Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information - Questions from GoldbergRobin Roberts From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg @live.com> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:11 PM To: Mike Varipapa; Ellery A. Deaton; Schelly Sustarsic; Thomas Moore; Sandra Massa -Lavitt Cc: Robin Roberts; Jill Ingram Subject: 2016 Animal Control Statistics & Priorities Attachments: Animal Control.Stats and Priorities 1.pdf Dear Council, To provide some objective background information on our current level of service from Long Beach, I a have attached a short abstract of a complete data set that I received from LB Animal Services. The first page describes the "Agency Goals" for response times to calls by priority category, the number of calls in each category, and percent of target time compliance. Pages 2 -7 are examples of the type of calls that make up each priority category. I think it is noteworthy that stray dogs and barking dogs seem to be typically triaged to Priority 5 with a response goal of with 24 hours. I do not think this goal response time (or actual average of 12 hours) is consistent with the expectations of our residents. If any of you wish a copy of the full database, just let me know. Robert Goldberg Long Beach Animal Care Services Activity Statistics & Response Times 01/01/2016 and 12/31/2016 Aggi Gaels Pdority 1 "A Person In Darper Or At Rsk` rai od in 0.33 hour(s) - Priority 2'An Animal In Dariier Or 4 Risk" resyoM in L00 hour(s) - MartF/ 3 "Urgent - Next Available Ofhar" respond N 2.00 hours) - Priority 4 7o Be Done Today' respoM In 4.00 hour(s) - Marley 5'Normal Friont'i respond in 24.00 hour(ii) - Merily 6'Lnw Pnonty respond m 24.00 hours) r�tfAS Tine 'Target Compliance" represents site percentage of at6vides mat have met our goal. The h/1, vmldl stanols for "Nat Inducted ", repreaeas the poanbge of records x irsuffi a dab to o4uculate respmtze times. me "Resporia Time average, minmun anal madmom bi are doned frorn first response ooh. SEAL BEACH Average Maximum Minimum Target 58m Pi1,yiy cab Resmm,e Time Response Ttme Resnpnsentri Comytanre Ma 1 13 26m 58m am 50.00 % 0 % 2 114 37m lh 54m lm 86.79% 0 % 3 149 3h Im ld 3h 20m Sm 64.41% 3 % 4 316 ^1E 728d 6h 21m 23m 40.00% 1 % 5 432 12h 10m 15d 18h 33m Om 94.20% 9 % 6 25 14m lh Om 4m 100.00% 68 % * s'KE"D 3Y odnfM of 748 my1- SEAL BEACH ACS ACTIVITY REPORT C/h,FNim ZOI L CaAt: PRIORITY 1 RE5/DN'D 0 m 2-0 M 10 VTE S 0017, L E SS 13 7mriL cAUS. /UFOArtPmpm ©N 4 ©F 7W54 CP STATED THAT SHE SAW A SNAKE GO INTO HER RESTROOM. SHE WAS ABLE TO PUT A B( TAIL WAS CUT OFF IN THE PROCESS . SNAKE FOUND AND GARDENER HAS IT CONTAINED RELOCATE SNAKE ALL BLK SNAKE COILED UP IFO FRONT DOOR CP BELIEVES HE HAS RATTLE SNAKE IN BACKYARD. KEEPING DISTANT EYE ON IT 3 FT SKINNY AND LONG SNAKE IN BACKYARD. YELLOWISH GREEN COLOR. LOOSE BROWN PIT IN WATER SS OF PIER BIT CP SB POLICE CALLED IN ARE ON THE WAY TO A MAN CALLED THEM HE WAS WALKING HIS DO ATTACKED BY A LOOSE BROWN PIT W /COLLAR POLICE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE WITH A DOG BITE ON THE CORNER OF OCEAN & 12TH, 2 DO CONTAINED ON SCENE « § k � / B $ w , 0 / \ o § d ` ! } } } } 2 } / b , \ # § k ir ) w { a a ] (\ G§ . } . \ \\ ui 03 5 § 2 w ° § 2§ & \ » ) k k } 8 \ §§ }.\ ) K_§§.V)[# &JL)M -CL ! � \ #gym °! ■! �aE�o .■ ]K� %! -ate« rl52 &� .� §b (#{U) �� § »2u° l 3� � §�2�\ bt�0 ; -0 Q£l9��$ / °� 3§ |§%! �■a - & ®��—L;0 ... .a.,0 = •_ %!ou m.000 « .,© §$B!� §(�� !l0���` /kk� a: o_3 � ) Lu ci ( 0 / CL - / ; i § w .i Lu < § ? ¥ « § } 7 2 ^ uj ¢ \ ) } � i § . $ B b ) § . I a m a LO ` _ � �} ( \ m } z a \ ) \ § 3 §) � §k \ ¥0 §k ® §e§�!§ k 0 /1 §£ ! & zi ] Irf §) ) §\ ) § ( �° ■ § N °U. ;� L .:cc Co - ` 0 �lk0 �}k 'o Ho / \ WO }k\ G § C m z N O 3 i Y K ?' a ? C o c �= d J F- D r0� H O c a u u Z s O c J T m U) m 0 LL m W 0 z w w co O >0 J x Qa OZ N Z W xw N W 7 y Xx O ' ( ? w d Z QQ Zm w3co ci g Owax w Ox O� 0m Q Y J aW0 aviLL J J Q Z U Q 0.0 j m K m N 0 Y a a w Q c 0 a V W C d J N LLI U C O yO Cff..11 J W F U U z 0 U z Z Q 0 i W Z z Z w U O 0 N O Z w Y W 3 J J Q L) M U) w r Q 0 g O F SZ 0 z LL N O z J p J � �Q m R' m N 2t O ax W m W JO o Q c 0 gK Q o D J LL K S N 0 c O U N c 0 o 500 y O O J z Z O 0 O J Q w U ZZ N W O z w 2 F. O W i O U) z W > ?w W m m z 20 �m > R 0w Oa sU) LL w N Qa L) .5 W 0 moo � iD z W y D co w W coo r 0 m K m O Z M w Q 3 z W H N z O H F- dw a�3 ~ 0 c v u m u C J m N r' N 3 OQ � � W © Y Q m O�w 0 O c d ° 0 o K � O J ui x LL V1 IL U 0 x Y Y m Z Y z y y N O O O 0 U s m K � m LLJ f f f / \ § / k - ) } ) \ e § co x \ / / 7 § B 2 ; / 0 / § j § \ - § t \ § \ - \ - ) 2 ! ! § / « k § ( \ ) z § & § a ! ! o e ( \ f d&� % ( / = \k �� \ » ( IZ �\ §N�< §2()w %)�\ k )8N U)m Lu z- ) 2m §§ §k ! [ \ §< -2!§ (5 �`Li§ &k* 2� &a! 3 - %)�: 4j CL -L2 }�k� /§!� Ir-Co � �) /\` �k /\��� % ui E § � k L 0L[ §;- \�0E .2; IEo3 § LU d �) ) � ! & ) } i 2 \ 2 \ � aB \ I0mmw o f) '§)\ S2 \! ©�) \ƒ0) (� - °- °0G B)()L) !_ou o % ui E § � k L 0L[ §;- \�0E .2; IEo3 § LU d �) Robin Roberts From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg @live.com> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 12:43 PM To: Mike Varipapa; Ellery A. Deaton; Schelly Sustarsic; Thomas Moore; Sandra Massa -Lavitt Cc: Robin Roberts; Jill Ingram Subject: Questions and Comments on Monday's Agenda Attachments: 8.14.17.Questions.doc; Parking Timeline.CC 8.14.17 1.doc; Parking study.Belmont 2.pdf Dear City Council Members and City Staff, For your consideration, I am submitting the attached questions and comments regarding Monday's agenda. My comments reference the two additional attachments. Robert Goldberg Questions & Comments for 8/14/17 Item B: Animal Control Options Comment: I would like to propose a 4' option for consideration. This would be to expand the job description and duties of our Code Enforcement officer to include enforcement of animal control regulations. This model would include a modified version of the current LB contract which still provided far animal control services at times when our Code Enforcement Officer was off -duty, and administration of the animal licensing program. It would also provide for a back -up animal control officer to support our Code Enforcement Officer as needed, as well as provide for vet services and specialized services such as coyote management. 1 believe adding animal control duties to Code Enforcement is possible because the demands of the latter do not likely require a full -time position. I base this supposition on anecdotal information provided to me by long -term residents, as well as recent objective evidence from the provision of contract code enforcement services by Anderson Penna Partners. Our Code Enforcement position has been vacant for a number of months, and in April, staff recommended a staffing contract with Anderson Penna Partners for a part -time code enforcement officer at $60 1hr. The first payment for these services can be seen as check #1282 on page 16 of the Warrant Listing in Agenda Item E. This shows an average charge of $4800 for the months of May and June. This represents 80 hours per month, or half -time. The costs that would be associated with this model would be the following 1) Increase salary from current maximum of about $70,00 to $101,000 2) Purchase of one specialized vehicle (would replace current vehicle used by Code Enforcement) 3) Specialized training in the provision of animal control services I think this model would give us the "boots on the ground" that we are seeking at a minimum cost. The timing is advantageous since the Code Enforcement position is vacant and a new "blended position" could be incorporated into the pending Class Comp study. Additionally, there is enough time to fill this position, provide training, and purchase equipment before the LB contract is up its next renewal in July 2018. The main challenge would be dispatch. LB dispatchers would need to dispatch our staff rather than LB's when our Code Enforcement Officer was on -duty. However, this challenge should not be insurmountable. Item C• Facility Condition Assessment Update It appears that all that was done by this update was to multiply the prior cost estimates by a 22.1% cost -of- construction inflator. To save money, no new surveys were done. However, this report does not even take into consideration work that has been completed since 2011. This work includes renovating the Tennis Center Workout Room and the I' St Beach Parking Lot to just name two facilities. The current report values these two projects at a total of about $2 million. Additionally, the pier bait shop should have been removed from consideration, and HVAC units have been upgraded in a number of building with our energy efficiency loan. Failure to consider completed projects also throws off the prioritization in Section 4 of the report. Structural repairs to the truss' in Library are listed as high priority -Tier 1(p21), but this work was done shortly after the original report was issued in 2011. Comment: For these reasons, this update has very limited utility, and needs to be interpreted with great caution. For any given facility, more or less rehabilitation may be necessary given the lack of a recent survey. Failure to consider projects completed in the last seven years means that any summary cost figures for doing all city-wide renovations (such as $43,443,300 on page 25 or $40,253,400 on page 16) are too high. Item E: Demands on Treasury Page 14, bottom: Check #2153 to M &M Surfing for $7996 for Instructor pay for just the short period from 6/19 to 6/30/17. Meanwhile, his competitor, Charles Wickwire is getting $1240 for the same period of time ( #2187) Why is the payment to M &M so high? Page 24• bottom third: Check #2250 $5000 donation to OC Task Force on Drowning Prevention Where is this funded in the FY 17 -18 budget? Was this donation discussed during the budget deliberations? Page 33 bottom third: Check #2366 $11,385 to SAE Communications for Key Message Training. Which budget year will this be charged to, 16 -17 or 17 -18? Why is SAE Communications or "Media Training" not referenced in either budget? Item G, City Manager Authorized Contracts The staff states there is only one contracts to report for 3/1/17 through 6/30/17. However, recent warrants show the additional following expenditures approved under the City Manager's spending authority: Vendor Payment Check Check Check Invoice Service Authorization p Amount Date Date If the intent of this report is improve transparency non - Council approved expenditures, then why are none of these expenditures listed in the staff report? Item H: Homeland Security Grant The staff report and resolution refer to an agreement costs related to FY 2016. Is the agreement for costs for the FY that just ended, or our current FY? Item I: Parking Consultant The staff report provides a very brief chronology of the City's recent efforts at assess and manage Old Town parking. Comment: For a more complete history, 1 have attached a complete timeline. This timeline shows that recent community discussion and staff efforts began in earnest in 1011, not 2014 as stated in the staff report, with a Council workshop held in July of that year. In fact by late 2013, staff had reports from two consultants, MIG and KOA Corp, and the public was told by the City Manager at a workshop held on 11/18/13 that there was Sufficient information to progress to Phase 11." The staff report chronology correctly states that JR Parking Consultants was awarded a contract in April 2015. However, the statement that the City terminated the contract "several 3 Professional Update Facility Griffin Structures Services 1834 $14,500 6/2217 5/31/2017 Condition Inc Agreement dated Report 4/17/17 Total Liability Govinvest Inc 1745 $10,200 6/15/17 5/15/2017 Calculator Public Record NextRequest Purchase Order 1436 $4,500 5/25/17 5/10/2017 Act dated 5/10/17 management software If the intent of this report is improve transparency non - Council approved expenditures, then why are none of these expenditures listed in the staff report? Item H: Homeland Security Grant The staff report and resolution refer to an agreement costs related to FY 2016. Is the agreement for costs for the FY that just ended, or our current FY? Item I: Parking Consultant The staff report provides a very brief chronology of the City's recent efforts at assess and manage Old Town parking. Comment: For a more complete history, 1 have attached a complete timeline. This timeline shows that recent community discussion and staff efforts began in earnest in 1011, not 2014 as stated in the staff report, with a Council workshop held in July of that year. In fact by late 2013, staff had reports from two consultants, MIG and KOA Corp, and the public was told by the City Manager at a workshop held on 11/18/13 that there was Sufficient information to progress to Phase 11." The staff report chronology correctly states that JR Parking Consultants was awarded a contract in April 2015. However, the statement that the City terminated the contract "several 3 months into implementation" leaves on uninformed reader with the impression that termination occurred in the summer of 2015. In fact termination did not occur until 16 months later in August, 1016, afterJR Parking was paid a total of $116,000. During the 16 months, there were many key events not mentioned by the staff report. These include April 2015- Revision of the contract with ABM for management of the beach lots to save up to $160,000 1yr July 2015 — Rollout of radio frequency OT parking hangtags before the selection of a functional digital reading device. No devices are ever purchased and the RF hangtags are replaced the following year. July 2015 —The City changes citation processing vendors to accommodate the issuance of electronic parking tickets linked to the RF hongtog system. The Council is told costs will remain the same at about $4000 1month. In fact costs rise to $6500- $7000 /month. March 2016 —The City finishes a $51,000 project to underground data and electric lines to the parking kiosks in the beach lots. June 2016 —Staff presents a discussion of a new solar - powered kiosk system for parking lots partnered with electronic license plate readers for parking enforcement personnel. August 2016— Council approves contracts with NUPork and Parkeon for this new system at a 4 -year cost of $674,500. These contracts are never signed by the City Manager. Regarding the proposed contract with Dixon Resources, payments will be a flat rate of $8250 per month. This is functionally a monthly retainer, as the contract does not require the production of any deliverables except "at least one trip to the City per month." This is a very different reimbursement method than under our previous contract with JR Parking which provided for an hourly billing of actual time provided at a maximum rate of $195 /hr for the senior consultant, Janet Rhodes. At this price, the principle at Dixon would have to work 42 hours per month on our project alone at to generate a bill at $8250. This seems very unlikely, especially over the proposed 11 -month term of the contract. Comment: The payment method should be changed to hourly rates. Long Beach recently completed a parking study of Belmont Shore area (see attached). Comment: If not done so already, this should be obtained and reviewed by staff. Item N: Lifeguard HQ Repair Update The staff report recommends spending up to $80,000 to remediate unspecified environmental hazards that monitoring has shown do not present a risk to employees. However, the attached letter from Griffin Structures presents a different recommendation, specifically "contacting a roofing contractor." 1 am not clear on why we are not proceeding to repair the roof before the rainy season resumes in two months. If one of the environmental hazards of concern is mold, it would seem critical that the roof be repaired before mold remediation is done. The staff report implies that a decision to replace the HG and adjacent garage needs to be made imminently. Part of this justification is that the Griffin letter opines that the facilities are beyond their useful life physically. Can't this be said of many City facilities that have a much higher "FCI" (ratio of renovation to replacement casts)? Per the table found on page 18 of Item C, the LG HQ has a FCI of 38 % -- it can be repaired for 38% of the cost of replacement. This is lower (better) than many other facilities such as Fire Station 44, Old City Hall, and the Morino Community Center. The report states that the building provides a vital public safety function. Please explain. Are rescues initiated by observations made from the building that cannot be made elsewhere on the beach? Item O: Transtech Contract The prior contract for Building Officer and Building Inspector was amended on 1/9/17 to include a large sum of money for PW Inspector primarily for the now completed 7'h St alley project. No mention of continues use of PW Inspector services is mentioned in the staff report. Are we no longer going to be using Transtech for PW Inspector services? Item P: Debt Issuance Policy Section 3 A. iv (page 3) discusses refundings. The last sentence states that refundings with less than a 3% net present value (NPV) are subject to Council approval. This statement implies that refundings with >3% NPV are not subject to Council approval Comment: I think all refundings should be approved by Council and the wording in this section changed to clearly indicate this. Section 4 D.l (page 5) discusses Mello -Roos Community Facility Districts (CFD). Heron Pointe and Pacific Gateway are listed but not the SB Blvd /Lampson Ave Landscape Maintenance District. Why is this District not included in this section of the Policy? The next sub - section (ii) on this page states that requests for new CFD's will be considered pursuant to a set of guidelines referred to as the "Statement of Local Goals and Policies." Has this Statement" already been adopted, or adoption pending? Section 4 H.i (page 6) discusses JPA financing. It states that the City may consider JPA's "when a project serves the public interest beyond city boundaries." This limitation was not discussed when the City and its Parking Authority formed a JPA (SB Public Financing Authority) on June 12'. Will the SB PFA financed projects be limited to those that "serve the public interest beyond city boundaries ?" Section 7 (page 9) states that the City is committed to "maintaining appropriate reserve levels." What is the appropriate level for the Unassigned General Fund Balance? The end of Section 7 (page 10) discusses the situation where debt proceeds exceed what is needed for the original project. This section empowers staff to expend the excess on legally acceptable "available alternatives." There is no reference to Council approval. Comment: 1 think any expenditure of excess proceeds on available alternatives should require prior Council approval. OLD TOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT TIMELINE 7/14/11: Old Town Parking Meeting in Council Chambers. Loss of temporary parking put in place for storm drain project along Greenbelt from 12" to SB Blvd discussed. 9/26/11: Old Town Parking Update at City Council (CC) meeting (Agenda Item I). 40-45 spaces lost in OT recently due to OCFA and storm drain red curbing. Staff reviewed public suggestions from July. Several feasible: overnight parking in l0u' St lot with permit, use of 13" St Chevron lot, PR campaign regarding garage parking. 1/9/12: CC discussion of petition for installing 1 hour parking limits on 8e' St between PCH and Main (Item K). Councilwoman Deaton wants the City to do a comprehensive parking plan for Old Town to go rather than the CCC for changing limit on just one street. 11/18/13: Old Town Parking Study Session with consultants from MIG and KOA Corp. Presented summary of written report. City Manager Ingram indicated that there was "Sufficient information to progress to Phase II." [The costs of MIG and KOA were $11,920 and $43,650, respectively, as reported later in Agenda Item J, 10/12/15]. 8/29/14: 1R Parking Consultants (hired under City Manager's authority) bills the City for $18,950. 11/10/14: CC Study Session on Parking Program with presentation by JR Parking Consultants. Presented Vision /Mission Statement, data on parking availability, permits, enforcement, revenues. Immediate recommendations — renegotiate beach lot contract with ABM. Short term recommendations — change to electronic permits and readers 12/18/14: JR Parking Consultants bills the City for $9000 4/13/15: CC approves $125,000 contract with JR Parking Consultants (Agenda Item Q. Ms. Beatley stated that she is working with the "Parking Permit Consultant" to move to electronic permits effective 7/1/15. The name of this consultant is not revealed, nor the cost of this change. 4/13/15: CC approves revised contract with ABM Parking Services to reduce costs by up to $160,000 /yr (Agenda Item F). 4/23/15: 1R Parking Consultants bills the City for $8265 under new contract 5/27/15: City orders 6325 radio frequency hangtags from Weldon, Williams, & Lick, Inc. for $19,381. 6/4/15: Article in Sun informs readers about new electronic permits and readers that will implemented on July 1n. 7/13/15: CC approved contract with Data Ticket to replace Turbo Data for citation processing of parking tickets (Agenda Item 1). The primary justification for this change is the implementation of electronic parking permits, and the new "requirement for a back office system that allows for the electronic transmission of the parking citation information." Ms. Beatley stated that the PD will be field testing readers tomorrow. Councilman Miller expresses concern that the CC does not have the full picture of the costs of the program without the readers. Ms. Beatley responds that the City can't move forward with the purchase of the electronic readers without this contract. The CC is informed that the plan is to buy 10 readers at an approximate cost of $30,000. When asked about the annual cost of the new contract with Data Ticket, Ms. Beatley stated that she is not sure of the total costs, but that it should be less than current costs with Turbo Data (<$4,OD0 /month). 8/10/15: Quarterly Parking Project Update presented to CC (Agenda Item H). Data Ticket to start in September. Staff has testing "Tremble" readers- poor range. Stronger ones coming in tomorrow. Staff will present the readers for purchase at the first CC meeting in September. Will be having community meetings in OT regarding signage consistency. After summer, will be changing beach lots kiosks from cell connections to underground direct power and communication lines. 10/12/15: CC approves JR Parking's recommended $54,000 project to underground data and electric lines in beach parking lots (Agenda Item J). 10/27/15: JR Parking Consultants bills the City for $30,261 for services from May - September. 11/24/15: Invoice from Data Ticket for citation processing in October is $8,813 12/23/15: Invoice from Data Ticket for citation processing in November is $6,696 1/8/16: City orders another 1000 radio frequency hangtags from Weldon, Williams, 8: Lick, Inc. for $4798 even though the City had not yet purchased adequate reading devices. [None are ever purchased.] 1/18/16: Invoice from Data Ticket for citation processing in December is $6,715 3/4/16: 1R Parking Consultants bills the City for $8860 for services from October- February. 3/14/16: CC approves "Notice of Completion" for $51,179 project to underground data and electric lines in beach parking lots (Agenda Item 1). Mid - June /16: Chief Joe, Janet Rhodes from JR Parking, and two others from the SBPD go to Florida to look firsthand at the NuPark and Parkeon systems. 6/23/16: JR Parking Consultants bills the City for $10,155 for services from March -May. 6/27/16: CC approves changing expiration date of OT permits from 7/1/16 to 10/31/16 (Agenda Item 2). Chief Joe presents a Parking Program Update which introduces proposal to move to a license plate reading (LPR) system and NuPark software. 8/8/16: CC approves a $543,000/4 year contract with NuPark to lease citation processing software and LPR hardware (Agenda Item C). In response to questioning from Councilman Miller, Chief Joe acknowledges that this cost does not include transaction fees for processing citations by NuPark. Janet Rhodes says it is not possible to calculate these and compare operating costs directly to current citation processing by Data Ticket. 8/8/16: CC approves a $131,500 purchase agreement for 10 solar - powered Parkeon kiosks (Agenda Item D). These do not accept cash. In response to Councilman Miller, staff agrees to ask the CCC if this is a concern for beach access, and is directed to do so by Mayor Massa- Lavitt. Councilman Miller also asks about adequacy of sun exposure at Main St locations. Janet Rhodes states that she has not gone out yet to look at placement locations. 8/15/16: 1R Parking Consultants bills the City for $19,720 for services from June -July. 8/16/16: JR Parking Consultants bills the City for $10,775 for services from August 1 -16. 11/1/16: City Clerk confirms that neither the NuPark nor the Parkeon agreements have been signed yet by the City. 5/22/17: Commander Bowles states during "Goals Update" at Council meeting that they decided to drop the NuPark /Parkeon systems, and have hired another contractor to look at a new system. 6/26/17: Page 88 of the adopted FY 17 -18 budget (Police Support Services -- "Equipment and Materials') includes $20,000 for the anticipated purchase of two license plate readers. 6/26/17: Commander Bowles states during "Goals Update" at Council meeting that the SBPD will be starting a trial with different parking meters. Will also be starting to use new technology to write tickets in a couple of weeks. 6/29/17: City issues P.O. for $16,500 to Dixon Resources Unlimited. 7/13/17: SBPD begins deployment of Parking Control Officers during evening hours Timeline Compiled by Robert Goldberg 8/12/17 Follow us on ® -3; 6 2 y f7 Shore Parking Plan Back Before Public By Hamry SaUrrDAVRa EXECUTIVE EDITOR This is Belmont Shore, so the meeting must be about parking. Third District Councilwoman Suve Price is hosting a meeting at 6 p.m. tonight, Thursday, at her field office, 340 Nieto Ave., to provide updates on the $100,000 parking study. The study was paid for by the Belmont Shore Parking and Busi- ness Improvement District after that agency's advisory board considered in 2014 purchase of a residential lot next to the Second Street alley for potential parking. That purchase was dropped, but the study went forward. Results were first presented last October in a community meeting, and has since been pre- sented to the Parking Advisory Commission and the Belmont Shore Business Association. One recommendation, diagonal park- ing along the south side of Ocean Boulevard east of Livingston, already has been implemented. That change added 150 parking spots. A primary, conclusion by wwkar ukj g rnnc� ILtnnr��c tithe fnm conducting the smdv was that menu of the counted narking s�racea were ¢am¢es that were not beine used for parkin¢. Many of those garages were built de- cades ago, and are smaller than modem garages. Most ofthe parking in Belmont Shore is residential — 8,372 to 986 in the business district and another 951 in beach parking. More than half of the residential parking counted by Walker is in the form of garage, driveway and alley spaces. All of Belmont Shore is con- sidered to be in the Coastal Zone, and therefore subject to regulation by the state Coastal Commission. That's imgtnant, te rt eposays, because it csscn- tiaOY eliminetesthe possibilirof preferenhaparKin ennds for ha areal s. Many parking - impectorhoods, panic- ularly around schools and colleg- es, use that approach to Protect residential par king. Another issue, according to the report, is demand near the busi- ness district relative to the time ofday. "Demand for parking related to the business district declines into the evening, brut there is overlap when residents return home from work while Second Street em- ployees and customers are still in the area;" the report says. That problem — customers nr employees parked in residential areas — gets worse on weekends a lad 1114 mar, One ssible way to help, ac- cordine to the sin v, t ¢ I leasine commemial lots to allow overnight parkin, for residents. That approach works at the lot (Conripaed o„ Page 22A) belonging Io Bay Shore Commtr- Mty Church. There still ore sev- eral commercial lots near Second Street closed and empty at night. W Ikar'., c,ns I� toot aimed back any yon of a ww- mercial parkin¢ soiree, citng can xnr�c, Cnnslmetipn range from $22.000 a space all the wayal the way to $7 - ,000 mace for subterranean oarkine. Instead, the consultants sug- gest looking again at red curb (no parking) areas and having the city offer help retrofitting garag- es so cars could —parked inside. Walker Consulting expanded the concept of using remote parking lots with a free shuttle past beach Ion to the Davies Launch Ramp and Mamims Bay Marina lots, primarily for employees. More excensive altemalives could include a public valet sm- vmc or mechanical st�l- owing one car to be parked on top o grin er m Ou mots, - other option may be m vary me- ter prices based on demand. Finally, the consultants advo- cote convincing people not to use cars at all. More emphasis on bicycle parking and bike shar- ing could ease demand for park- ing. More frequent Long Beach Transit service to Belmont Shore from several directions also could get people out of cars. the report says. Price has said the ultimate goal is to create a parking manage- ment plan for the area. Th ss- day's mating is designed to gel feedback before the City Council considers a plan. For more information or a link m the complete parking study, call (562) 570 -8756.