What do you think of the proposal for a parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive?

While I understand there are visibility concerns, and long-term parking issues that appear to be impacting Slate Canyon residents, the permit program seems excessive to the issue and - to my mind - creates a greater potential issue.

Implementing a parking permit program appears to target residences with too many people. This may result in those individuals parking further into other neighborhoods that don't have permits and have negative impacts for those other neighborhoods. Additionally, the hours proposed for "free parking" seem incompatible with regular hours. For instance, a lawfully parking resident could find that they are unable to find parking until after 1am if all stalls were taken up.

As a person who drives the area several times a week, there does always appear to be parking available.

With more people working from home at present, I am concerned a 2 hour limit could have unforeseen short-term impacts for residents. Perhaps if it was 2hrs for non-resident stickered vehicles, or something that allowed residents to live without concern about how long their car has been on the road I'd be more supportive.

If the bigger concern is around people driving in that space unsafely - high speeds, unsafe parking practices, etc. - then maybe the better longterm investment for residents, road users, and nearby neighborhoods is around increased no parking spaces and traffic calming measures. It will also require local residents to drive as they'd expect others to. I've been closely followed at 25mph by more than one vehicle heading to the condos.

In my opinion, based on the outlined problems and the proposed fixes, the proposals don't seem to get at the heart of the problem and seem overly restrictive in light of additional burdens they place on the residents in that neighborhood.

I have lived in this area since before there were homes along most of Slate Canyon Drive. There was NOT an on-street parking problem until the town homes and condos were built on the east side of the road. The parking increased immediately after the housing developments to the east were allowed to have "no on-street parking" rules. This pushed all the extra vehicles out onto Slate Canyon Drive in front of OTHER people's homes. It would be ideal if the newer housing developments could provide the parking needed for their own residents, but it doesn't seem like this is even being discussed as an option. Sadly, this was a problem caused by the developer and now the residents on both sides of the street have to figure out what to do with it.

Regarding the two solutions being proposed here, the idea of requiring permits seems like it will reduce parking overall, but it makes it harder for those of us who visit neighbors in this area to park. If we are stopping in at several houses in rapid succession, we would have to ask someone for a visitor pass just to go from door to door briefly. (I know neighbors who have received parking tickets multiple times while parking in this area to visit/care for others from church or school.) Having a 2 hour limit makes it easier to be neighborly on short stops without having to run a visitor pass to and from our car before and after each visit. Either option should result in a reduction in illegal rentals, but the 2 hour limit seems less difficult to orchestrate. However, it does seem unfair to put the burden of the solution on those who live in the homes that aren't contributing to the problem.

"Based off staff counts, there is no need to reduce parking congestion because between 2% and 51% of parking stalls remain empty during peak usage" and "Because staff always found parking vacancies on Slate Canyon Drive from Slate Canyon Park Road to 1400 South it is unlikely that a permit program that allows up to 100% parking capacity to be used would reduce parking utilization." So why are we even discussing this? (And I agree with those numbers, as a homeowner in the area who takes lots of midnight walks and always sees loads of open parking at all hours of the night.)

Most importantly, they're public roads: the public should be able to park on them. The homes on Slate Canyon all have driveways and garages for their vehicles; they should use them. If they have more vehicles than they have off-street parking, then they should go ahead and park on public streets . . . which is also true of literally every other resident and taxpayer in the area, including those who live in Aspen Summit or Canyon Meadow. Why do the people making this proposal think it's fine if they have too many vehicles for their residence and need street parking, but it's not fine if other people need street parking? The double standards here are astounding.

(With all of the above, it's really hard not to suspect that the whole parking issue is just a cover for an attempt to drive renters and young professionals from the neighborhood in favor of families with children.)

The primary proposal is well constructed and seems fair. I believe enforcing parking is a simpler alternative to enforcing occupancy. I believe most complaints related to occupancy are parking related. If there are four single residents and two ride bikes, I don't see a reason to enforce occupancy. The Staff-recommended Alternative does not solve the problem since most of the crowded parking occurs overnight. The only reasonable way to control speeding on Slate Canyon would be to add speed bumps.

After reading the posted notice, the current options given were not what I was told about. The third option of having the city actually enforce their laws more actively is the only real option given that would be a real benefit to the street in some capacity. The other two do not help any resident on the street, all it does is force unnecessary burden on the homeowners. The third option is the only option that should be implemented if at all, from these choices. None of them fix the problems, and only create new ones that will end up harming the residents along the street. This entire thing needs to go back to the drawing board and be brought back with options that won’t cause more problems than they seek to fix.

I've lived in the Provost neighborhood for 30+ years and frequent the Provost South neighborhood often. I believe a parking program would be very effective in reducing all of the cars parked on the streets and hopefully the over-occupancy issue. Residents/homeowners should be allowed to park in front of their own homes only.

This entire parking problem was created by the developers of the condos across Slate Canyon Dr. We never had any problems parking or having guests before they were built. They did not build with enough parking for their residents. Make them figure out a viable option without inconveniencing actual homeowners and making us cover the costs. If you want to help homeowners then give each home 1-2 marked spots on the street and give enforcement a way to deal with violations. We had someone recently literally park in front of our driveway and enforcement couldn't even send someone out! We were stuck not heing able to even get in our driveway as well as having to find street parking late at night. Again this is a problem caused by too much street parking because of rental properties, NOT homeowners.

The biggest issue on Slate Canyon for me is people speeding. The city should do a better job at enforcing the speed and put in speed bumps or speed cameras. I have always been able to park without issue but I worry about my friends and family being able to visit with a permit program. As someone who works from home, the 2 hour limit proposal does not seem viable either. I attended 2 of the parking meetings last year and it seemed like the same people were pushing the agenda with the majority of residents showing opposition to the idea. I oppose the parking permit proposal.

It s about time, this area has needed something to help with the parking problem. As a neighbor I support this program.

As a resident homeowner on Slate Canyon who originally supported a parking permit plan, I am opposed to the current plan of only one permanent on street parking pass. The garages and driveways of most of the homes here are not really wide enough to fully support two vehicles. Please go back to the drawing board on what’s best for the community. This is not a good resolution.