ON-STREET PARKING PERMIT POLICY
ÉTUDE
DU STATIONNEMENT SUR RUE AVEC PERMIS
ACS2007-PWS-TRF-0002
Mr. Doug Bowron, A/Manager, Traffic and Safety
Services presented the report by means of a PowerPoint presentation held on
file with the City Clerk.
Mssrs. Richard
Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services; Michael Flainek,
Director, Traffic and Parking Operations; John Manconi, Director, Surface
Operations; Phil Edens, Specialist, Traffic Assessment; Ron Clark, Consultant from Delcan Corporation, Troy
Leeson, Program Manager, Parking Enforcement; Dan O’Keefe, District Manager,
Roads Parks & Trees and Ms. Michelle Gregoire, Manager, Client Service
Centres were also in attendance to respond to questions from Committee members.
Councillor
Leadman also noted that the report indicates requests for new areas were to be
studied on a case-by-case basis, and feels this was an onerous task. Mr. Flainek confirmed that a request to look
at a new area could come from an individual.
He noted that one of the conditions would be that 80% of the block is in
concurrence with instituting a residential permit program.
Councillor
Leadman also expressed her concern that the requirement for an 80% level of support for parking
regulation changes was
too high a threshold. Mr. Flainek noted that with a straight
majority, communities could flip-flop on the issue as residents move in and out
of the area, resulting in more work for the City. He suggested that the 80% threshold would indicate a solid
community consensus and is within the range used for other programs in the
traffic area.
Councillor Leadman wondered why schools were not
included in the permit program, while daycares were included. Mr. Flainek suggested that the permits
schools may require would fall under other categories, such as a special event
permit. In response to further
questions from Councillor Leadman regarding the program timeline and cost,
Mr. Flainek explained that they were hoping to have the permits and fee
schedule in place by July 1. As to why
the costs for the program were so high, he explained that the most significant
cost was for the snow removal of the residential and visitor-parking program. He noted that a breakdown of the costs is
specified in Document 4 of the report.
Councillor
Bédard expressed concern that the proposed process would be a complicated and
lengthy one for residents to navigate, noting that it already takes 90 days or
longer to process simple requests such as moving a parking sign. He asked staff for an estimate of how long
it will take from the time a request comes in to when it is completed.
Mr.
Flainek, being aware with the concerns raised by Councillor Bédard, noted that
his Branch receives 14,000 individual requests per year, some of which are
complex. He admitted there was a
backlog, but maintained that they prioritize, and the requests dealing with
safety issues are dealt with faster. He
advised they would try to deal with the issue of the turnaround period in the
next budget and pointed out that one of the problems was that the number of
staff had not kept pace with the growth of the City.
In the
case of this program, he suggested that the timeline would likely be in the
same range as with existing requests, depending on priorities and time of year,
but noted that there is no set timeline.
In response to further questions and concerns from Councillor Bédard
about the timeframe, Mr. Flainek suggested that, assuming public consultations
and community consensus could be done fast, staff would be able to deal with
these requests in 2-3 months. However,
it could take longer to reach that community consensus.
Councillor
Bédard wondered if requests under the new Parking Permit Program would take
priority over other things already in line.
Mr. Flainek stated that they would not, but indicated staff were aware
of some existing situations which could be dealt with in the next 2-3 months
under the new program. Mr. Hewitt added
that, while many inquiries to the Branch are very technical in nature, this
program is more of a consensus process and the process for staff is standard
and not particularly onerous.
Councillor
Bédard echoed Councillor Leadman’s concerns about the 80% threshold for
community agreement. He wondered why
this threshold was necessary, and noted that everyone in his neighbourhood
wants the program. He wondered what
complaints staff had received about existing program. Mr. Flainek suggested that the major complaint they hear in some
areas is from residents who do not want people parking in front of their
houses. He noted that this was less of
an issue in the downtown core.
Councillor Bédard suggested that perhaps the 80% threshold could apply
only outside the core.
He also
brought up the issue of permit holders in the Byward Market, noting that they
often have no place to park, even with the permit. He suggested that there be a way of designating “permit parking
only” in Lowertown West, as is the case in parts of Vanier. Mr. Flainek recognized the issue in that area
and suggested that they could look at options such as expanding the permit area
or changing the duration of parking.
Councillor Bédard also had concerns regarding areas in Vanier that
provide non-residential permit parking, specifically to accommodate employees
in the office tower at McArthur Avenue and River Road. He suggested that this area should be
treated like everywhere else in Ottawa and that on-street parking should not be
available to employees. He noted that
he had received complaints from residents in the area and would be moving a
motion to have non-residential permit parking removed from that area.
Mr.
Flainek and Mr. Hewitt emphasized that there would be ramifications arising
from that decision, such as people parking elsewhere, and would like to provide
an idea of those impacts before moving forward.
Councillor
Doucet, referring to the estimated costs outlined on Page 61 of the report,
wondered why residential permits cost 25 times more to administer than business
identity cards. Mr. Flainek suggested
that this was due largely to the cost of snow clearing. Councillor Doucet asked if the issuance of
more permits would cause those costs to rise or decline. Mr. Flainek advised that the costs might not
rise substantially if those permits are in existing zones, but if new zones
were added there would be more clearing and maintenance and therefore higher
costs. He noted that it is intended to
be a user-pay program – people are charged to help offset costs of the program.
With
regards to the 80% threshold for neighborhood agreement, Councillor Doucet
noted that the threshold in Toronto is only 25%. Mr. Flainek advised that he was unaware of that figure. He maintained that reaching a strong
consensus is intended to reduce the back and forth to staff and councillors on
these matters. He noted that they had
talked to Toronto. Mr. Bowron noted
that Calgary also uses the 80% threshold and agreed that a lower threshold can
result in uncertainty, with people changing their minds.
Councillor
Doucet worried that the requirement may be so onerous that people would not
apply. He wondered what size of area
would be used for the survey to determine that 80% agreement. Mr. Flainek suggested that the smallest area
would be on a block basis.
Referring
to Page 36 of the report, he suggested that Councillors should be consulted
prior to the cancellation of, or modification to a permit-parking zone. He also suggested that the reduction of
demand for front yard parking was an important objective of the program.
He agreed
with Councillor Bédard that the proposed program is not simple and easy to
understand, despite ease of understanding being one of the program’s
objectives. Mr. Flainek noted that
the program already exists today, and all this report does is outline all the
rules in a policy.
Councillor Doucet expressed his concern with the
qualifying areas, and the complexity of determining what areas were eligible
for permit parking. He suggested that
the program should be City-wide, not limited to particular zones. Mr. Flainek clarified that policy is
throughout the city and is not limited to existing zones, and staff would
consider designating areas throughout the City. Councillor Doucet questioned the need to designate new zones at
all and suggested it should be simpler.
In
response to questions from Councillor Cullen regarding why there is an annual
fee for the program, rather than a one-time fee, Mr. Flainek provided out the
following reasons:
·
User
Pay is one of the guiding principles of the program.
·
It
allows staff to determine the use of the permits and keep track of usage.
In
response to further questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Flainek confirmed
that the $20 annual charge covers the administration of the on street parking
specifically.
Regarding
Policy 3.5 on Page 36, Councillor Cullen agreed with Councillor Doucet’s
earlier assertion that the Ward Councillor should be notified as to the
cancellation and modification of a zone.
He noted that he would be bringing a motion forward to that effect.
Councillor
Wilkinson felt that this was a complex policy for something that could be
handled simply. She wondered why the
fees were different in the summer and winter, and not just a flat fee. Mr. Flainek answered that they could charge
a flat fee, but explained that the higher winter costs, and the user pay
principle, was the rationale for the different fees.
Councillor
Wilkinson likened the permit-parking program to parking lots in that the City
pays for the land (the street) and people park on it in both cases. She wondered how the rates were set for
parking lots, if it was merely user-pay or also for income. Mr. Flainek explained that the City does try
to create a revenue stream in all their parking lots. Councillor Wilkinson suggested that they could also run the
permit-parking program for income. Mr.
Flainek suggested that if Council wishes to increase the rates, that motion
could be put forward.
Councillor
Wilkinson noted that the new planning policies passed the previous year have an
impact on this program as they allow for fewer off-road parking spaces. Mr. Flainek confirmed that this situation
could be putting more pressure on on-street parking, and suggested that this
program was one way of dealing with those pressures.
Councillor
Wilkinson wondered how they would define “block” on winding streets like the
ones in her area, where they are not set up in a grid pattern like
downtown. Mr. Flainek noted that even
those streets have intersections, and suggested they would designate areas for
the 80% approval threshold that would not necessarily encompass a whole 2 km
street.
Regarding the 4-step
process for parking permit approval as outlined on Slide 19 of the staff
presentation, Councillor Wilkinson wondered why pre-consultation was necessary
and suggested there could be an information sheet in lieu of that. Mr. Flainek deemed the information sheet a
good suggestion, and would try to reduce that amount of staff time.
Councillor Wilkinson
questioned the need for pre-screening processes, given that the survey or
petition provided by the applicant would be enough of an indication that
additional parking was necessary. Mr.
Edens explained that the intent of the policy is not to deal with an individual
property; rather individuals may be able to find off-street parking
elsewhere. He advised that prescreening
avoid the need for proponents to do a lot of work if it is evident that a
permit is not possible under the rules of the policy.
Councillor Wilkinson
suggested that is should be more of a cut and dry policy, if the proponent
meets the threshold for neighbour agreement, they should be approved, and if
they do not meet that threshold they should be refused.
Mr.
Flainek suggested that they could make a very simple program with a yes or no
answer. However, he suggested that for
the downtown core it is not that simple.
He also suggested that there are issues and special circumstances in the
downtown core that are not addressed by a program based solely on the numbers.
Councillor
Wilkinson asked if they would need to put up signage in areas where the regular
3-hour exemption exists and there is currently no signage. She wondered if the
permits themselves would be adequate.
Mr. Edens explained that a sign is required to provide the exemption of
the By-law. Mr. Leeson confirmed that,
while the permits were sufficient for parking enforcement staff to do their
work, the City is required to have the signs under the Ontario Highway
Traffic Act. As to why the City
could not just put the exemption into the By-law, Mr. Leeson explained that if
the City’s By-law is not consistent with the Act, then the whole By-law
could be declared null and void.
Councillor Wilkinson maintained this was a waste of money and cluttered
the streets.
Councillor Wilkinson agreed with Councillor Bédard
regarding the elimination of non-resident parking in Vanier. Mr. Flainek noted that they had planned that
all existing areas be grandfathered, but would monitor and consider elimination
if utilization is less than 10%. He
suggested that a motion to eliminate this could be brought forward, but
cautioned that there will be implications to changing parking patterns around a
major traffic generator.
Councillor
Legendre referenced a recent editorial in a local paper, which suggested that
the easier fix to the parking problem would be to change the City’s 3-hour
parking rule. He noted that some other
cities have no general time limit, and asked what the implications of that
change would be. Mr. Flainek suggested
that the column did not consider many of the issues and priorities such as
safety, traffic flow and maintenance, which would all be affected by the
change. Councillor Legendre asked what
impact eliminating the 3-hour rule would have on maintenance, aside from winter
snow clearing. Mr. John Manconi,
Director, Surface Operations suggested that it would be an impediment to
several operations outside of winter, including spring cleaning, cleaning catch
basins, accessing maintenance holes, and doing sidewalk repairs. Councillor Legendre wondered how abolishing
the 3-hour rule would change anything, as the City posts temporary no-parking
notices in these instances. Mr. Manconi
noted that, if you look at them in isolation you could debate whether certain
things work or do not work, but staff use an integrated approach to all the
various elements of the program. He
suggested that, in terms of winter maintenance, cities, like Edmonton and
Toronto look to Ottawa as a model, and on spring-cleaning operations, Toronto
is interested in what Ottawa is doing as well.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Legendre regarding the impact of eliminating
the 3-hour rule, Mr. Flainek noted that it would allow anyone coming downtown
to park full-time on residential streets.
He suggested that this would make it difficult to achieve any
improvement in modal split. He noted
that there were already problems in certain areas with parking infiltration
into neighbourhoods.
Councillor
Legendre then introduced the following motion:
That
all practices, conditions, fees and modalities currently in place in the
existing Permit Parking Program established for the Overbrook/Baseball Stadium
on Coventry Road be maintained as specific to the best functioning of the
Program and the Stadium in the future.
He
suggested that the program was working very well because it was tailored to
suit the operations of the stadium and the needs of the community. He noted that it does not operate in the
winter, so snow removal is not an issue.
He noted that the existing permit parking programs have an annual fee,
whereas this one has a one-time fee. He
suggested the reason was that the Community had to accept the disruptive
aspects of the stadium and it was excessive to ask them to charge them an
annual fee for their or their guests’ parking on game days. He noted that the City gets revenue from the
stadium, and suggested it was offensive to be making money from the stadium
right next to the residential neighbourhood and collecting money from the
residents of a relatively low-income area.
He noted that the Council of the day agreed, and asked the Committee to
support his motion. Councillor Legendre
supported Councillor Bédard’s position on removing non-residential parking in
Vanier, despite the effects it might have on his community.
Regarding
Councillor Legendre’s motion, Mr. Hewitt pointed out that the fee issue is
difficult from a staff perspective, as it creates stand-alone situations that
become more difficult to administer.
In
response to questions from Councillor Bloess regarding winter maintenance
costs, Mr. Manconi confirmed that having cars parked on the street in
winter as illustrated in slides 13 and 14 does cause costs to increase on
salting, ploughing and snow removal. He
explained that the significant cost is that the ploughs need to return and look
to see if cars have moved, which is very inefficient spot servicing.
Councillor Bloess wanted to understand the full
impacts of Councillor Bédard’s upcoming motion to eliminate the non-residential
parking permits in Vanier. Mr. Flainek
noted that they had not yet analyzed what the full impact would be and
explained that there is currently roughly 35 permits in the Vanier area, which
is substantially reduced from what it was a few years ago.
Councillor Bloess noted that when the Renegades played
at Landsdowne Park, on game days some residents would take their cars out of
their driveways and park across two spaces on the street. He wondered if there was anything By-law
could do about that kind of situation.
Mr. Leeson noted that in the area Councillor Bloess mentioned, there
were no spaces delineated. He advised
that until they were able to delineate the spaces, it could not be
enforced. Mr. Flainek noted that
studies in other cities have shown that 10-15% more spaces are available if you
do not have lines.
Councillor
Leadman feels the 18 guiding principles for the on-street parking permit, were
written in such a way as to limit areas for the program. She questioned the reason for assessing requests. Mr. Edens advised that it was one of the
guiding principles that people looking for on-street permits should first have
an assessment to know what other opportunities are available, such as
commercial lots. Councillor Leadman
also questioned the value of staff taking the time to assess this requests, and
feels it was not the City’s role. Mr.
Hewitt added that staff needs to look at the issue holistically, and noted the
guidelines were there to give a context.
He stated that the key for this program is meant to provide “special
remedial solutions,” and the City is not generally encouraging people to use
this option, and in many cases, there is sufficient off-street parking. He advised that there was no intent for
staff to get in to a detailed evaluation, but rather to look at an area
generally and determine whether there is an off-street parking issue that
requires the use on on-street parking.
He suggested that in some cases a cursory review would show that there
is sufficient off-street parking, and the permits are being requested in order
to have control of the right of way. He
advised that it is to ensuring there is not an abuse of the on-street area.
Councillor
Leadman expressed her concern that these criteria were written to limit rather
than facilitate parking. She suggested
that this approach does not address the needs of the urban area arising out of
infill and intensification.
Councillor
Leadman asked if her ward, Kitchissippi, would be a candidate for the
permit-parking program. Mr. Edens
confirmed that every ward is equally entitled to apply for the program. Mr. Bowron noted that the guiding principles
were just that – guiding principles. He
advised that staff would apply those as fairly as possible when doing the
evaluation.
Councillor
Doucet echoed the concerns of Councillor Leadman that the program is making it
so difficult to get on-street permits that they are not doing it. He noted that every infill that goes into
the urban area means a loss of public parking space, which he feels amount to
the privatization of public roads.
He
wondered why the permit-parking program could not be a citywide program, where
permits could be issued without the need for a study for zone definition;
essentially, if someone applied and they had the required neighbourhood
agreement, a permit could be issued without staff doing a study. He also feels it would be quicker, simpler,
and would protect green space and parking space. Mr. Flainek noted that this would amount to not applying the
guiding principles outlined in the report, and could not provide a succinct
answer as to the impact of that at the current time.
Councillor McRae wondered if it would satisfy
Councillor Doucet for staff to come back later with that information and then
look at changing the policy. Councillor
Doucet preferred to put forward his motion and have Committee vote on it.
In
response to questions form Councillor Bédard, Mr. Hewitt confirmed that the
residential permit parking program is established in such a manner that other
people can park there for the maximum duration, usually 3 hours; however, in
the guest permit zone, other people cannot park during the period that guest
permits are in effect. Councillor
Bédard maintained that his opinion was that cars should be parking on the
street, not on their lawns, as occurs in his ward.
In
response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Edens clarified that the
residential parking permits provide an opportunity for the individuals to find
parking on the street, but there is no guarantee with the permits that they
will find it near their house. The
permit gives them the opportunity to park beyond the posted limits and allows
them to park for up to 48 hours at a time without moving their vehicle, and
allows them to park overnight even when winter parking bans are called.
Councillor
Cullen noted that he does not have much of this permit parking in his
ward. He wanted to ensure that this is
a program, which will provide special exceptions, but will generally ensure
that the public has access to parking on public streets. Mr. Edens confirmed that this was the
intention of the program, and the intention was not to prevent the public from
parking on the streets.
Chair
McRae then adjourned the meeting for several minutes to give staff and
Councillors the opportunity to review all the forthcoming motions.
After a
brief intermission, the Committee considered the following motions:
Moved by
Councillor C. Doucet:
WHEREAS, on-street permit parking is currently only
allowed in very restricted areas as defined on a per block basis and the areas
have not been changed since amalgamation;
WHEREAS, the guiding principles for on-street parking
permits include that the program be clear and simple for users to understand;
WHEREAS, the delineation between permit parking zones
and non-permit parking zones on a block-by-block basis is not self evident to
residents, causes confusion, and inequities within a neighbourhood;
WHEREAS, the new policy remains very restrictive
requiring 80% of residents support and less off-street parking than dwellings
on an area basis compared to Toronto where a simple majority after at minimum
of 25% of households respond is all that is required;
WHEREAS, making it difficult to get on-street
residential parking permits encourages front yard parking;
WHEREAS, lack of on-street residential parking permits
encourages people to drive to work;
WHEREAS, the City is forgoing a steady stream of
revenue by limiting areas where it sells on-street parking permits;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the assessment criteria
be simplified to allow on-street parking permits on a street when:
1. a 60%
majority of households on the street agree,
2. there
is at least one dwelling which lacks sufficient parking,
3. there
is adequate space for on-street parking on the street.
4. A street minimum no smaller than one block or equivalent
would qualify as a street
5. The
program be available city-wide without request for zone study or definition as
long as 60% of residents request it.
Councillor Wilkinson proposed a friendly amendment to
remove Item 2 from the above motion as redundant, as a 60% majority of
households in agreement would indicate that there is a lack of sufficient
parking. Councillor Doucet agreed to
this amendment.
Regarding
the first point of the above motion, Mr. Flainek maintained that the staff
recommendation of 80% was intended to prevent “flip-flopping.” He suggested there could be the potential to
look at different percentages within the urban core, but believed that the 80%
would provide staff and councillors with a more reasonable consensus on the
street.
Mr.
Flainek had no problem with the requirement that there be adequate space for
on-street parking on the street, nor did he have a problem with the subsequent
point that a street minimum no smaller than one block or equivalent would
qualify as a street.
Regarding
the final point of the motion, that the program be available city-wide without
request for zone study or definition as long as 60% of residents request it,
Mr. Flainek indicated that staff did not support that amendment because they
did not agree with the 60% and they believed, based on past experience, that
applying the rules will allow for something that is manageable.
Councillor Wilkinson proposed an amendment to the
above motion that would create two separate zones, one for central Ottawa and
another the outlying area, where the latter could have a 75% approval
threshold. She asked staff to come back
with a designation of those areas.
Councillor Doucet accepted this as a friendly amendment to his motion
and Mr. Flainek agreed that this was reasonable and acceptable.
Regarding
the issue of eliminating the requirement for a study, Mr. Flainek confirmed
that staff does not support it as it would significantly alter the process
recommended by staff.
Councillor
Cullen advised that this would be a very accessible program, or one that is
available only where there is need for such a program. He also advised that if it was the latter,
there has to be a way to evaluate that need.
He pointed out that the program was designed by the former City of
Ottawa as an exception. He feels that
if the program is opened to everyone, it would run against the principle of
having public streets accessible to the public. He suggested the need for more public consultation before making
such a major change in direction. He
maintained that this program was a special exception, and therefore requires
some form of study or assessment to determine where that special exception is
necessary. He also questioned why the
City would be in the business of facilitating parking for cars, as it runs
contrary to the Official Plan. He noted
that he would be voting against that aspect of the motion.
Councillor
Wilkinson believes that in many cases, people are better able to determine if
there is a need than the City. She
suggested that if the odd case creates a problem, this could be dealt with, but
in most cases self-identification and the 60%, neighbour agreement is
sufficient.
Councillor Bédard feels that charging people to park
on streets encourages people to drive downtown instead of taking the bus, as it
is cheaper. Therefore, he feels that
the current parking policy is contrary to the public transportation policy, and
that the City should encourage people to park their cars on the street all day
and take the bus to work. He also feels
that the need for a study is contradictory to city policy and that the process
is too onerous for the applicants.
Councillor
Doucet noted that, while this is a relatively small item, it is important to
the people who have to live with it. He
feels that the present system is expensive to administer and difficult to
access. He agrees with Councillor
Wilkinson that people should be able to self-identify. He noted this motion makes the program
simple, and gets rid of needless studies and bureaucratic procedures. He also noted that Toronto has lived with
that program for years, and pointed out that if it does not work, it could be
changed later.
The
Committee then voted on the individual points of Councillor Doucet’s amended
motion:
Moved by
Councillor C. Doucet:
That
the assessment criteria be simplified to allow on-street parking permits on a
street when:
1. A
60% in the central area and a 75% in the outlying area majority of households
on the street agree;
Chair McRae confirmed that staff would be coming back
with maps indicating what those areas would be for City Council’s
consideration.
2. there
is adequate space for on-street parking on the street;
3. A
street minimum no smaller than one block or equivalent would qualify as a
street; and
4. The program be available citywide
without request for zone study or definition as long as 60% of residents in the
central area and 75% of residents in the outlying area request it.
YEAS (7): Councillors
G. Bédard, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, C.
Leadman, M. McRae
NAYS (1): Councillor A. Cullen
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:
That
the on-street parking policy be modified such that the monthly rate be the same
for the 12 months of the year, for example the rate for residential parking be
$50 per month (annual fee of $560, which gives a small discount).
That
Policy 3.5 – Policy Regarding Existing Parking Permit Zones be amended
to add the following:
“The
Ward Councillor will be consulted prior to the cancellation of, or modification
to, a zone.”
Moved by
Councillor J. Legendre:
That all practices, conditions, fees and
modalities currently in place in the existing Permit Parking Program
established for the Overbrook/Baseball Stadium on Coventry Road be maintained
as specific to the best functioning of the Program and the Stadium in the future.
WHEREAS,
with intensification we encourage buildings which occupy most of property
leaving little or no space for construction vehicles to park on site;
WHEREAS,
over the course of a construction project different trades need access to the
site at different stages;
WHEREAS,
having Temporary Consideration Permits issued on per vehicle basis is more
difficult to secure in an accurate manner and more bureaucracy with little
added benefit;
WHEREAS,
it would simplify the process for all concerned, by having fewer permits issued
but for longer durations, to issue permits for a given construction project
based on the net number of parking spots required without having to tie it to
the specific vehicles;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Temporary Consideration Permit for construction be
allowed to be transferable from one vehicle to another.
At the
request of Chair McRae for staff comments on the aforementioned motion,
Mr. Flainek advised that staff did not support it, as this permit is not
intended for contractors. After a brief
discussion, and as suggested by Councillor Wilkinson, Councillor Doucet agreed
that the motion be referred to staff for a report back to the Transportation
Committee and the Planning & Environment Committee.
Moved by
Councillor Wilkinson:
That
the aforementioned Doucet Motion be referred to staff for a report back to the
Transportation Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee.
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman
WHEREAS the criteria established to determine
eligibility for the On-Street Parking Permit Policy does not adequately address
the current state of the inner core parking needs;
WHEREAS
the situation is exacerbated by the current development realities from infill
and intensification
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the parking permit programme be designed to “facilitate”
the growing parking needs of the City, particularly in the urban core where
growth pressures have created high parking needs.
WITHDRAWN
Moved by
Councillor M. Wilkinson:
That
staff report back on how the new On-Street Parking Policy is operating by
November 1, 2007 including any concerns raised in implementing the policy.
In order
to provide staff with ample time to assess the performance of this program,
Councillor Cullen suggested that the reporting date be amended to May
2008, to which Councillor Wilkinson agreed.
That
staff report back on how the new On-Street Parking Policy is operating by May
2008 including any concerns raised in implementing the policy.
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That the five areas in the former
City of Vanier that allow non-resident permit parking where permits are
typically issued to employees of adjacent commercial buildings for day use
parking, contrary to the guiding principles set out in Section 2.0 of the
Policy no longer be sold to non-residents as of November 2007.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That staff be directed to review
Zone 8 – Lowertown West on the map of existing on-street parking zones, and
prepare for Committee a recommendation to deal with situations where, because
of heavy use by employees or patrons of the Byward Market, parking permit
holders have very little possibility of parking; and that staff look at
exclusive rights for permit parking holders for specific parking spaces in that
area.
CARRIED
At the
request of Chair McRae for staff comments on the aforementioned motion,
Mr. Flainek advised that staff would need to check with Legal Service
regarding any restriction of certain individuals in the Byward Market, and
would report back to Committee, as well as would work with the Councillor on
this issue.
The
Committee then approved the following report recommendations, as amended.
That
the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The City of Ottawa On-Street Parking
Permit Policy as set out in Document 1, as amended by the following:
a) that
the assessment criteria be simplified to allow on-street parking permits on a
street when:
(i)
a 60% in the central area and a 75% in the outlying area majority of
households on the street agree;
(ii)
there is adequate space for on-street parking on the street;
(iii)
A street minimum no smaller than one block or equivalent would qualify
as a street; and
(iv)
The program be available city-wide without request for zone study or
definition as long as 60% of residents in the central area and 75% of residents
in the outlying area request it.
b) That
the monthly rate be the same for the 12 months of the year, for example the
rate for residential parking be $50 per month (annual fee of $560, which gives
a small discount).
c) That
Policy 3.5 – Policy Regarding Existing Parking Permit Zones be amended
to add the following:
“The Ward Councillor will be
consulted prior to the cancellation of, or modification to, a zone.”
d)
That all practices, conditions, fees and modalities currently in place
in the existing Permit Parking Program established for the Overbrook/Baseball
Stadium on Coventry Road be maintained as specific to the best functioning of
the Program and the Stadium in the future.
e)
That the following be referred to staff for a report back to the
Transportation Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee:
that the Temporary Consideration
Permit for construction be allowed to be transferable from one vehicle to
another.
f)
That the five areas in the former City of Vanier that allow non-resident
permit parking where permits are typically issued to employees of adjacent
commercial buildings for day use parking, contrary to the guiding principles
set out in Section 2.0 of the Policy no longer be sold to non-residents as of
November 2007.
g)
That staff be directed to review Zone 8 – Lowertown West on the map of
existing on-street parking zones, and prepare for Committee a recommendation to
deal with situations where, because of heavy use by employees or patrons of the
Byward Market, parking permit holders have very little possibility of parking,
and that staff look at exclusive rights for permit parking holders for specific
parking spaces in that area.
2. The On-Street Parking Permit Fees
Schedule as set out in Document 2, effective 1 July 2007.
3. That
staff report back on how the new On-Street Parking Policy is operating by May
2008 including any concerns raised in implementing the policy.
CARRIED
as amended