the language prescribed in subdivisions (a)(2) and (b) is discussed further below, but there is no question that the Petition should have included the language contained in sections 101(a)(1) and (3), to read:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A
PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A
VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
ASK.
This language is entirely missing from the Petition and therefore substantial compliance could not be found. “Substantial compliance ‘means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.’” Myers v. Patterson, 196 Cal. App. 3d 130, 138 (1987) (quoting Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d at 649) (emphasis in original; some internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “[a] paramount concern in determining whether a petition is valid despite an alleged defect is whether the purpose of the technical requirement is frustrated by the defective form of the petition.” Nelson v. Carlson, 17 Cal. App. 4th 732, 737 (1993) (quoting Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal. 3d at 652-53). As the Myers court recognized, this means that if a “notice-inclusion requirement serves some informational purpose for prospective signers of a petition, then there clearly [is] no substantial compliance [when the]
petition sections... fail[] altogether to include the notice.” Myers, 196 Cal. App. 3d at 138 (emphasis added). Applying this standard, the Myers court invalidated an initiative petition that failed to include a copy of the Notice of Intention to Circulate, which is required by the Elections Code.
Additionally, the Petition failed to include the ordinance number and title as required by Elections Code Section 9238(b)(1) which provides that “[e]ach section of the referendum petition shall contain . . . [t]he identifying number or title of the ordinance.” The petition contains no reference to Ordinance Number 1135 and it does not contain the official title either, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles Amendment Paso Robles Municipal Code Chapter 12.42, Parking Management, to Clarify the Process for Setting Parking Rates, Reestablishing the Downtown Parking Zone and other Clean Up Measures.” The failure to include the reference to the code section or the title makes the petition ambiguous and, potentially, misleading to members of the public as to what the actual effect of the referendum will be if successful. In Hebard v. Bybee, (1998), 65 Cal.App.4th 1331, the Court of Appeal invalidated a referendum petition that included both the ordinance number and the official title, but which mistakenly omitted three words from the official title, making the title inaccurate, or at least ambiguous.
As a result of these and other deficiencies in the petition, the City Clerk anticipates rejecting the petition.
As was reported out following the April 16, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council considered and rejected pursuing litigation related to the referendum petition. The Council considered requesting a Court to determine whether the petition could be found “substantially compliant” with the Elections Code and order the referendum be placed on the ballot.
Following that closed session meeting, Councilmember Gregory requested the parking issue come back to Council on May 7, 2024 for further discussion.
Next Steps
At this time the Council may discuss the status of parking in the downtown area and provide direction to staff on any further actions related to the ordinance.
The paid parking program had been suspended by the City Manager since February 7, 2024, while the City reevaluated the implementation process of the existing program and waited for Ordinance No. 1135 to become effective. When the City Clerk rejects the petition on May 8, 2024, Ordinance 1135 will no longer be held in abeyance and will go into effect.
At this time, the Council could direct the City Manager to continue the suspension of the paid parking until such time in the future that the City Council believes circumstances warrant reconsideration of the issue.
Additionally, the City Council could consider an ordinance to repeal Ordinance No. 1135 or take such other action as the City Council decides upon.
Fiscal Impact
If the City Council takes no action, the paid parking program could restart in the near future. If the program is restarted, the $1 per hour rate will apply. This is projected to generate sufficient revenues to offset expenditures of the parking program. However, if the Council directs that the paid parking program continue to be suspended, or the ordinance is repealed, there would be no additional revenue or cost associated with it.
As of March 31, 2024, the loan balance on the General Fund loan which was used to establish the program originally is approximately $527,700. If City Council were to not reestablish the downtown parking program, the program would be dissolved, and the General Fund loan written off.
CEQA
The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.
Recommendation
Staff has no recommendation.
Attachments
1. Blank Referendum Petition
2. Ordinance 1135
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1135 N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AMENDING PASO ROBLES MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.42, PARKING MANAGEMENT, TO
CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR SETTING PARKING RATES, REESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOWN
PARKING ZONE AND OTHER CLEAN UP MEASURES
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2018 the City Council heard the first reading of an ordinance revising Paso Robles Municipal Code Chapter 12.42, among other sections, to address charging for parking pursuant to Vehicle Code (“VC”) Section 22508; and
WHEREAS, following the first reading of the ordinance City staff, community members and an Ad Hoc Committee met to consider comments made by the community at the first reading and recommended minor revisions to the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2018, the City Council approved the second reading and adopted the ordinance (the “2018 Parking Management Ordinance”) incorporating the minor modifications recommended by the Ad Hoc committee and the community following the first reading; and WHEREAS, between November 2018 and May 2019 City staff continued to meet internally and with the community regarding the implementation of the new parking program; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2019, the City Council heard a Downtown Parking update and, by motion recorded as a minute action, approved 2 hours of free parking in the area from 10th St to 14th St and Spring St to Pine St (“Downtown Parking Zone”), between 9 am – 6 pm, Monday-Friday, with paid parking to be initiated when and where appropriate after 2 hours (“Paid Parking Program”); and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2019, the City Council approved agreements with vendors to implement the Paid Parking Program ; and
WHEREAS, in August 2019, the City began charging for parking pursuant to the Paid Parking Program; and
WHEREAS, between August 2019 and May 2022, the Downtown Parking Advisory Commission and community continued to review aspects of the Paid Parking Program. In May 2022, the City Council disbanded the Downtown Parking Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 21-035, which extended the Paid Parking Program to operate Monday-Sunday, from 9 am – 8 pm each day; and WHEREAS, between December 2022 and November 2023, the City Council heard numerous items related to the Paid Parking Program designed to assess the implementation and fiscal impacts of the Paid Parking Program; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, the City Council approved, by motion and recorded as a minute action, charging $1 per hour starting at minute 1 within the Downtown Parking Zone, allowing unlimited senior permits for City residents, and the design and ordering of new signage. The Council also requested the City Manager to return with any additional actions requiring Council action to implement the revisions to the Paid Parking Program and to provide an update to the Council; and WHEREAS, following that action a number of community members asserted the City did not have the ability to charge for parking in the downtown area because the City did not have an ordinance addressing the imposition of parking rates; and
WHEREAS, in response to the community concerns the City Attorney’s office conducted a review of the City’s existing Parking Management Ordinance, PRMC 12.42, and all actions taken since its adoption to confirm that the parking program was implemented consistent with the requirements of the Vehicle Code and the City’s own ordinance; and
WHEREAS, following an initial review of the implementation of Municipal Code Chapter 12.42 the City paused charging for parking and issuing citations associated with parking in the Downtown Parking Zone effective February 7, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Attachment 2
Section 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Council hereby ordains that Chapter 12.42 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 12.42 PARKING MANAGEMENT1
12.42.010 Definitions.
A. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this chapter shall have the following meanings.
B. Undefined words. The definition of any term used in the chapter not otherwise herein defined shall be the same as such terms are defined and described in the vehicle code of the state of California and amendments thereto.
C. Vehicle. The word vehicle as used herein shall mean any device in, upon or by which any person or property may be transported upon a street or highway, except those operated upon rails or tracks.
D. Park. The word park or parking, when used herein, shall mean the standing of a vehicle whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily, for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading passengers or merchandise.
E. Parking Zone. A parking zone in this chapter is defined as a group of on-street parking spaces with time limits and/or paid parking, as indicated on posted signage. (Ord. 152 N.S. § 1, 1950)12.42.020 Parking zones.
A. Parking zones shall be established by the City Council by ordinance, which may include the establishment of time limits and/or parking rates for such zones.
B. The City Council does hereby establish the Downtown Parking Zone which shall include the area extending from 10th Street to 14th Street, from Spring Street to Pine Street and the 900 block of 12th and 13th Streets (from Pine Street to Railroad Street). (Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
12.42.030 Authority to implement time limits.
Within parameters set by the City Council, the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to implement time limits in all established parking zones for the purpose of and in such numbers and at such places as in his judgment may be necessary to the regulation, control and inspection of the parking of vehicles therein. (Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, adopted Nov. 6, 2018, repealed the former § 12.42.030 and enacted a new § 12.42.030 as set out herein. The former § 12.42.030 pertained to engineer—authority to install and derived from Ord. 152 N.S., § 2, adopted in 1950.
12.42.040 Signs—Authority of engineer.
The city engineer is authorized to cause signs which fulfill the requirements of the ordinances and resolutions of the city pertaining thereto to be placed in the various parts of such zones to so indicate.
(Ord. 152 N.S. § 4, 1950)
12.42.050 Markings—Painting—Parking within.
The city engineer may have lines or markings painted or placed upon the curb or street adjacent to indicate individual parking spaces. It shall be unlawful to park any vehicle across any such line or marking or to park a vehicle in such a position that the same shall not be entirely within the space designated by such lines or markings. (Ord. 152 N.S. § 5, 1950)
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
Attachment 2
12.42.060 Overparking—Exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person, except outside of the designated parking zone hours and days of operation, to cause, allow, permit, or suffer any vehicle registered in his/her name or operated or controlled by him/her to be parked in any parking space upon any street within a parking zone or within a parking lot as indicated by proper signs placed in such zone or lot indicating the maximum parking time allowed in such parking space. A vehicle will be deemed to have been parked longer than the posted time limit, if it has not been moved at least "out of the parking zone" or parking lot after the expiration of the maximum time limitation indicated on the posted signage. Within parameters set by the City Council, the City Manager or their designee may set and adjust the parking zones, posted time limits, and/or period of operation of paid parking between the hours of seven o'clock a.m. and ten o'clock p.m. on any day, with the intent of achieving the target utilization rate of eighty-five percent. (Ord. 152 N.S. § 6, 1950)
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
12.42.070 Parking zone regulations—Authority.
A. It is the intent of the City Council to establish a target occupancy rate of eighty-five percent for all parking zone spaces within the city of Paso Robles. Occupancy rate refers to the percentage of parking zone spaces that are occupied by vehicles. The establishment of the target occupancy rate of eighty-five percent is based on well-accepted planning studies as well as the example of other municipalities. The City Council finds that the establishment of the target occupancy rate of eighty-five percent is an effective strategy for managing onstreet parking and congestion.
B. The City Council establishes that a paid parking session commences immediately upon parking, as provided in 12.42.080, unless otherwise determined by the City Manager, or their designee. The length of time allowed for a timed parking session for each parking area shall be established by the City Manager, of their designee, and range from a minimum of fifteen minutes to a maximum of eleven hours. The City Manager, or their designee, shall set the time limit of each parking zone, consistent with achieving the eighty-five percent target utilization rate, based upon parking occupancy data and community input. The City Manager, or their designee, may designate certain parking spots as a maximum of 30 minutes and, if determined by the City Manager, or their designee, to be consistent with achieving the eighty-five percent parking utilization rate or in the best interest of the community, provide that those designated parking spots do not require payment.
C. Under the authority of California Vehicle Code section 22508, the City Council establishes a range of hourly parking rates from $1.00 to $5.00. The parking rate for the Downtown Parking Zone shall be $1 per hour.
D. Under the authority of California Vehicle Code section 22507, the City Council may establish preferential parking privileges associated with any Parking Zone or other area by ordinance or resolution with provisions reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program.
12.42.080 Payment required.
When any vehicle is parked in any space within a paid parking zone, during the established payment hours, the operator of said vehicle upon so parking shall, and it shall immediately initiate a paid parking session through a designated and city-approved payment method.
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, adopted Nov. 6, 2018, repealed the former § 12.42.080 and enacted a new § 12.42.080 as set out herein. The former § 12.42.080 pertained to coin deposit required and derived from Ord. 152 N.S., § 8, adopted in 1950.
12.42.090 Substitutes—Slugs.
It shall be unlawful to deposit or cause to be deposited in any paid parking device, any slug, device or metallic substitute for lawful payment. (Ord. 152 N.S. § 9, 1950)
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
Attachment 2
12.42.100 Tampering—Destroying.
It shall be unlawful for any person to deface, injure, tamper with, open, or willfully break, destroy, or impair the usefulness of any parking signage, or other paid parking device installed pursuant to this chapter.
(Ord. 152 N.S. § 10, 1950)
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
12.42.110 Citation for violation—Procedure.
It shall be the duty of each police officer to take the number of any meter or parking zone at which any vehicle is over-parked, as provided in this chapter; the state vehicle license of such vehicle; the time and date of such over-parking, and the make of such vehicle; and issue, in writing and attach to such vehicle a citation for illegal parking in the same form and subject to the same procedure provided for by the laws of the state of California applicable to the traffic violations within this city.
(Ord. 152 N.S. § 11, 1950)
(Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
12.42.120 Parking ambassadors.
A. The chief of police is hereby authorized to designate regularly employed and salaried employees of the city or of a parking benefit district as parking ambassadors.
B. Civilian employees of the city of Paso Robles or a parking benefit district, as well as special contractors designated by the chief of police, shall enforce provisions of this title and the California Vehicle Code relating to the standing or parking of vehicles that legally may be enforced by persons other than peace officers.
C. Parking ambassadors shall enforce the provisions relating to regulation of traffic and to stopping, standing and parking of vehicles contained in the Paso Robles Municipal Code, the Paso Robles Traffic Code and in the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. No. 1065 N.S., § 3, 11-6-2018)
12.42.130 Electric vehicle parking regulations.
A. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this title shall have the following meanings.
1. "Electric vehicle" means either a battery electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
2. "Battery electric vehicle" means a vehicle fueled entirely by electricity stored in the onboard battery. This type of vehicle is often referred to as a zero emission vehicle.
3. "Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" means a vehicle that is fueled by both a battery and another fuel source, such as a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. This type of vehicle runs on electricity from the onboard battery until the battery is exhausted and then switches to an alternate power source.
4. "Charger" means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries or other energy storage devices within electric vehicles.
5. "Actively charging" means the time during which the connector from the charger at a charging station is inserted into the inlet and electrical power is being transferred for the purpose of recharging the electric vehicle's on-board batteries.
6. "Electric vehicle charging station" means a parking space that is served by a charger.
7. "Electric vehicle charging station zone" means a dedicated parking zone for electric vehicles to park and actively connect to chargers.
8. "Connector" means a device inserted into the inlet for an electric vehicle that establishes an electrical connection from the charger to the electric vehicle for the purpose of charging and exchanging information.
9. "Inlet" means the device on the electric vehicle into which the connector is inserted for charging and information exchange.
B. Only plug-in electric vehicles that are actively charging, as indicated by the electric vehicle charging station monitor display, may be parked at electric vehicle charging stations or in electric vehicle charging station zones located on any street or any parking facility owned, leased, or operated by the city of Paso Robles.
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
From: Linda Becker
To: John Hamon; Sharon Roden; Chris Bausch; Steve Gregory; Fred Strong; CityManager; City Clerk Subject: Parking Downtown
Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:05:55 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear City Council, City Manager and City Clerk,
I am writing to you regarding the upcoming agenda item pertaining to parking in downtown Paso Robles. Given that the proponents of the parking referendum were able to gather 2281 signatures in a matter of weeks it seems that parking is a hot button for voters residing within the city limits. It is clear from the attachments to the agenda for the May 7, 2024 City Council meeting the referendum petition failed to comply with details of state law.
It is both sad and unfortunate that the California elections code can be used to nitpick citizens attempt to make clear their desires to council members. It is sad when the minutia of law cannot be easily read and acted upon by every day citizens.
Government needs to be streamlined more approachable, reachable and responsive to the will of citizens.
Given the volume of signatures obtained in a matter of only a few weeks, it is clear that many voters within the Paso Robles city limits are very dissatisfied with the pay to park program. Many businesses have expressed they have enjoyed an increase in sales during this period of free parking downtown. Keep in mind parking is free in nearby Atascadero.
Given the council’s interest in gaining voter approval to increase sales tax in the upcoming November election, it is time to step back and reevaluate. I suspect, angry voters will not vote in favor of an increase in local sales tax as they are quite angry about paying to park downtown.
It is time to focus on creating a positive experience for customers and downtown business owners. Locals have begun returning to downtown to play in the park, shop, dine and watch a movie. Business have seen an increase in sales which means the city will benefits from increased sales tax. This time of free parking has been positive experience in our community.
It is time to take a different approach to improve the overall reputation of downtown and enhance customer satisfaction. Let's find a better way of managing parking in our downtown area and creating a vibrant and welcoming environment for community members, business owners, and visitors.
Let's create a vibrant and welcoming downtown for all.
Sincerely,
Linda Becker
Paso Robles
Becker, Linda
K5 - Public Comment