HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1978/02/15 - Regular"
"
T E M P L E C I T Y P A R K I N G C O M M I S S I O N
M I N U T E S
I N I T I A T I O N :
1 . C h a i r m a n G r a h a m c a l l e d t o o r d e r t h e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g o f t h e P a r k i n g
C o m m i s s i o n a t 3 : 0 5 P . M . o n W e d n e s d a y , F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 7 8 , i n C o u n c i l
C h a m b e r o f C i t y H a l l .
2 . T h e P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e t o t h e F l a g w a s l e d b y t h e C h a i r m a n .
3 . R o l l C a l l : P r e s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s D r i v e r , K o n r a d , M c V e y , M i l l h a m ,
G r a h a m ; C i t y M a n a g e r K o s k i . ; P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r
D r a g i c e v i c h ; T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r E n v a l l , L o s
A n g e l e s C o u n t y R o a d D e p t .
4 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S
C o m m i s s i o n e r M c V e y m o v e d t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g
o f t h e P a r k i n g C o m m i s s i o n o n O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1 9 7 7 a s w r i t t e n . T h e m o t i o n
w a s s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r K o n r a d a n d c a r r i e d .
C h a i r m a n G r a h a m s t a t e d t h a t i n d e f e r e n c e t o t h o s e i n t h e a u d i e n c e w h o
w e r e i n t e r e s t e d i n I t e m N o . 6 o n t h e a g e n d a s h e w o u l d s u g g e s t t h i s
m a t t e r b e c o n s i d e r e d f i r s t i f t h e r e w e r e n o o b j e c t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
T h e r e w e r e n o o b j e c t i o n s .
6 . P U B L I C P A R K I N G L O T N O . 5 - P e t i t i o n t o C h a n g e C u r r e n t P a r k i n g
R e g u l a t i o n s
C i t y M a n a g e r K o s k i a d v i s e d t h e C i t y h a d r e c e i v e d a p e t i t i o n c i r c u l a t e d
b y J e f f A m l i n , S p o r t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , ' 9 6 2 1 L a s T u n a s D r i v e , a n d s i g n e d
b y m e r c h a n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g 1 3 s t o r e s i n t h e 9 6 0 0 b l o c k o f L a s T u n a s
D r i v e , r e q u e s t i n g a c h a n g e i n c u r r e n t p a r k i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s i n a
p o r t i o n o f t h e a d j a c e n t p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t . T h e l o t i s w i t h i n
P a r k i n g D i s t r i c t N o . 3 , d e s i g n a t e d a s p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t N o . 5 .
T h e p r o p o s a l o u t l i n e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n w a s t o c h a n g e t h e n o r t h e r l y
p o r t i o n o f t h e p a r k i n g l o t t o u n r e s t r i c t e d p a r k i n g f o r c u s t o m e r a n d
m e r c h a n t u s e . T h e e n t i r e l o t i s p r e s e n t l y p o s t e d w i t h 2 h o u r p a r k i n g
r e g u l a t i o n s . . A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t s t h e l o a d i n g z o n e
l o c a t e d m i d w a y b e t w e e n C a m e l l i a A v e n u e a n d T e m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d , b e
c o n v e r t e d t o c u s t o m e r p a r k i n g . T h e C i t y S t a f f h a d t a k e n a s u r v e y f o r
f i v e c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e u s e o f a n d t h e p a r k i n g p a t t e r n s
i n t h i s p u b l i c p a r k i n g l o t . T o a i d t h e C o m m i s s i o n i n t h e i r r e v i e w
o f t h i s p e t i t i o n , a s c h e m a t i c o f t h e p a r k i n g l o t h a d b e e n p r e p a r e d ,
a n d a c o p y o f t h e T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r ' s r e p o r t a n d a n a l y s i s o f f i n d i n g s
h a d b e e n m a d e a v a i l a b l e f o r s t u d y .
T h e C i t y M a n a g e r s t a t e d h e h a s a s k e d s t a f f t o m a k e a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s
i n a v e r a g i n g o u t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f o c c u p a n c y i n t h e l o t u s i n g 3 2
s t a l l s a n d t h e c o u n t s t a k e n a t v a r i o u s t i m e s d u r i n g t h e 5 - d a y p e r i o d .
B a s e d u p o n t h e s e f a c t o r s , 3 f i e l d c h e c k s t a k e n o n 1 - 3 0 - 7 8 d i s c l o s e d
5 0 % o c c u p a n c y o f l o t N o . 5 ; 4 f i e l d c h e c k s t a k e n o n 1 - 3 1 - 7 8 s h o w e d
6 0 . 9 % o c c u p a n c y ; o n 2 - 1 - 7 8 , 7 0 . 8 % o c c u p a n c y ( 3 f i e l d c h e c k s ) ; o n
2 - 2 - 7 8 , 7 1 . 1 / 0 o c c u p a n c y ( 4 f i e l d c h e c k s ) ; a n d o n 2 - 3 - 7 8 , 7 1 . 8 % o c c u p a n c y
( 4 f i e l d c h e c k s . )
M r . K o s k i g a v e b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e
p a r k i n g d i s t r i c t s , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y o w n e r s w i t h i n s u b j e c t
d i s t r i c t w e r e a s s e s s e d f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t w o p a r c e l s o f l a n d
w h i c h n o w c o m p r i s e t h e p a r k i n g l o t a n d a l s o t h e c o s t f o r t h e i m p r o v e -
m e n t s . T h e C i t y p a r t i c i p a t e d b y a s s u m i n g c o s t s f o r t h e p e d e s t r i a n
m a l l a n d t h e l i g h t i n g . R e l a t i v e t o t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e C i t y h a d
n o t i f i e d a l l o f t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s a n d t e n a n t s w i t h i n p a r k i n g d i s t r i c t
N o . 3 , t h e a r e a b o u n d e d b y L a s T u n a s D r i v e , T e m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d ,
W o o d r u f f A v e n u e a n d C a m e l l i a A v e n u e . T h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s h a v e a
v i t a l i n t e r e s t i n p u b l i c p a r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s a n d m a n y a r e s t i l l p a y i n g
t h e i r a s s e s s m e n t . C o n c l u d i n g , t h e C i t y M a n a g e r n o t e d t h a t L o t N o . 5
h a s t h e m o s t d e m a n d f o r p u b l i c p a r k i n g w i t h t h e l e a s t a m o u n t o f
a r e a o f a n y o f t h e f o u r m a j o r p a r k i n g l o t s i n t h e d o w n t o w n b u s i n e s s
d i s t r i c t .
C 9
Parking Commission Minutes - Meeting of February 15, 1978 Page 2
Chairman Graham asked to hear from the Traffic Engineer. Mr.'
Envall explained data in his memorandum was based upon 30 spaces
in the public parking lot but Mr. Koski had advised the Commis.s.ion
of two additional spaces in the lot with the resultant changes in
occupancy percentages. He explained the field checks taken by
license numbers were based upon actual usage of parking stalls.
Mr. Envall referred to his memorandum analyzing the findings and
his recommendations and alternatives relative to the petition to
remove two hour parking limitations from the northerly portion of
Lot No. 5.
Chairman Graham opened the meeting for a hearing and invited the
representative who initiated the petition to present his testimony.
Jeff Amlin, Sports International, 9621 Las Tunas Drive, explained
the basic position of the merchants in the block under discussion
was the need for merchants to have access to their place of business
from the rear or front of the property to carry on business, which
involves merchants having use of their vehicles during the hours of
business,without being in violation of the posted two hour time
limit parking. He noted the petition represented the signatures of
87% of the merchants in the block recommending the northerly portion
of the lot be made available for all day parking. Other considerations
were the two beauty parlors in the block where customers usually
need to park more than two hours.
Mr. Amlin explained that the petition was not circulated to Mr. Al
Cullen, Manager of Lloyds Bank whose lot is adjacent to the public
parking lot, or to the property owners on Temple City Boulevard
who may have been assessed for the parking lot when parking districts
were formed. As an alternative to their proposal by petition,
Mr. Amlin said the Commission might consider issuing a parking sticker
to merchants who have shown they have a genuine need for their vehicle
to be parked in the parking lot for longer than two hours.
Chairman Graham asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of
Jeff Amlin. Commissioner Millham inquired if the signatures on the
petition were merchants or employees of businesses in the block.
Mr. Amlin replied that 13 out of 15 businesses in the block were
represented on the petition, and they were signatures of property
owners.
Chairman Graham invited those in favor of the petition for removing
two hour time limit restrictions on public parking lot No. 5 to
speak.
Dominic Mortellaro, 9629 Las Tunas Drive, stated he was in the city
when the parking malls were constructed, that he had paid an assess-
ment as a property owner. He asked for confirmation of his recollec-
tion that property owners had turned over a portion of their property
to the city for the development. Mr. Koski replied that what was a
20 -foot alley is still public ownership. Ten feet was converted to a
mall sidewalk and 10 feet to parking facilities, which are now adjacent
to structures. Mr. Mortellaro inquired about the rest of the parking
lot, particularly the northerly side of the lot. City Manager Koski
explained two 30 -foot lots were purchased by the property owners for
parking facilities, 50 feet was acquired through assessment against
properties. Mr. Mortellaro then suggested both sides of Camellia Avenue,
north and south of Las Tunas Drive, be opened up for all day parking,
which he felt would alleviate the problems encountered by tenants
and employees. It was explained the two hour time limit parking was
put in as a result of a survey conducted by the city of property
owners and residents on Camellia Avenue.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Mortellaro stated that
he had signed the petition with some reservations but in lieu of any
other apparent alternative to solve the problem of limited parking
space in the lot he had acted upon the petition in the hope of
getting some relief to the problem which has plagued the merchants
in this particular block for years. He pointed out the posted two
hour restrictions in the lot are not being enforced and that merchants
and tenants in the whole block are using the parking lot for their
own vehicles, i.e. it would be better to have one portion of the lot
for all day parking, leaving the parking stalls closest to
business for customers.
Parking Commission Minutes - Meeting of February 15, 1978 Page 3
Commissioner Millham asked Mr. Mortellaro how employee- merchant
parking was handled in the shopping mall in Arcadia. Mr. Mortellaro
replied they are required to park in the far portions of the lot
• away from the mall. However, the problems are the same as those locally
with employees using the closer parking spaces which are for customers.
There is a system of license plate checks by a patrol unit but
violations do continue to occur.
David Bracci, Sports Internatinnalt 9621 Las Tunas Drive, said 60%
of their business was "outside" the store, which requires numerous
pickup and deliveries, and to have to park on Woodruff Avenue or some
distance away is detrimental to their business as well as impractical.
He felt this situation was unfair to businessmen, and providing for
a portion of the lot for all day parking without restrictions would
be helpful to business.
Commissioner Millham suggested it would not be an inconvenience
to park off of the lot on a nearby street after loading or unloading
merchandise. In this manner, merchandise could be loaded while the
vehicle was parked in the lot and then relocated, leaving parking
stalls for customers. The more spaces that are taken up with
employees and merchants parking, the less will be available for
customers.
Chairman Graham pointed out that were restrictions to be removed
0 from a portion of the lot, there is no guarantee spaces would be
available for the merchants, that it would be open to the public
and would more than likely be used by commuters who use the bus
to go to Los Angeles.
Beverly Foreman, Toy Factory, 9627 Las Tunas Drive, said she agreed
with previous statements made about the difficulty to carrying
merchandise from the store to a vehicle parked some distance away.
She felt the loading zone midblock in the mall was too far from
her place of business to be helpful. The side street is almost
always completed utilized by employees of the bank and she felt
that designating a portion of the lot without the two hour
parking restrictions would be useful as most of the merchants arrive
at an early hour and would be the principal parkers. She emphasized
the need to assist business in the block. She also pointed out that
two hours does not provide enough time for customers to shop if they
go to more than one place, particularly if they have gone to a beauty
shop.
Bob Ervolino, employee of the Toy Factory, felt the two hour restric-
tion were prohibitive to those who were handicapped arid used
wheelchairs. With the shortage of parking were they expected to
park a block away. He found it difficult to find any place to park
in the immdiate vicinity when he came to work in the afternoons.
Commissioner Driver noted lot #5 is one of the smallest in the
parking districts with only 30 spaces to serve 16 businesses. He
and his employees park on one of the nearby streets and if the north
side of the lot was changed to unrestricted parking, this would leave
only 15 spaces for customers for the 16 businesses, or less than
one space per business for customers.
Jeff Amlin, Sports International returned to the podium to say
that with the shortage of parking in lot No. 5 the loading zone..
midblock could be eliminated to provide two additional parking spaces.
He felt that it would be safer for a truck to park parallel to the
parking stalls for loading /unloading rather than a truck parked in
the loading zone and sticking out into the travel lane. In their
business they make numerous deliveries a day and never use the
loading zone. He urged action on the requests outlined in the
petition, or suggested enforcement of the two hour restrictions
regularly, or issue a sticker to merchants for their vehicles.
0 He was more in favor of the latter as some businesses by their
nature require a car adjacent to that business.
Chairman Graham asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of
the petition. No one came forward.
The Chairman then advised letters had been received from two
businesses expressing opposition to the rescinding of the two hour
Parking Commission Minutes - Meeting of February 15, 1978 Page 4
restrictions in public parking lot No. 5 and the reasons thereof.
Letters from Pat Kelly Travel Service, 9619 Las Tunas Drive, and
Lieberg's, 9565 Las Tunas Drive, were made part of the record
of the meeting.
Chairman Graham invited those who wished to speak in opposition
to the petition to come forward.
Al Cullen, Manager of Lloyds Bank, 9635 Las Tunas Drive, stated
he was opposed to the proposal to rescind two hour parking limits
from a portion of the lot for the reason that this would be a
major step to having a "going out of business" trend in the block.
He felt that it would not take a merchant three or four hours
of parking in the public lot for loading /unloading purposes.
The parking lot behind the bank is private, for use of customers
of the bank and were the privilege to be abused by customers of
adjacent business, he would be forced to hire a bank lot attendant
for strict enforcement of the 30- minute time limit. As a solution
to the problem under discussion, he would suggest enforcement of
the two hour time limit in the public parking lot and wiser use
of the lot by the merchants. Making a portion of the lot
for all day parking would reduce the number of parking spaces
available for customers and create a greater problem than presently
exists.
Louis Merritt, 5952 Temple City Boulevard, was opposed to the
proposal to rescind two hour time limits on a portion of public
parking lot No. 5 as he was one of the property owners still paying
on his assessment to the district which was for the purpose of
providing parking for customers. To permit a portion of the lot
to be unrestricted would be inviting abuses for those who are
parking all day on the streets or who are seeking a closer place to
public transportation or their place of employment. He was not in
favor of issuing stickers as it would give a privilege to certain
merchants who may park all day where they should be allowing a place
for customers to park. He urged greater utilization of the loading
zone by the merchants in the block as it is for the use of all.
Wes Nunamaker, Cool's Candies, 9549 Las Tunas Drive, stated the
shortage of parking in lot No. 5 has been a long- standing one,
and he was opposed to opening up any part of the lot without time
limit restrictions as it would create problems as mentioned by
previous speakers, i.e., all day parking without any means of
control. Similar problems are encountered in the public parking
lot adjacent to his place of business on the opposite side of
Temple City Boulevard, although not as acutely. Employees and
merchants park away from the public parking lot. He would not like
to see a precedent established by the proposals in the petition
presented to the Commission as it might conceivably reach a point
where the lots would be used primarily for merchants and employees
and not for customers.
In rebuttal, Jeff Amlin stated other public parking lots had portions
of the lot which were not posted with two hour restrictions, and
he felt the same should apply to lot No. 5.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, Chairman Graham
closed the hearing and asked for Commission discussion.
Comiaissioner Millham stated no one would disagree with the petitioners
that there is a problem. He did not feel that opening up one portion
of the lot would solve the problem of acute shortage of parking
stalls in lot No. 5, and,were this to be done,may be the basis for
requests in other public parking lots. One solution would be the
acquisition of additional land for parking but costs would be
prohibitive and would require assessments to property owners within
this particular district. He would deny the request in the petition
based upon the reasoning that it would reduce the amount of parking
for customers and would not necessarily serve the merchants in that
unrestricted parking would be for the general public with no
controls, which would not solve the existing problems.
•
•
Parking Commission Minutes - Meeting of February 15, 1978 Page 5
Commissioner McVey said that if a progressive merchant were to
move into the block, generating more parking demands for customers,
and found that a portion of the lot was unrestricted, he may then
feel that the entire lot should be posted with 2 hour parking limits
in order to provide a greater amount of turnover parking, and,the•
situation would be subject to a request for a change again.
He would deny the request as he could not see sacrificing customer
parking in exchange for all day parking which would be open to
the public, not just for the merchants.
Commissioner Konrad said she (concurred with the comments of Commissioners
Millham and McVey, adding that enforcement of the two hour parking
restriction tends to irritate customers if they are cited. Since
the public parking lots were established for customer parking, not
for the use by merchants and their employees, the merchants should
cooperate by parking off of the lots which will negate the need
for enforcement. She saw nothing wrong with merchants using parking
close to their place of business in the parking lot for loading and
unloading of merchandise as long as they parked off of the lot
afterwards. She would deny the request of the petitioners to desig-
nate a portion of the lot for all -day parking as unjustified.
Commissioner Driver said he was a property owner and merchant in
the block under discussion and since the courtesy cards placed in
the windshield of cars parked all day were ignored he would suggest
that license numbers be taken of the offenders and tickets issued.
He had spoken with merchants who had signed the petition and felt
they were not aware of the consequences of having a portion of the
lot free from time limit parking. With two customer spaces per
business with present time limit parking restrictions, reducing
this ratio further would discourage other large volume businesses
from locating in this particular block. There are approximately
40 employees in the block, excluding bank employees, and were the
portion of the lot which has 15 parking spaces to be free of any
time limit parking restrictions, they would have a right like all
others to use these spaces. He would therefore deny the request.
Chairman Graham said she had listened to both sides and felt that
more cooperation could be achieved if merchants and business people
communicated with each other in trying to resolve this problem,
among themselves. She did not think granting the request under
the petition presented would benefit the merchants or the customers
and she would be in favor of denying the request.
In general discussion, it was pointed out that merchants do have an
alternative in that they may approach property owners immediately
north to negotiate use of the parking lot during the day as these
lots are not fully utilized. Other merchants have already done so.
Commissioner Millham moved to deny the petition as presented,
seconded by Commissioner Konrad and carried. Chairman Graham
advised Jeff Amlin and the petitioners who were present of
their right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days.
5. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT - A. W. DRIVER, 9611 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
City Manager Koski advised that one of the conditions imposed
in the agreement between Mr. Driver and the City permitting
the crossing over of the pedestrian mall, was the annual review
to determine if all conditions were being met by the permittee.
Each member of the Commission should be familiar with the present
location and with the conditions. Mr. Koski then enumerated
those conditions for Commission information.
Commissioner Driver stated he would abstain from voting in the
matter.
Commissioner Millham noted this is a unique situation with a garage
which is part of the structure and in order for merchandise (furniture)
to be unloaded from a truck into the building, it was necessary
to cross over the pedestrian mall. He felt the permittee had
met all of the conditions in the agreement and moved to recommend
to the City Council renewal of agreement with A. W. Driver, 9611
Las Tunas Drive, to cross over Pedestrian Mall #3, adjacent to
public parking lot No. 5, and within Parking District No. 3,
The motion was seconded bar Commissioner McVey and carried by the
Parking Commission Minutes - Meeting of February 15, 1978 Page 6
following vote:
Ayes,, Commissioners Konrad, McVey, Millham, Graham
Noes: None
Abstaining: Commissioner Driver
7. COMMUNICATIONS: There were no communications.
8. TIME FOR THOSE IN AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: No one came forward.
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
A. Commissioner Driver inquired about the sandbags which were
placed in front of the entrances to Lloyds Bank along the mall.
Mr. Koski replied that during the recent heavy rains, the drainage
structure was backed up and overflowed the sidewalk. This has
been a recurring problem and will be presented as a budget item
to the City Council for modification in the form of a permanent
improvement.
B. Commissioner Konrad commented on the improvement in the appearance,
of the public parking lots after the recent slurry seal.
C. City Manager Koski invited the Commission to submit items for
budget consideration for FY 1978 -79.
10 ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to conduct, Commissioner Millham
moved to adjourn at 4:45 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Driver
and carried. The next regular meeting of the Parking Commission
will be held on Wednesday, June.21, 1978, 3:00 P.M., in Council
Chamber of City Hall.
ATTEST:
Secretary
•
•
•