AGENDA 4:30 P.M. CITY OF SEDONA, CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016
NOTES: 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE/ROLL CALL • Public Forum: 2. CITY’S VISION/MOMENT OF ART Comments are generally limited to 3 minutes. 3. CONSENT ITEMS - APPROVE LINK TO DOCUMENT = • Consent Items: a. Minutes - December 8, 2015 City Council Regular Meeting. Items listed under Consent Items have been distributed to Council b. Minutes - December 9, 2015 City Council Special Meeting. Members in advance for study c. Minutes - December 28, 2015 City Council Special Meeting. and will be enacted by one d. Approval of Proclamation, 20th Anniversary of Sedona Flag. motion. Any member of the Council, staff or the public may e. AB 2042 Approval of recommendation regarding a new Series 12 Restaurant remove an item from the Liquor License for Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Market located at 313 SR Consent Items for discussion. 179, Suite D, Sedona, AZ (License #12033391). Items removed from the f. AB 2045 Approval of recommendation regarding a new Series 11 Hotel/Motel Consent Items may be acted upon before proceeding to the Liquor License for Casa Inn Sedona located at 55 Hozoni Drive, Sedona, AZ next agenda item. (License #11033055). • Meeting room is wheelchair 4. APPOINTMENTS accessible. American Disabilities a. AB 2044 Discussion/possible action regarding the appointment of a board Act (ADA) accommodations are available upon request. Please member to the Board of Adjustment. phone 928-282-3113 at least two (2) business days in advance. 5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS BY MAYOR/COUNCILORS/CITY MANAGER • City Council Meeting Agenda 6. PUBLIC FORUM Packets are available on the (This is the time for the public to comment on matters not listed on the agenda. The City Council may not discuss items that City’s website at: are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public www.SedonaAZ.gov comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date.) GUIDELINES FOR 7. PROCLAMATIONS, RECOGNITIONS & AWARDS PUBLIC COMMENT a. Presentation of Proclamation, 20th Anniversary of Sedona Flag. PURPOSE: • To allow the public to provide 8. REGULAR BUSINESS input to the City Council on a particular subject scheduled on a. AB 2041 Discussion/possible direction to provide official City comments to the the agenda. Forest Service (USFS) in response to their draft National Environmental Policy • This is not a question/answer Act (NEPA) study which assesses potential management actions to manage session. motorized vehicular use on the Forest Service portion of Soldiers Pass Road. PROCEDURES: b. AB 2046 Discussion/possible direction regarding the the conversion of 101 • Fill out a “Comment Card” and public parking spaces, located directly on Main Street (89A) in Uptown Sedona, deliver it to the City Clerk. from free to pay-to-park. • When recognized, use the c. Reports/discussion on Council Assignments. podium/microphone. d. Discussion/possible action on Future Meeting/Agenda Items. • State your: 1. Name and 2. City of Residence • Limit comments to 3 MINUTES. • Submit written comments to the City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 102 ROADRUNNER DRIVE, SEDONA, AZ The mission of the City of Sedona government is to provide exemplary municipal services that are consistent with our values, history, culture and unique beauty. Page 1
AGENDA 4:30 P.M. CITY OF SEDONA, CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 Page 2, City Council Meeting Agenda Continued 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION If an Executive Session is necessary, it will be held in the Vultee Conference Room at 106 Roadrunner Drive. Upon a public majority vote of the members constituting a quorum, the Council may hold an Executive Session that is not open to the public for the following purposes: a. To consult with legal counsel for advice on matters listed on this agenda per A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3). b. Return to open session. Discussion/possible action on executive session items. 10. ADJOURNMENT
Posted: ______By: ______Susan L. Irvine, CMC City Clerk Note: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(B) notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the Council will hold the above open meeting. Members of the City Council will attend either in person or by telephone, video, or internet communications. The Council may vote to go into executive session on any agenda item, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3) and (4) for discussion and consultation for legal advice with the City Attorney. Because various other commissions, committees and/or boards may speak at Council meetings, notice is also given that four or more members of these other City commissions, boards, or committees may be in attendance. A copy of the packet with material relating to the agenda items is typically available for review by the public in the Clerk's office after 1:00 p.m. the Thursday prior to the Council meeting and on the City's website at www.SedonaAZ.gov. The Council Chambers is accessible to people with disabilities, in compliance with the Federal 504 and ADA laws. Those with needs for special typeface print, may request these at the Clerk’s Office. All requests should be made forty-eight hours prior to the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 102 ROADRUNNER DRIVE, SEDONA, AZ The mission of the City of Sedona government is to provide exemplary municipal services that are consistent with our values, history, culture and unique beauty. Page 2 Action Minutes Regular City Council Meeting City Council Chambers, Sedona City Hall, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, Arizona Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 4:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Moment of Silence/Roll Call Mayor Moriarty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Roll Call: Mayor Sandy Moriarty, Vice Mayor Mark DiNunzio, Councilor Scott Jablow, Councilor Angela LeFevre, Councilor Jon Thompson, Councilor Jessica Williamson. Councilor John Martinez was absent and excused. Staff Present: City Manager Justin Clifton, Assistant City Manager Karen Daines, City Attorney Robert Pickels, Jr., Director of Community Development Audree Juhlin, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Engineer Andy Dickey, Principal Planner Warren Campbell, Assistant Engineer Roxanne Holland, Chief of Police Ray Cota, Parks & Recreation Manager Rachel Murdoch, Arts & Culture Coordinator Nancy Lattanzi, City Clerk Susan Irvine, Deputy City Clerk JoAnne Cook. 2. City’s Vision/Moment of Art A video of the City’s vision was played. Nancy Lattanzi introduced Dr. Elizabeth Oakes, a former Shakespeare and American poetry university professor. Dr. Oakes' first book of poems won the 2004 Pearl Poetry Prize, a national award based in California. Since then, she has published three other volumes. Dr. Oakes read poems titled “Sedona & the Centuries”, “Here in Sedona”, “What Sedona Whispers”, and “Ode to Cacti”. 3. Consent Items a. Minutes - November 24, 2015 City Council Regular Meeting. b. Approval of Proclamation, Civil Air Patrol Week, December 1-8, 2015. c. AB 2035 Approval of a Resolution authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Sedona and Coconino County to allow the City to accept financial support in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) from Coconino County for the purpose of assisting the City of Sedona with the completion of a Transportation Master Plan. d. AB 2036 Approval of a Special Event Liquor License for a Sedona Chamber Music Society, Inc. event scheduled for Sunday, January 10, 2016 at the Hub, located at 525-B Posse Grounds Road, Sedona, AZ. e. AB 2039 Approval of a resolution requesting that the Arizona Governor and State Legislature restore Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds. Motion: Vice Mayor DiNunzio moved to approve consent items 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e. Seconded by Councilor Jablow. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed. 4. Appointments - None. 5. Summary of Current Events by Mayor/Councilors/City Manager
Sedona City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 8, 2015 4:30 p.m. Page 3 1 Councilor Jablow stated that Breakfast with Santa was held this past Saturday and was a great event. He, Mayor Moriarty, and Vice Mayor DiNunzio also participated in the Annual Cottonwood Christmas Parade later that day. Councilor Thompson stated that Inspiration of Sedona is hosting many events which can be found at the website www.climatecareawareness.org. The movie “The Future of Energy” will be shown at 6:30 p.m. this evening at the Sedona Public Library. “Love Thy Nature” will be shown at the Mary D. Fisher Theater on December 10th at 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. On December 11th and 12th there will be a multi format event at the Sedona Posse Grounds Hub including a showing of “This Earth We Call Home”. Councilor LeFevre advised that the Oak Creek Watershed Council will host their awards ceremony on December 11th at the Hummingbird Room at Red Rock State Park. The City of Sedona will receive a special award at this event. 6. Public Forum - None. 7. Proclamations, Recognitions and Awards a. Presentation of Proclamation, Civil Air Patrol Week, December 1-8, 2015. Mayor Moriarty read the proclamation and presented it to Deputy Commander of Cadets Captain Jean Marie Nixon. Captain Nixon thanked the Council for this recognition and acknowledged the cadets present. b. Presentation of $5,000 donation from the Sedona Lodging Association to the City of Sedona for the transportation study. Steve Segner of the Sedona Lodging Council presented the City with a donation of $5,000 to help fund the transportation study. Mayor Moriarty thanked the Lodging Council for their support. 8. Regular Business a. AB 2037 Discussion/possible action regarding the donation of two bronze sculptures from Jill Galea, Chairman of Friends of Jack Jamesen Memorial Park, to be placed within Jack Jamesen Memorial Park. Presentation by Rachel Murdoch, Luke Sefton from Friends of Jack Jamesen Memorial Park, and Linda Brecher. Questions from Council. Motion: Councilor Jablow moved to approve the acceptance of the donation of two sculptures to be located at Jack Jamesen Memorial Park. Seconded by Vice Mayor DiNunzio. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed. b. AB 2038 Presentation/discussion from the Greater Sedona Substance Abuse Committee on their mission and the issue of substance use and abuse. Presentation by Rob Adams and Merilee Fowler, Executive Director of MATFORCE and Community Counts. Questions and comments from Council. Presentation and discussion only. No action taken.
Sedona City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 8, 2015 4:30 p.m. Page 4 2 c. AB 2032 Discussion/possible action regarding the award of a construction contract for the Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WWRP) Injection Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 Equipping Project to Currier Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,923,201, and award of a Professional Services Contract for Construction Administration and Inspection (CA&I) Services to Carollo Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $236,509. Introduction by Justin Clifton. Presentation by Andy Dickey and Roxanne Holland. Questions and comments from Council. Motion: Councilor Thompson moved to approve award of a construction contract with Currier Construction, Inc. for the Wastewater Reclamation Plant Injection Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 Equipping Project in an amount not to exceed $2,923,201, which includes bid alternates totaling $73,923, subject to approval of the written contracts by the City Attorney’s Office. Seconded by Vice Mayor DiNunzio. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed. Motion: Councilor Thompson moved to approve award of a professional services contract to Carollo Engineers, Inc., for construction administration and inspection services for the Wastewater Reclamation Plant Injection Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 Equipping Project in the amount not to exceed $236,509, subject to approval of a written contract by the City Attorney’s office. Seconded by Councilor Jablow. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed. d. Reports/discussion on Council Assignments Councilor LeFevre advised that she had a good meeting with Nicole Branton of the USFS and sent out a written report regarding the meeting to Council. e. Discussion/possible action on Future Meeting/Agenda Items Mayor Moriarty stated that there is a meeting tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Karen Daines discussed moving the budget work session to January 7th from either 8:30 to 1:00 p.m. or 1:00 to 6:00 p.m. if Mayor Moriarty cannot resolve a scheduling conflict in the morning. 9. Executive Session Upon a public majority vote of the members constituting a quorum, the Council may hold an Executive Session that is not open to the public for the following purposes: a. To consult with legal counsel for advice on matters listed on this agenda per A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3). b. Return to open session. Discussion/possible action on executive session items. No Executive Session was held. 10. Adjournment Mayor Moriarty adjourned the meeting at 5:54 p.m. without objection.
Sedona City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 8, 2015 4:30 p.m. Page 5 3 I certify that the above are the true and correct actions of the Regular City Council Meeting held on December 8, 2015.
______Susan L. Irvine, CMC, City Clerk Date
Sedona City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 8, 2015 4:30 p.m. Page 6 4 Action Minutes Special City Council Meeting City Council Chambers, Sedona City Hall, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, Arizona Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Moment of Silence Mayor Moriarty called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Roll Call: Mayor Sandy Moriarty, Vice Mayor Mark DiNunzio, Councilor Scott Jablow, Councilor Angela LeFevre, Councilor Jon Thompson, and Councilor Jessica Williamson. Councilor Martinez was absent and excused. Staff Present: City Manager Justin Clifton, Assistant City Manager Karen Daines, City Attorney Robert Pickels Jr., Principal Planner Warren Campbell, Senior Planner, Cynthia Lovely, Director of Community Development Audree Juhlin, Senior Planner Mike Raber, Deputy City Clerk JoAnne Cook. 3. Special Business a. AB 1843 Presentation/discussion/possible direction on the Community Focus Area (CFA) Plan for the Soldiers Pass Road CFA. Introduction by Mayor Moriarty. Presentation by Cynthia Lovely, Justin Clifton, Warren Campbell, and Audree Juhlin. Questions and comments from Council. Opened to the public at 4:35 p.m. Jim Eaton, Sedona, advised that he has lived in Sedona for more than 29 years. He stated that he has seen a lot of studies completed, however, he feels that nothing has been done to resolve the traffic issue. He believes that the City and state need to work together for a solution and would like to see improvements done like the state did on SR179. He gave Council some data he had compiled in 2012 that express his perspective including suggested improvements that could be made to increase safety and flow. He thanked Council and urged them to do something. William Spring, Sedona, advised that he is a developer of multi-family homes and said that he has been involved with a variety of developments. He stated he works for Alta Vista in Prescott. He said that he currently does not have any projects in Sedona. He read a statement from the Arizona Republic and spoke about how proposed developments at the Biddle’s area and the Cultural Park will negatively impact traffic and add to the current hospitality stock. He would like a moratorium placed on new lodging developments. He advised that he has begun a traffic study. He asked Council to wait to hear the results of a traffic study before contemplating new lodging developments. William stated he was formerly a municipal attorney and prosecutor in the state of Illinois. David Tracy, Sedona, spoke about his involvement in the Schnebly Hill CFA. He voiced his concerns with Council’s discussion to add standards that would increase the size of
Sedona City Council Special Meeting Wednesday, December 9, 2015 3:00 p.m. 1 Page 7
lodging rooms and increase lodging rates in order to attract high-end tourism. He believes those tourists who visit Sedona are attracted to the natural beauty and activities, not lodging facilities. He feels that higher rates would deter visitors from Sedona to neighboring towns that have more affordable housing. Brought back to Council at 4:42 p.m. Questions and comments from Council. By majority consensus Council directed staff to move forward with staff’s recommended revisions to the Draft Plan. Council also directed staff to include additional standards in the plan for larger lodging room sizes, enhanced screening, distance from highway, and asphalt to achieve the vision and direction of the plan; and for staff to bring the revised Draft Plan back to Council for final review and possible action through the public hearing process at a future Council meeting. b. AB 2008 Discussion/possible direction regarding a broad review of roles, responsibilities, communication protocols, and best practices for Council and staff. No discussion took place under this item due to lack of time. c. Discussion/possible action on Future Meeting/Agenda Items - None. 4. Executive Session Upon a public majority vote of the members constituting a quorum, the Council may hold an Executive Session that is not open to the public for the following purposes: a. To consult with legal counsel for advice on matters listed on this agenda per A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3). b. Return to open session. Discussion/possible action on executive session items. No Executive Session was held. 5. Adjournment Mayor Moriarty adjourned the meeting at 4:46 p.m. without objection. I certify that the above are the true and correct actions of the Special City Council Meeting held on December 9, 2015.
______JoAnne Cook, Deputy City Clerk Date
Sedona City Council Special Meeting Wednesday, December 9, 2015 3:00 p.m. 2 Page 8
Action Minutes Special City Council Meeting City Council Chambers, Sedona City Hall, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, Arizona Monday, December 28, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Moment of Silence Mayor Moriarty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Roll Call: Mayor Sandy Moriarty, Vice Mayor Mark DiNunzio, Councilor Scott Jablow, and Councilor Angela LeFevre. Councilor Jon Thompson appeared telephonically. Councilor John Martinez and Councilor Jessica Williamson were absent and excused. Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Karen Daines, City Attorney Robert Pickels, Jr., Chief of Police Ray Cota, City Clerk Susan Irvine. 3. Special Business a. AB 2049 Discussion/possible action to approve a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement authorizing the City of Sedona to purchase the properties located at 50 Sinagua Dr. and 55 Sinagua Dr., Sedona, Arizona. Presentation by Robert Pickels, Jr. Questions from Council. Motion: Vice Mayor DiNunzio moved to approve the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement for the City of Sedona to purchase the properties located at 50 Sinagua Dr. and 55 Sinagua Dr., Sedona, Arizona for the amount of $850,000. Seconded by Councilor Jablow. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed. 4. Executive Session Upon a public majority vote of the members constituting a quorum, the Council may hold an Executive Session that is not open to the public for the following purposes: a. To consult with legal counsel for advice on matters listed on this agenda per A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3). b. Return to open session. Discussion/possible action on executive session items. No Executive Session was held. 10. Adjournment Mayor Moriarty adjourned the meeting at 5:07 p.m. without objection.
Sedona City Council Special Meeting Monday, December 28, 2015 5:00 p.m. Page 9 1 I certify that the above are the true and correct actions of the Special City Council Meeting held on December 28, 2015.
______Susan L. Irvine, CMC, City Clerk Date
Sedona City Council Special Meeting Monday, December 28, 2015 5:00 p.m. Page 10 2 Office of the Mayor City of Sedona, Arizona
Proclamation Sedona City Flag Day, January 23, 2016 Whereas, in 1995, a Sedona City Flag competition was held by Ron Sievert, owner of Flags Kites & Fun; and Whereas, on January 23, 1996, the Sedona City Council was presented with the first place winning flag created by local resident Marc Jacobson; and Whereas, over the last twenty years, the Sedona City Flag has been a symbol of community spirit; and Whereas, the Sedona City Flag is proudly displayed in various public areas at Sedona City Hall including the Council Chambers and outside with the flags of the United States of America and State of Arizona; and, Whereas, the Sedona City Flag represents the City during the Parade of Flags at the Arizona League of Cities and Towns Annual Conference and other City events; and Whereas, January 23, 2016 marks the 20th anniversary of the acceptance of the Sedona City Flag by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, I, SANDY MORIARTY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SEDONA, ARIZONA, ON BEHALF OF THE SEDONA CITY COUNCIL, do hereby declare January 23, 2016 as Sedona City Flag Day in recognition of the 20th anniversary of its presentation to the Sedona City Council. Issued this 12th day of January, 2016.
______Sandra J. Moriarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______Susan L. Irvine, CMC, City Clerk
Page 11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 12 AB 2042 CITY COUNCIL January 12, 2016 AGENDA BILL Consent Items
Agenda Item: 3e Proposed Action & Subject: Approval of recommendation regarding a new Series 12 Restaurant Liquor License for Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Market located at 313 SR 179, Suite D, Sedona, AZ (License #12033391).
Department City Clerk’s Office
Time to Present N/A Total Time for Item
Other Council Meetings N/A
Exhibits Liquor License Application is available for review and inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.
City Attorney Expenditure Required Reviewed 1/5/16 RLP Approval $0
Recommend approval Amount Budgeted of a Series 12 $0 Restaurant Liquor City Manager’s Account No. N/A License for Recommendation (Description) Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Finance Market. Approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Background: State liquor laws require Sedona’s City Council to forward a recommendation for approval or denial of applications for liquor licenses.
The City has received a new Series 12 Liquor License application for Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Market located at 313 SR 179, Suite D. The liquor license application is available for review and inspection in the City Clerk’s office or by email.
A Series 12 liquor license is a non-transferable, on-sale retail privileges liquor license that allows the holder of a restaurant license to sell and serve spirituous liquor solely for consumption on the premises of an establishment which derives at least forty percent (40%) of its gross revenue from the sale of food. Failure to meet the 40% food requirement shall result in revocation of the license.
Community Development, Finance, the Sedona Police Department (SPD), and Sedona Fire District (SFD) have conducted a review of the application. No objections regarding its
Revised 03-12-2015 Page 13 approval were noted. Staff requests that the City Council recommend that this application be approved.
Community Plan Consistent: Yes - No - Not Applicable
Board/Commission Recommendation: Applicable - Not Applicable
Alternative(s): Do not recommend approval of the Series 12 Restaurant Liquor License for Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Market located at 313 SR 179, Suite D, Sedona, AZ (License #12033391).
MOTION I move to: recommend approval of a Series 12 Restaurant Liquor License for Pumphouse Station Urban Eatery & Market located at 313 SR 179, Suite D, Sedona, AZ (License #12033391).
Page 2 Page 14 AB 2045 CITY COUNCIL January 12, 2016 AGENDA BILL Consent Items
Agenda Item: 3f Proposed Action & Subject: Approval of recommendation regarding a new Series 11 Hotel/Motel Liquor License for Casa Inn Sedona located at 55 Hozoni Drive, Sedona, AZ (License #11033055).
Department City Clerk’s Office
Time to Present N/A Total Time for Item
Other Council Meetings N/A
Exhibits Liquor License Application is available for review and inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.
City Attorney Expenditure Required Reviewed 1/5/16 RLP Approval $0 Amount Budgeted Recommend approval $0 of a Series 11 City Manager’s Account No. N/A Hotel/Motel Liquor Recommendation (Description) License for Casa Inn Sedona. Finance Approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Background: State liquor laws require Sedona’s City Council to forward a recommendation for approval or denial of applications for liquor licenses.
The City has received a new Series 11 Hotel/Motel Liquor License for Casa Inn Sedona located at 55 Hozoni Drive, Sedona, AZ. The liquor license application is available for review and inspection in the City Clerk’s office or by email.
A Series 11 Liquor License is a non-transferable, on-sale retail privileges liquor license which allows the holder of a hotel/motel license to sell and serve all types of spirituous liquor solely for consumption on the premises of a hotel or motel that has a restaurant where food is served on the premises. The restaurant on the licensed premises must derive at least forty percent (40%) of its gross revenue from the sale of food. The holder of this license may sell spirituous liquor in sealed containers in individual portions to its registered guests at any time by means of a minibar located in the guest rooms of registered guests. The registered guest must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age. Access to the minibar is provided by a key or
Revised 03-12-2015 Page 15 magnetic card device and may not be furnished to a guest between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Community Development, Finance, the Sedona Police Department (SPD), and Sedona Fire District (SFD) have conducted a review of the application and did not note any objections regarding its approval. Staff requests that the City Council recommend that this application be approved.
Community Plan Consistent: Yes - No - Not Applicable
Board/Commission Recommendation: Applicable - Not Applicable
Alternative(s): Do not recommend approval of the Series 11 Hotel/Motel Liquor License for Casa Inn Sedona located at 55 Hozoni Drive, Sedona, AZ (License #11033055).
MOTION I move to: recommend approval of a Series 11 Hotel/Motel Liquor License for Casa Inn Sedona located at 55 Hozoni Drive, Sedona, AZ (License #11033055).
Page 2 Page 16 AB 2044 CITY COUNCIL January 12, 2016 AGENDA BILL Appointments
Agenda Item: 4a Proposed Action & Subject: Discussion/possible action regarding the appointment of a board member to the Board of Adjustment.
Department City Clerk
Time to Present 2 minutes Total Time for Item 5 minutes
Other Council Meetings N/A
Exhibits A. Application
City Attorney Expenditure Required Reviewed 1/5/16 RLP Approval $0 Amount Budgeted
Consider the $0 City Manager’s reappointment of Gary Account No. N/A Recommendation Rich to the Board of (Description) Adjustment. Finance Approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Background: The Board of Adjustment advertised seeking applicants to fill one open seat with application deadline of November 23, 2015. One application was received from a current Board member seeking reappointment. The open seat has a three-year term beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2018. The Selection Committee made up of Mayor Sandy Moriarty, Councilor Scott Jablow, and Board Chair Joel Gilgoff interviewed the applicant on December 2nd. The Selection Committee unanimously recommended the reappointment of Gary Rich to a seat on the Board of Adjustment with a term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor is appointed, whichever is later.
Community Plan Consistent: Yes - No - Not Applicable
Board/Commission Recommendation: Applicable - Not Applicable
Alternative(s):
MOTION
Page 17 I move to: reappoint Gary Rich to a seat on the Board of Adjustment with a three-year term ending December 31, 2018 or until a successor is appointed, whichever is later. .
Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 AB 2041 CITY COUNCIL January 12, 2016 AGENDA BILL Regular Business
Agenda Item: 8a Proposed Action & Subject: Discussion/possible direction to provide official City comments to the Forest Service (USFS) in response to their draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study which assesses potential management actions to manage motorized vehicular use on the Forest Service portion of Soldiers Pass Road.
Department City Manager
Time to Present 5 minutes Total Time for Item 30 minutes
Other Council Meetings December 9, 2014
Exhibits A. Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments B. Vicinity Map C. December, 2015 Soldiers Pass Motorized Use Environmental Assessment Project Update
City Attorney Expenditure Required Reviewed 1/5/16 RLP Approval $0 Amount Budgeted Discuss and give $0 direction to provide City Manager’s Account No. N/A comments on the Recommendation (Description) USFS NEPA study in the Soldiers Pass area. Finance Approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Background: Community concerns about off-highway vehicles (OHVs) have been discussed at the Council level since 2013. During the same time period, the City was working with an OHV Work Group to address this issue and the USFS was studying the impact of OHVs at the Soldier’s Pass Road area; specifically looking at motorized use on the unpaved portion of Soldiers Pass Road lying on National Forest System lands. Increased motorized use of the road and increased conflicts between motorized users, hikers, and residents led the Forest Service to suspect that use may be exceeding established capacity levels for the area.
The Forest Service had funded nearly $35,000 to conduct use level surveys and initial analysis on this issue but needed additional assistance from the City to complete the analysis. On December 9, 2014, the USFS presented an overview of the work that had been
Revised 11-10-2010 Page 25 done on the Soldiers Pass Motorized Use EA. It stated that approximately $18,000 was needed to fund resource specialist salary time to complete the final analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council voted to provide these funds. That analysis has been conducted over the course of the last year and a draft of the environmental assessment is due to be released any day. With the anticipated completion of the draft EA, the USFS will enter into a 30 day public input period. While the draft EA has not yet been released, Soldiers Pass Environmental Assessment project documents have been released so that the public and interested parties may gain an understanding of what the EA will contain. The USFS has posted these documents for the public on the Forest Service website. The documents provided include: Exhibit A. Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments Exhibit B. Vicinity Map Exhibit C. December, 2015 Soldiers Pass Motorized Use Environmental Assessment Project Update These documents provide a brief overview of the analysis; the EA will provide in-depth detail and specific information on how the analysis was conducted. The issuance of the EA will initiate a 30-day public comment period. This will also be the City Council’s opportunity to provide input that will be used to formulate the final decision. The timeframe between the end of the comment period and the issuance of final decision from the District Supervisor will depend on the nature and complexity of comments received but should not be extensive. Julie Rowe, Forest Service Recreation Special Uses Program Manager, will be in attendance on January 12th to answer Council questions.
Additional Background The following was taken from the December 9, 2014 agenda bill and provides further background information and reiterates the process taken to date by the USFS:
In 2010, the Red Rock Ranger District hired a contractor to design a use-monitoring protocol that could be used on various roads and trails across the District. This protocol measures use in terms of “social encounters” – how many other users or groups one sees while recreating in a typical fashion. From October 2010 to September 2011 this protocol was applied to Soldiers Pass Road. The results of this study show that use levels exceed capacity 98% of the time.
In 2012, the District conducted scoping to identify other potential issues associated with these use levels and to generate ideas on how to address them. Respondents (both internal and external) cited several concerns:
• Neighborhood issues – noise, property damage, conflicts between residents and rental OHV users • Off-road travel is causing soil erosion and removing vegetation • Sinkhole safety – concerns about possible collapse, vehicles getting too close • Air quality being degraded from exhaust and fugitive dust • Conflicts between motorized/non-motorized users where trail is near and/or crosses road • Noise disturbance to peregrines nesting on Coffee Pot
Page 2 Page 26 • Impacts to reptiles and amphibians at Seven Sacred Pools • Use is out of compliance with the Forest Plan
The District used the results of scoping to begin drafting a framework for a formal analysis under NEPA. However, in June 2012 the Recreation Special Uses Staff Officer position became vacant and the project stalled. This position was refilled in August 2014, and the District now seeks to revive this project.
Several potential alternatives have been drafted. They include: restricting motorized use of the road to the existing permitted jeep company; close the road to all motorized use; and to allow some combination of commercial jeep tours and limited general public motorized use.
The District also proposes to increase the social encounter level for the road corridor, from the current direction of 15 per day to 15 per hour. While this seems counterintuitive, it would be combined with other management actions that reduce overall use.
This project focuses on the motorized use of the road. Other issues, such as social conflicts between residents and rental OHV operators, would not be addressed directly. However, as all draft alternatives propose to reduce motorized use of this road, such issues are likely to see positively impacted. The USFS considers this project a first step toward reducing these conflicts.
Community Plan Consistent: Yes - No - Not Applicable
Policy #8 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Section of the Community Plan is to partner with the Forest Service to manage the wildland urban interface to preserve and protect the National Forest and natural resources through joint planning and management.
Board/Commission Recommendation: Applicable - Not Applicable
Alternative(s):
MOTION I move to: for discussion and possible direction only.
Page 3 Page 27
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 28 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
In 2012 and 2013 the Red Rock Ranger District asked the public for comments on how to manage the Soldiers Pass area. These public involvement efforts were considered pre-scoping and the comments were used to develop the proposed action and alternatives in the predecisional EA. The EA will clearly identify that the request for comments on the proposed action will be combined with the 30-day notice and comment period per 36 CFR 218. A legal notice for the 30 day opportunity to comment will appear in the newspaper of record and the notice will be posted to the project’s website within 4 days of this publication. Table 1 displays those individuals, agencies or organizations that provided responses during the 2012 and 2013 pre-scoping process. In response to the Forest’s request for comments, 62 letters or emails were submitted. Comments within each letter or email were sequentially numbered, provided a unique comment identification (ID) number and a response (see Table 2).
Table 1. Pre-scoping 2012 and 2013 Commenters Letter Name Organization Received 1 David Griggs 03/12/2012 2 Chris Gruenberg 03/12/2012 3 John Badiaco 03/22/2012 4 Stephan Block 03/26/2012 5 William Eich 03/26/2012 Barlow Jeep Rentals & Jeep 6 Nena Barlow 03/28/2012 School 7 Chip Fleming 03/28/2012 8 Chip Fleming 03/28/2012 9 Trina Stephenson 03/28/2012 10 Rob Downey 03/29/2012 11 Chris Halstead 03/29/2012 12 Bruce Misamore 03/29/2012 13 Bruce Misamore 03/29/2012 14 Janet Thronhill 03/29/2012 15 Beth Blay 03/30/2012 16 Jerome Klinger 03/30/2012 17 Curtis Lindner 03/30/2012 18 Karen Dansby 03/312012 19 Thomas Shrader 03/31/2012 20 Cynthia Shen 04/01/2012 21 Janet Fagan 04/02/2012 22 Marilyn Thanden Dexter 04/02/2012
1
Page 29 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Letter Name Organization Received 23 Linda Ferry 04/02/2012 24 Helen Knoll 04/02/2012 25 Curtis Kommer 04/02/2012 26 Robert Shuman 04/02/2012 27 Sarah and Bill Sullivan 04/02/2012 28 Jeannine Bethanis 04/03/2012 29 George and Micki Emmons 04/03/2012 30 Shari Y. Walter 04/03/2012 31 Janice Johns 04/05/2012 32 Virginia Farrell 04/12/2012 33 William Pumphrey 04/16/2012 34 Margaret Anderson 04/17/2012 35 Charles Mosley City of Sedona 04/19/2012 36 Noreen Wienges 04/19/2012 37 Elizabeth Gross 04/20/2012 38 Irwin and Yvonne Sheer 04/23/2012 39 Nena Barlow 04/26/2012 40 Dennis Tribble 04/27/2012 41 John and Barbara Badiaco 04/27/2012 42 Greg McCallum 04/28/2012 43 Kristin Cryer 05/10/2012 44 Chip and Marla Stalica 05/13/2012 45 Andrea Lhotka 01/25/2013 46 Joseph Hawk 01/25/2013 47 Mark Watson 01/25/2013 48 Patrick Sexton 01/25/2013 49 Anna Dickenson 01/26/2013 50 Shelley Holiday Oak Creek Watershed Council 01/26/2013 51 Kate Buttles 01/28/2013 52 Daniel Holland 01/28/2013 53 Bruce Misamore 01/28/2013 54 Wayne Johnson 01/29/2013 55 Marie Kuffman 02/01/2013
2
Page 30 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Letter Name Organization Received 56 Adrianne Uhl 02/01/2013 57 Don Dickinson 02/03/2013 58 Jeannine DeThanis 02/04/2013 59 Virgina Farrell 02/19/2013 60 Chuck and Chalyce Murray 04/30/2013 61 Irwin and Yvonne Sheer 04/30/2013 62 Unknown homeowner 05/02/2013
3
Page 31 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Table 2. 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Response to Comments Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120312-1 David Griggs Forgive me for being blunt, but it would seem to be extremely Thank you for your comment. While we prepared the obvious that Soldiers Pass usage severely exceeds the environmental assessment a moratorium was placed on recommended levels of disturbance. Therefore, I am any additional outfitter and guide use on Soldiers Pass. disturbed, and confused by the decision that further studies However public use was not limited during this time. The should be conducted to determine how best to alleviate the analysis on use on Soldiers Pass Road indicates 1,128 situation. It seems, even to the most casual of observers, vehicles is attrributed daily to permitted tours and 2,908 that you would simply restrict the amount of trips jeep tours vehicles comes from general public use (see recreation may access this area. Or, even go one step further, and report). Alternative B, C and D address your concern. conduct a moretorium on commercial usage in this area, all Alternative B and C reduce the number of outfitted and together, for a period of one year. In my opinion, there is way guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time too much access for jeep tours in our forests now, as it is. and total per day). While Alternative C does increase the They do the most damage, are the highest polluters, and annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves cause the most impact per occurrence than any other users the daily encounter issue. Alternative D eliminates all of the forest system. I, personally, would like to see more motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and permits for hiking, educational, low impact activities, and less emergency vehicles). for the jeep tours. thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions and concerns,
20120312-2/1 Chris and Janice We actually just hiked soldier pass yesterday and it was Thank you for your comment. We developed a range of way too crowded. Mainly the problem was vehicle traffic alternatives to address managing the number of and the noise it created. Red rock jeep, tomcars, atv’s and vehicles per day. Alternative B responds to this issue by personal rigs should be regulated in some way. The eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number rented vehicles and tour jeeps were the most prevalent. of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer The noise level of all vehicles really ruined the experience vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C for us, a peaceful hike through the beautiful area was uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided impossible. The red rocks with a hue of black from tires trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and was also very upsetting. At one point two tour jeeps with 6 guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase passengers each were at seven pools. Hard to call it the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it sacred when 12 + people are hanging out and two resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative D cowboys toting firearms are giving lectures. eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120312-2/2 Chris and Janice I too like to go off‐road but I think the area should be off Thank you for your comment. Although each action limits to vehicles. Let the jeep tours come in part way and alternative (B-D) manages vehicle capacity, alternative then park and hike the rest. There is an overlook and D best responds to your concern by closing the area to plenty of room for them to park and then turnaround. I did all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and jeep tours in Tucson and certain area’s were off limits but emergency vehicles). you could describe (lecture) from an overlook and then those folks capable of the hike would get up close ON FOOT. The rentals are really bad because they mostly don’t have previous experience driving one, and they no
4
Page 32 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # reason to be responsible or take stewardship for the beauty of the area. 20120312-2/3 Chris and Janice Sedona is well known for the hiking, mountain biking, Thank you for commenting and being involved. and the serene areas to get away from the crowds. We cannot let it become known as an off-road vehicle meca, that is were Moab comes in. There are a lot of trails for Tomcars, atv’s, and personal rigs outside of town were there is far less foot traffic and less chance of a novice driver running over a hiker, mountain biker, or god forbid a kid. I am very interested in this topic and really appreciate the updates and ability to add input. 20120322-3 John Badiaco i think rather than be concerned about the tourist and Thank you for your comment. However, it is outside the jeeps in sedona, i think you should find out why so many scope of this analysis which is focsed on managing people in this town are getting cancer. we just lost a motorized vehicle use on Soliders Pass Road. young girl 21 years old and another 18 year old girl with cancer. a while back we lost a teacher and a mother of a student. what the heck is in the water or in the ground around here that we are not aware of? 20120326-4/1 Stephan Block As a regular forest hiker in this area, my perception is Thank you for your comments and recommendations. that commercial tours are not at an unreasonable level Only alternative A (no action) would continue outfitted now. I primarily hike on trails not and on the road, so I and guided use at its current level. Alternative B would rarely encounter a commercial tour. The number of eliminate unguided vehicles and reduce the number of commercial jeeps I do see, at the sinkhole or 7 pools, do outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles not seem to be excessive. Their presence at current at one time and total per day). Alternative C would use levels is fine with me. I understand and accept that this a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips small portion of the forest is more of a frontcountry area, per day and would reduce the number of outfitted and whereas the rest of the Soldier Pass area is well guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase protected from vehicles and has more of a backcountry the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it feel. This seems to be a reasonable balance. I resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C understand only one company has the rights to operate includes a forest plan amendment that provides more on this trail, my comments are based on that continuing management flexibility while managing for a maximum into the future. Moving forward, I would suggest: number of vehicles per day. Alternative D eliminates all 1. Provide for a management exception in the Forest Plan motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and for Soldier Pass. This will allow the greatest flexibility to emergency vehicles). Mountain bikes would continue to finetune management action to best meet the needs of have access in any alternative but noncommercial everyone. OHVs would be managed as noted above. 2. Cap commercial use at current levels, or consider a reduction if need be. In addition, to best understand encounters and impacts, I would suggest incorporating mountain bikes and noncommercial OHV use on this trail.
5
Page 33 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120326-4/2 Stephan Block There is an additional recreational impact, however, that Thank you for your comments. We recognize that there is not mentioned in the scoping letter, and that is noise are other sources of noise that could negatively affect impact from air tours.There are regular helicopter and the recreation experience. However, this concern is fixed wing aircraft tours over the Soldier Pass area due outside the scope of this analysis which is limited to to its proximity to the Sedona airport. Helicopters are managing motorized vehicle use on the Soldiers Pass particularly offensive; they tend to fly very low (much Road. lower than the recommended minimum elevation over wilderness) and at times there are several per hour. The noise impacts are excessive and undesirable, especially over the wilderness portion of the forest. Although the USFS does not manage air space directly, this is a similar situation to Grand Canyon, where the federal government has enacted sensible limitations on air tour operators that provide for a much safer and better recreational user experience for all parties. I would encourage the Forest Service to work proactively on noise impacts with the air tour companies in Sedona. 20120326-5 William Eich Read the report you sent on the various trails and recreation Thank you for your comments. Only alternative A would usage. I note the others fall within limits specified and not address motorized use-related social encounters. Soldiers Pass does not, I do believe you must restrict the The forest plan would continue to direct the area to be usage there. I note the document speaks to the subject of managed for a maximum of 15 per day and the use on management exceptions and I assume the lack for an Soldiers Pass Road would, on most days, continue to exception for Soldier Pass is because of local opposition, exceed that level. Alternative B responds to this issue primarily from the residents adjacent to the trail head. I do by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the remember a few years ago when the residents by the trail number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer head were quite aggravated and the City of Sedona vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C discussed the trail head location and there was even talk of uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided restricting parking. I imagine most of that was due to non trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and commercial but it appears now that commercial has the guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase possibility for becoming an irritation. Therefore I believe you the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it must enforce the Encounter Level specified for that trail, resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C simple as that. Perhaps FOF volunteers would assist with includes a forest plan amendment that provides that. more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120328-6/1 Nena Barlow I would ask why doesn't Soldier Pass have the same Thank you for your comments. It is difficult to management exceptions as Broken Arrow, Schnebly and reconstruct the specific reasoning behind the differing Dry Creek? But I do understand that it is a shorter trail. encounter prescriptions for each road. The decision of However, the jump from 15 encounters per day to 15 15 encounters per day for Soldiers Pass was likely the commercial encounters per hour is a rather drastic result of a combination of factors: the shortness of the
6
Page 34 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # difference. Is a change in the management classification or trail, the specific setting (located between a residential exception possible? Are these exceptions made at the area and a designated wilderness), and the perception district level or forest level? Is an intermediate option that it was not a major recreation destination at the possible? Just for a fact check, what is Red Rock Jeep's time. current permit allotment for the trail? An alternative including an encounter exception for the Soldiers Pass road corridor was considered but ultimately discarded from full analysis. The District recognized that the encounter prescriptions designated in Coconino NF Forest Plan Amendment 12 (of 15 per day or 15 per hour) are insufficient to effectively describe or manage recreation on the Red Rock Ranger District. As a result, recreation specialists across the forest have developed a different framework for describing recreational social settings. This new framework is described in the recreation section of the environmental assessment (EA) and in the Recreation Resource Report. The framework is likely to be adopted as part of the Coconino NF forest plan revision process and may apply forestwide. An amendment to the current forest plan is part of Alternative C (proposed action) in this EA. 20120328-6/2 Nena Barlow The letter seems to indicate that the concern is with Thank you for your comment. We developed a range of motorized use only, but I have concerns about all users on alternatives that addresses your concerns. However, the trail--I cannot recall a day in recent history when that non-motorized uses (hikers, mountain bikes) would parking lot was not full--even after the recent snow that continue to have unlimited access. made it a mud pit, with cars lined up waiting for others to leave, or parked illegally in the neighborhood. One of my suggestions might be that the gate be converted to Alternative B responds to the motorized use issue by something that requires a day code for any and ALL users. eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
7
Page 35 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120328-6/3 Nena Barlow I understand that we are in a fairly unique position of having The Red Rock Ranger District encompasses the mandates of the USFS to manage an area that receives approximately 500,000 acres. Visition in 2014 was more visitation than most major National Parks estimated to be 2,000,000 visitors, which represents http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2007/07/top- about half of the visitors to come to tne Sedona area. Most of this visitation occurs within the Coconino NF 10-most-visited-national-parks, especially when broken Forest Plan Amendment 12 area, which is down by acre (i.e. Grand Canyon gets 4.2M visitors, but with approximately 200,000 acres. 1.2M acres http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774793.html, whereas the Red Rock Ranger District is 160,000 acres (is that correct?) and has an estimated visitation of 1.5M to 3M visitors (is that correct?). 20120328-7/1 Chip Fleming Please see the article in the AZ Daily Sun at the following Thank you for your comment. While this specific link:http://azdailysun.com/news/local/route-to-trails-to-see- analysis will not address all motorized use that occurs limits-in-sedona/article_da9b1b33-946d-596f-8a2d- in the Sedona area (outside the scope of this analysis), 9126debe5962.html. I can’t find any info on the Coconino we do have an opportunity to manage the amount of National Forest website about this inquiry, and the article motorized vehilcle use that occurs on the Soliders Pass doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It’s probably referring to Road. Only the no action alternative (alternative A) the jeep trail off of the Soldier Pass trailhead parking lot, but would keep motorized vehicle use at its current level. I can’t tell. I can tell you this: I’m pretty disgusted by all of Alternative B would eliminate unguided vehicles and the black tire marks on the red rocks accessible via this jeep reduce the number of outfitted and guided trips per day trail, esp. around the Devils Kitchen sinkhole. As an avid (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). hiker, I favor severe restrictions on motor vehicle traffic on Alternative C would use a permit system to limit the all of the jeep trails within the National Forest in the Sedona number of unguided trips per day and reduces the area. number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative D would eliminate all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles. 20120328-8 Chip Fleming Thanks for the letter—that clarifies it. Yes, the area around Thank you for the information and your the Seven Sacred Pools and Devil’s Kitchen is one of the comments. To clarify, it is Red Rock Western Jeep two places in Sedona in which I usually encounter a lot of Tours that is permitted to use Soldiers Pass Road, not other visitors and vehicles. On one occasion, a Pink Jeep Pink Jeep Tours. Also see our previous response driver (or similar company’s driver) saw me and my hiking (7/1). partner near the pools, and in an attempt to entertain his
passengers, blurted out “Look—tourists! Don’t feed ‘em” My companion and I wondered which party more represented tourists, or “tourons,” as we used to call them at the beach in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The other spot I don’t like to visit any more due to the heavy vehicular traffic is the area accessible via the Broken Arrow Trail, in the vicinity of
8
Page 36 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # the Devil’s Dining Room sinkhole, Submarine Rock, and Chicken Point. If you look closely at the area around lat/lon 34.833878,-111.75257 on Google Maps, satellite view, you can see rings of black rubber on the rocks where 4WD vehicle tires have scarred the landscape. I support anything the Forest Service can do to restrict vehicle traffic in these areas. 20120328-9 Trina Stephenson They are taking over and ruining the area! Do they have to Red Rock Western Jeep Tours (RRWJT) has provided have licenses as to how many trips they take? It is really guided jeep tours on Soldiers Pass Road under a becoming ridiculous. And now we have helicopter rides Forest Service special use authorization (permit) since constantly overhead so you can't even enjoy any quiet 1989. The permit authorizes a maximum of 2,100 jeep anywhere near Cathedral Rock. tours annually. We have developed a range of alternatives that address motorized vehicle use on Soldiers Pass Road. Alternative B would eliminate unguided vehicles and reduce the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C would use a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduce the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative D would eliminate all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120329-10 Rob Downey It should be closed to all motor vehicle traffic. Including red Thank you for your comments. This analysis only rock jeep tours. It would make a great trail an additional loop addresses motorized vehicle use on Soldiers Pass to teacup and soldiers pass. Also, we need to consider Road. Alternative D, which would eliminate all use making a trail on 152 instead of having hundreds of (except for administrative and emergency use) best pedestrians not hikers hiking the 152 to devil’s bridge. responds to your recommendation. That road is very dangerous to the hikers so we could make a trail that runs along the hills. Then the loop from Jordan road to brins mesa to lizard head can take you back to Jordan via soldiers pass or Cibola or jim Thompson. 20120329-11/1 Chris Halstead I am writing in concern for a possible trend i see here in Thank you for your comment. The current Coconino NF Sedona. That trend would be a neighborhood dictating Forest Plan provides guidance on how to manage forest access to the national forest. There is by no means a right to lands around Sedona and addresses balancing the control access just because they have purchased a house in needs and desires of different stakeholder groups. For a neighborhood with trail-heads in it. That's like me building the area around Soldiers Pass, the forest plan directs a house at the entrance to a Ranger Station and then telling us to maintain recreational uses while mitigating you when you can and can't go to work (although that might impacts to residents.
9
Page 37 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # be nice at times ;) It also reminds me of an issue that was going on in upstate New York about 10 years ago. People We have developed a range of alternatives that should were moving from suburbia to the country for the quality of provide varying levels of motorized access. While life and then raising a stink because of the cow smell... My alternative A (no action) would continue to allow point is, to move to a neighborhood with forest access, the motorized use at current levels, the proposed action price you pay is a few cars driving by to access the trails we (alternative C) would use a permit system to limit the are fortunate enough to use daily while most of those cars number of unguided trips per day and reduce the only get to see it once. How awesome for them and us. I number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While think the comments on Alternative C does increase the annual number of http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/28 outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter /20120328vehicles-an-hour-toomuch-sedona- issue street.html say it all. most people deal with 100's & 1,000's of cars driving by. The trails have existed longer than the houses that surround them and my fear is that neighborhoods will gain power over a canyon. i realize the reason those houses are so valuable is because of their access, but this is a national forest with access to all. I know you strive to be good neighbors and respect private property rights. I also know you have a tough job ;) how do we balance out the wants and needs of the forest with the wants and needs of the people who live around it. i think the basic thing to keep in mind is if anybody "owns" the national forest, we all do and no neighborhood should have the right to tell the public when they can or can't hike, jeep or mountain bike in the national forest. 20120329-11/2 Chris Halstead If over use by private vehicles is an issue then please lets Thank you for your comments. Alternative B address that directly. I have lived in Sedona going on 9 responds to your concern by eliminating unguided years and the one big change i have noticed in the national vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and forest is the presence of "uncontrolled" rental vehicles and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time an increase in private individuals driving vehicles made for and total per day). As noted in our previous response, dirt roads. to me this is the big issue and a direct approach Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number (possibly permits for off-road rentals or some kind of direct of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of regulation) would be awesome from my perspective. outfitted and guided trips per day. Alternative D In conclusion, if increased wear and tear in certain area's is eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for the concern, by all means please address this issue. Maybe administrative and emergency vehicles). different permitted play area's are in order for the plethora of rental tomcars, quads and jeeps that have appeared over the last few years. If complaining by the neighborhood is the issue, maybe a reminder of how good we really have it is the right thing to do.... 20120329-12 Bruce Misamore I’ve read the report and am astounded at the frequency of Thank you for your comment. The permitted
10
Page 38 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # use and the commercial percentage. I would have put it outfitter/guide is limited to 2,100 jeeps per year and is much higher a percentage for commercial. I’ve never seen required to submit quarterly use reports. Any use that many vehicles back there. Virtually all of the vehicles beyond what is authorized is subject to disciplinary I’ve seen during peak seasons are Jeep rentals from local action against their permit. Jeep rental outfits, and the commercial tours. I still think it would useful for you to get records of number of commercial Rental vehicles are not subject to Forest Service trips directly from the operators who do go up there. That regulation in the same way. They are managed the should be relatively easy for them to assemble. same manner as the general public in private vehicles. The District has no authority to regulate these vehicles as rentals or commercial use or to require the submission of records. 20120329-13 Bruce Misamore That surely isn’t what was reported in the online articles that Thank you for your comment. The 2011 data was caused me to respond. I find it very hard to believe that the recorded based on encounter levels (the number of volume on the unpaved trail is 12 cars per hour. I have only other vehicles seen during a typical visit). The figure of ever seen one, maybe two max, commercial entities in 12 encounters per hour represents the average; actual Sedona which use the trail, and my observation is that they encounters ranged from 0 per hour to 39 per hour. are not back there that much. You can probably get stats Approximately two-thirds of recorded encounters were from them about how often they take people back. I non-commercial (this category includes private vehicles infrequently take guests back with my Jeep Rubicon to show and rentals). The outfitter/guide company operating them the Steps and the Kitchen, and I don’t think that I have under permit comprised one-third of recorded use. seen more than 1‐2 other vehicles back there during any of Observational data can be limited by factors such as my trips, lasting about 45‐60 minutes. I was just back there the time of day collected (e.g., it was not collected very last weekend and saw one other local vehicle, and not any early in the morning or late in the evening). commercial tours during a very busy tourist weekend. It is a very difficult off roading trail and can only be accessed by Data from 2013 was collected on a 24-hour basis using specialized vehicles. I wouldn’t attempt it in anything less a motion-sensitive camera. It verifies the 2011 results. than my Rubicon, which is designed for these types of trails. Use ranged from 8 vehicles per day to 88 per day. Using the same formulas as applied to the 2011 data, this translates to one encounter per hour to 11 per hour. 20120329-14 Janet Thornhill I am in agreement with Chip that Soldier's Pass and Broken Thank you for your comment. The District has Arrow need attention. One thing I found interesting was that recognized that the encounter prescriptions designated Soldier's Pass has different parameters than the other roads in Coconino NF Forest Plan Amendment 12 (of 15 per that were analyzed. I'm sure this is due to the trailhead day or 15 per hour) are insufficient to effectively being within the residential neighborhood. I have changed describe or manage recreation on the Red Rock my hiking pattern to begin uptown at the Jordan Trailhead Ranger District. As a result, recreation specialists and looping around instead of using Soldier's Pass road. across the forest have developed a different framework Better parking and less congestion. I found it interesting that for describing recreational social settings. This new 15 commercial encouters per HOUR appear to be the framework is described in the recreation section of the capacity limits. This number seems very high to me. That environmental assessment (EA) and in the Recreation means 15 jeeps per hour can traverse the roads and rocks. Resource Report. The framework is likely to be adopted This leaves as Chip mentioned black marks and eroison. I as part of the Coconino NF forest plan revision process support lowering the capacity limit. and may apply forestwide. An amendment to the
11
Page 39 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # current forest plan is included in Alternative C in this EA. 20120330-15/1 Beth Blay Thanks for the opportunity for input as you reconsider the Thank you for your comment. Alternative C would use a Forest Plan. I am a member of Back Country Horsemen permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per both in Arizona and Washington States. As you know we day and reduce the number of outfitted and guided trips frequently partner with government agencies to meet the per day. However, the parking area would still be goal of maintaining equestrian use. I have also been a available for access to the hiking trails. The Forest member of Search and Rescue for Mohave and Yavapai Service has identified an alternate location for the counties. Soldier Pass has effectively become a hiking nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to experience only. This was not always true but the access develop that site due to the need for an easement through the developing Sedona neigborhoods was destined across private lands (the easement has been requested to upset home owners. It is my suggestion that you close but rejected). For this reason it is not considerd a that parking area completely. The last time I drove Vultee reaonably foreseeable action. Arch road was on a search for one of your temp employees. I swore then I would not drive my truck/trailer up that road again. That was some years ago. Despite the implementation of the Red Rock Pass, that road seems to have had little or no maintenance. 20120330-15/2 Beth Blay (1) Consider a "commercial use fee" for businesses which Thank you for your comments. This analysis is only regularly and consistently use Vultee Arch road. Apply those focused on Soldiers Pass Road. Management of Vultee funds for repair and maintenance specifically to this road. Arch Road is outside the scope of this analysis.
All permitted outfitter/guides are required to pay a fee to the Forest Service. These fees are required by law to be spent on the management of the outfitter/guide program. Every year the District allocates a percentage to the maintenance of roads. 20120330-15/3 Beth Blay (2) Establish parking areas at the end of Vultee Arch for cars See previous response to comment 15/2. only.
20120330-15/4 Beth Blay (3) Establish an ONLY horse/truck/trailer parking either at Thank you for your comments. This analysis is only the beginning of this road or where the Soldier Pass trail focused on the motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road. intersects. Make certain it is a separate parking area Management of equestrian uses is outside the scope of exclusively for truck/trailer combinations. (It is more than this analysis. disappointing to get to a riding area only to find the required space for horse trailers.) 20120330-15/5 Beth Blay (3) To get horses OFF the road itself, re‐establish the trails See previous response to comment 15/4. leading to all the other trail systems which access via Vultee Arch road. 20120330-15/6 Beth Blay (4) Close the parking area completely at the present location See previous response to comment 15/4. which requires access via a housing development. Horse use has been extremely limited in the Verde Valley as
12
Page 40 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # a result of restricting traditional parking areas. Please seriously consider these suggestions. 20120330-16 Jerome Klinger I purchased a home on Rim Shadows Drive in Sedona in Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service 2000. At the time, perhaps eight to ten Jeep tours a day has no authority to regulate the type or number of would pass by my house on the way to the trail head. Over vehicles available for rent in the City of Sedona or to the years, the number of Jeep tours has increased regulate vehicular use on city streets. significantly, as have the number of private cars driven to
the trailhead. Everyone passes my house on the way in and on the way out. Worse, in the last few years, the ATV's have Alternative B responds to the motorized use come in increasing numbers. They are so loud and offensive volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles that I can no longer sit on my front deck and enjoy my own and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips home. Often, I must resort to keeping the windows closed per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per and the air conditioning on, even on nice days where I day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the should be able to enjoy open windows. Further, the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the increased traffic has damaged our roads, breaking off edges number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While and leaving the often with much dirt dragged out from the Alternative C does increase the annual number of trailhead. I do not think is appropriate for the government to outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter disregard the homeowners and their lifestyle to satisfy the issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment tourists and the income derived from the Jeep tours. It is that provides more management flexibility while unconscionable that we should have to live with this managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. annoyance, after having paid so much for our homes to live Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use in a "quiet" neighborhood in beautiful Sedona. I implore you (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). to limit the number of Jeep tours or cancel them all together, and to certainly disallow all and any ATV's. 20120330-17/1 Curtis Lindner Vultee Arch Road - I with friends accessed via the Arch road Thank you for your comments. However, this in September and October and found the road rough and analysis is only focused on Soldiers Pass Road. almost impassable in spots. We found the road eroded and Management of commercial uses on Vultee Arch overused as it is narrow and rough. Jeep tours are not at Road is outside the scope of this analysis. high levels here as we saw say 5 jeeps per hour with other private vehicles. I support new parking created at Dry Creek road providing studies are done to mitigate any over use by Commercial Tours and private vehicles to the Forest lands. 20120320-17/2 Curtis Lindner Soldiers Pass Road -I enjoy using the Soldiers Pass access Thank you for your comments. Alternative B to other areas for hiking etc in the fall season Sept and responds to the motorized use volume issue by October. I encountered lots of Jeeps and some were rude eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number and reluctant to share the road as I pulled over and got of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer yelled at . Too much traffic! I think this area is limited as it vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C goes though private lands and studies should be done uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided before any improvements to the road are considered. I also trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and experienced jeep tours in the way of the public morning guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase hours. I suggest limiting them to certain times if possible so the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it hikers and users can access trails easier. resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C
13
Page 41 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
Motorized use is restricted to the hours of 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. Further restriction is a mitigation that could be considered for addition to Alternatives B and C. 20120330-17/3 Curtis Lindner Schnebly Hill Road Thank you for your comments. However, this analysis is This road need help as it is overused by Tours and Rental only focused on Soldiers Pass Road. Management of Quads at certain times especially on weekend and mid commercial uses on Schnebly Hill Road is outside the mornings. I experience this alot as I am on that road 4 or 5 scope of this analysis. times a month accessing parts of the Forest. I regularly 5 to 7 Tour Jeeps all stopped blocking the road, going slow, then Use data from 2011 show that use of Schnebly Hill road here comes the rental quads what a mess. I believe an env. exceeds capacity, but only slightly. At that time it was assessment is over due, way over due. recognized that management action of some kind should be taken but that action on Soldiers Pass Road was more critical. The District still hopes to address this in the future.
The 2011 data also showed that 60% of the use on Schnebly Hill Road is due to private and rental vehicles. The Forest Service has no authority to regulate the number of these vehicles on roads that are designated as open to motorized use 20120330-17/4 Curtis Lindner Broken Arrow Road Thank you for your comments. However, this analysis is I have given up trying to access this area with my truck as only focused on Soldiers Pass Road. Management of its overused by Commercial use. I hike and ride my commercial uses on Broken Arrow Road is outside the mountain bike here in the spring and fall seasons. My scope of this analysis. experience here is less than it should be as it is a beautiful area but is too busy. Good luck here limiting Jeep tours to Use data collected in 2011 show that use of Broken specific hours as I have seen more that 5 per hour. Arrow Road was within established capacity. 20120331-18/1 Karen Dansby I have lived near the Soldiers Pass Trailhead since 1995 Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds and have witnessed the extensive use and abuse of the to the motorized usevolume/noise issue by eliminating road and the trails by ATVs, rental Jeeps and private SUVs. unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted I have even seen motorcycles and motor bikes on the trail! and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one The footprint of the road has been widely expanded, time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit particularly over the past five years.This extensive use of the system to limit the number of unguided trips per day
14
Page 42 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # road has resulted in flora being trampled to widen the dirt and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips road and create paths that were not intended to be part of per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual the road. I have seen rental jeeps go down slick red rock in number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily areas that they should not be driving. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan I have seen ATVs use hiking trails trampling the sides of the amendment that provides more management flexibility path. I have called FS law enforcement sometimes, but they while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per are unable to answer all the calls, as you well know they day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use have an extensive area they monitor.I request consideration (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). of limiting the use of this trailhead and trail to outfitter guide permits and restrict the use of ATVs, rental jeeps and Under all action alternatives, the use of Soldiers Pass private SUVs. I also hope the Red Rock Ranger District will Road will be monitored by Forest Service personnel. consider expanding their pass to include Soldiers Pass - and Under Alternatives B and C, outfitter/guide use would perhaps have the amenities that are required for a Red continue to be monitored through their quarterly use Rock Pass. reports and annual inspections. Under Alternative C, motorized use by the public would be monitored by data collected through the reservation system. 20120331-19/1 Thomas Shrader I absolutely disagree with the claims of excessive vehicle Thank you for your comment. The 2011 data was traffic on Soldiers Pass Rd, as I have witness none during recorded based on encounter levels (the number of our use of Soldier's Pass Trail and others. The parking other vehicles seen during a typical visit). The figure of areas are not usually overflowing, and everybody seems 12 encounters per hour represents the average; actual well organized. Soldiers Pass Rd seems more to me a encounters ranged from 0 per hour to 39 per hour. residential connector street rather than an actual residential Approximately two-thirds of recorded encounters were street. Few homes seem to actually be on Soldiers Pass Rd, non-commercial (this category includes private vehicles but on streets connecting to it. Many of those are gated, and rentals). The outfitter/guide company operating seasonal use homes. In no way do I view 12 or 15 cars per under permit comprised one-third of recorded use. hour to be excessive, especially considering many of those Observational data can be limited by factors such as are by the residents themselves. the time of day collected (e.g., it was not collected very early in the morning or late in the evening).
Data from 2013 was collected on a 24-hour basis using a motion-sensitive camera. It verifies the 2011 results. Use ranged from 8 vehicles per day to 88 per day. Using the same formulas as applied to the 2011 data, this translates to one encounter per hour to 11 per hour. 20120331-19/2 Thomas Shrader Finally, as usual, is my argument that the trail system and Thank you for your comment. This project focuses on it's users were present before many of the Soldiers Pass motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road only; homes were built. It's not right to consider any kind of nonmotorized trails are outside the scope of this closure or limits to the trail systems just because people analysis. move into the area knowing that it was a tourist area and recreational area, then start requesting that access be shut The Coconino NF Forest Plan (USDA 1987) provides off or restricted to the tourists, hikers and bikers. guidance on how to manage forest lands around
15
Page 43 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Sedona and addresses balancing the needs and desires of different stakeholder groups. For the area around Soldiers Pass, it directs us to maintain recreational uses while mitigating impacts to residents(Coconino NF Forest Plan, MA 24, pp. 206-40 to 206-42). 20120401-20 Cynthia Shen i live on canyon shadows ,kitty corner from the soldiers pass Thank you for your comments. For clarification, the entrance. the park is over used. as you acknowledge in your Soliders Pass Road enters the Coconino National monitoring report.too many over flow cars/jeeps park on our Forest from private lands. There are no park lands street as well as on rim shadows dr during peak usage times involved. Alternative B responds to the motorized use which is often.the noise of the red jeeps tom cars and volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles screams of the occupants of tourists revelling in the beauty and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips disturb the peace of our neighborhood community.i have a per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per circular driveway. they use it as a turn around when they day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the can't find the entrance to the park.the red sediment is on the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the street which the city won't clean as they say it is the park number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While service's problem. the existing trail should be closed as it is Alternative C does increase the annual number of so compacted from over use and the jeep tours do not outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter respect the land. please put the entrance on a less dense issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment residential side or close part of the trail so mother nature that provides more management flexibility while can repair the obvious damage from man. managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
In the past the Forest Service has proposed additional signage to direct users to the trailhead, but the idea was rejected by the Home Owners Association. The Forest Service has identified an alternate location for the nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to develop that site due to the need for an easement across private lands (the easement has been requested but rejected). Even if the nonmotorized trailhead were relocated, the only possible access to Soldiers Pass Road is where it is currently located. 20120402-21/1 Janet Fagan I live in the Soldiers Pass Trail head area. While the Red Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service has Rock Jeep Co. is fine (they pay a percentage of their profits no authority to regulate vehicles that are rented outside and help maintain trails), the latest barrage of ATVs and the forest boundary. The Forest Service must manage rental jeeps ,driven by people who are ignorant of how they these vehicles in the same manner as privately owned can damage our precious landscape, has become a real vehicles. nuisance and a danger to the forest! Motorcycles and motor bikes also abound. People are just looking to entertain Alternative B responds to the motorized use
16
Page 44 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # themselves wantonly at the expense of our precious national volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles forest. and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120402-21/2 Janet Fagan Various unwanted paths have been created and much of the Please see previous response to Comment 21/1. growth destroyed with this careless usage. Not only is it a danger to the forest, but then people do not seem to know how to operate their RENTAL ATVs and RENTAL JEEPS and go into areas that may be of danger to them as well. With all the budget cuts, there is even less staff now to monitor our precious red rock land.
20120402-21/3 Janet Fagan I would like to request that the use of this Soldiers Pass Please see response to Comment 21/1. Making Trailhead be limited to such things as : outfitter guide Soldiers Pass Trailhead a Red Rock Pass site would permits. Use of ATVs, rental jeeps and private SUVs should not address the motorized use of the road and is be restricted and signs posted to request same. A Red outside the scope of this analysis. Rock Pass should be required and signage should note that ATV, Jeep Rental and Private SUVs are not allowed. If people want thrill and joy rides possibly trails can be created somewhere on 89A (with all of that land) between Cottonwood and Sedona where people can trample, rumble and speed around to their heart's content. Thank you for your consideration. Being a 12 year resident, my goal is to protect this special place...the area...and the Soldiers Pass Trail.
20120402-22/1 Marilyn Thaden For the last 12 years I, along with many others, have been Thank you for your comment. Every year the District Dexter hiking and enjoying the wonderful trails off of Soldiers Pass allocates a portion of its outfitter/guide fee revenues to TH. But in the last few years unless I arrive near 8 AM I am the maintenance of trails and roads – including forced to park along the road and sometimes all the way to trailheads. We have recently revamped our the corner off Soldiers Pass Rd. Also, the condition of the management plan for road closures during wet weather. tiny parking lot is not maintained adequately: on March 20, Hopefully will reduce the resource damage that is due to the snow, my friend's car almost got stuck in the 4 occuring by eliminating use that should not occur under
17
Page 45 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # inches of sucking mud. snowy or wet conditions. 20120402-22/2 Marilyn Thaden But more importantly, I have observed deterioration of the Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service has Dexter road and trails in this area due to the daily, multiple rental no authority to regulate vehicles that are rented outside jeeps, ATVs, jeep tours, and personal SUV's. Is there not a the forest boundary. The Forest Service must manage piece of land near here which could serve as a TH that does these vehicles in the same manner as privately owned not have to compete with the neighbors who live here, who vehicles. only desire quiet and privacy? And...why not provide all the 6 amenities which require the Red Rock Pass, benefiting The Forest Service has identified an alternate location both hikers/bikers and the Forest Service? for the nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to develop that site due to the need for an easement across private lands (the easement has been requested but rejected). Even if the nonmotorized trailhead were relocated, the only possible access to Soldiers Pass Road is where it is currently located.
Alternative B responds to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
Making Soldiers Pass Trailhead a Red Rock Pass site would not address the motorized use of the road and is outside the scope of this analysis. 20120402-23 Linda Ferry I'm responding to your questionaire about recreational use Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to of the Soldiers Pass area. I'm a Sedona resident who used the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating to enjoy that area of Sedona. Several years ago I noticed unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted the damage that was being done to the area by extensive and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one use of motorized vehicles. In addition, the noise level was time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit not conducive to an enjoyable outdoor, serene, relaxing system to limit the number of unguided trips per day environment. As a consequence, I have continually avoided and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips being in that area because it does not suit my needs per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual because of the above reasons. This saddens me as it's a 18
Page 46 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # particularly beautiful area and I would like to share it with number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily friends and relatives who visit Sedona. But who would want encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan to share this ugly scene with anyone?? amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120402-24/1 Helen Knoll My husband and I live near the Soldiers Pass trailheard and Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to hike this trail often. As noted in the report on recreational the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating use of the Soldiers Pass area, the trails, roads and parking unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted facilities are heavily used. It is difficult to manage all of the and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one uses in a way that supports both the quality of the time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit environment and the quality of the recreational experience. I system to limit the number of unguided trips per day would suggest, however, that vehicle access to the and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips backroads and trails, in particular, be limited. The per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual vehicular/pedestrian interface is especially troublesome and number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily annoying. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120402-24/2 Helen Knoll It may seem contradictory, but the parking lot should also be Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service expanded, if possible. The lot is frequently full, which causes would like to relocated the trailhead parking, to an area vehicles to cruise around the neighborhood seeking some of that would reduce the impact to residents. We have the very limited on-street parking. In addition, signage at the identified an alternate location but are unable to left-hand turnoff from Soldiers Pass Road and the develop that site due to the need for an easement subsequent street intersection needs to be greatly improved. across private lands (the easement has been requested Motorists frequently have to stop nearby residents to ask for but rejected). directions. If improvements were made to the parking lot and signage, the impact of vehicles on area residents would In the past the Forest Service has proposed additional decline. signage to direct users to the trailhead, but the idea was rejected by the Home Owners Association. 20120402-25/1 Curtis Kommer Thank you for soliciting residents comments on the Soldiers Thank you for your comment. In the past the Forest Pass area. I live near the trailhead, have read the report Service has proposed additional signage to direct users dated Feb. 28, and would make the following suggestions: to the trailhead, but the idea was rejected by the Home In addition to the trailhead sign on Soldiers Pass Road, Owners Association. another is needed at the comer of Rim Shadows and Canyon Shadows Drive. We see at least ten vehicles a day searching for the trailhead due to the absence of a sign at this comer. 20120402-25/2 Curtis Kommer On some days, as your statistics reveal, we see a Thank you for your comments. Several of your points continuous stream of rental vehicles heading down the are addressed by the alternatives. Alternative B Soldiers pass recreational road. The vast majority of rental eliminates unguided vehicles and reduces the number
19
Page 47 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # companies are in West Sedona, and I think they guide them of outfitter/guide trips per day (both fewer vehicles at to Soldiers Pass. for convenience. Frequently, we will see a one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit line of ten or more vehicles lining up to park at the Devils system to limit the number of unguided trips per day Kitchen, and, as you are aware, the area around the and reduces the number of outfitter/guide trips per day. sinkhole is not considered stable. For safety, and for While Alternative C does increase the annual number of preservation of the forest environment and our outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter neighborhood, please consider these options: issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment a. Limit use ofthe road to commercial tour companies only, that provides more management flexibility while having a keyless managing for a maximum number of vehicles per entry gate just beyond the trailhead parking lot for their use. day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use b. Work with the rental companies to more evenly distribute (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). traffic throughout the area. c. Do not allow rental vehicles access to the Devils Kitchen All permitted outfitter/guides are required to pay a fee to area. the Forest Service. These fees are required by law to d. If not already in place, I think all rental vehicles and be spent on the management of the outfitter/guide Commercial tour vehicles should pay a surcharge to use program. Every year the District allocates a percentage these roads. As your report points out, financial resources to to the maintenance of roads. maintain The Forest Service has no authority to regulate vehicles that are rented outside the forest boundary. The Forest Service must manage these vehicles in the same manner as privately owned vehicles. Alternative C addresses the use of Soldiers Pass Road by rental vehicles by drivers to obtain a permit. Any fee for these permits would be applied equally to both private and rental vehicles.
The Forest Service has made efforts to engage the businesses that rent offroad vehicles. Success has been varied. In 2015 the District was awarded a $300,000 grant from the State, which will be used to engage the OHV business community and OHV users and to provide information on dispersing use to other areas of the district.
Devil’s Kitchen is a popular destination for forest visitors. Restricting access would not likely be successful. However, all the action alternatives reduce motorized use of the Soldiers Pass area, which would subsequently reduce vehicular traffic at this location. 20120402-25/3 Curtis Kommer Just in the four years we have lived here, we have seen a Please see response to Comment 25/2. significant increase in rental vehicles using the Soldiers
20
Page 48 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Pass road, and not coincidentally have also noticed an increase in trash and noise; Your concerns are well founded, and we in the Soldiers Pass neighborhood hope that you can work toward some solutions. 20120402-26 Robert Shuman I have lived in Sedona since 1999 and have witnessed the Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service has extensive use and abuse of the Soldier Pass area by ATVs, no authority to regulate vehicles that are rented outside rental Jeeps, and private SUVs. As a member of TRACS the forest boundary. The Forest Service must manage (Trail Resource Action Coalition of Sedona) I and our group these vehicles in the same manner as privately owned have done many repairs of the Soldier Pass trail over the vehicles. years due to damage caused by excess use. This extensive use of the road and trial system has resulted in flora being Alternative B eliminates unguided vehicles and reduces trampled to widen the dirt road and created paths that were the number of outfitter/guide trips per day (both fewer not intended to be part of the road or trail system. I have vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C seen rental jeeps go down slick red rock in areas that they uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided should not be driving. I have seen ATVs use hiking trails trips per day and reduces the number of outfitter/guide trampling the sides of the path. In addition, individual hikers trips per day. Alternative C includes a forest plan continue to throw toilet paper on the side of the trial and amendment that provides more management flexibility other garbage that the Forest Service is too understaff to while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per clean up. This problem has worsen over the last few years. day. While Alternative C does increase the annual My recommendation is to limit the use of this trailhead and number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily trail to outfitter guide permits only and stop the use of ATVs, encounter issue. Alternative D eliminates all motorized rental jeeps, and private SUVs. vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120402-27/1 Sarah and Bill We are lucky enough to live in the Soldiers Pass area and Thank you for your comments. Alternative B eliminates Sullivan were very pleased to receive your correspondence unguided vehicles and reduces the number of regarding the use levels of the Soldiers Pass trail, trailhead, outfitter/guide trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one and jeep road. Your analysis confirmed what we had time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit observed ourselves: that the trail is very overused and system to limit the number of unguided trips per day overcrowded. We ourselves very rarely use the trail and reduces the number of outfitter/guide trips per day. anymore; it is simply not a rewarding "wilderness" While Alternative C does increase the annual number of experience. Instead, it is noisy and crowded, with far too outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter many users who are completely oblivious to the concept of issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment enjoying a nature experience. Jeep and other off‐road that provides more management flexibility while vehicles are the primary problem. The road is short and managing for a maximum number of vehicles per dead‐end. We have witnessed private vehicles trying to day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use push the boulders at the wilderness boundary out of the (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). way, so that they could drive up the wash (thankfully unsuccessfully). The rocks around the Devil's Kitchen are All action alternatives reduce the level of motorized use literally covered with black rubber from jeep traffic, as and therefore would entail a corresponding reduction in drivers attempt to climb up the rocks. This isn't some air pollution created by vehicles accessing Soldiers extreme driving course. It's a beautiful place, and it's being Pass Road. defaced by the jeep traffic. The jeeps and particularly the 21
Page 49 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # smaller off‐road vehicles are also a terrible source of both air pollution and noise pollution. All of this traffic impacts the neighborhood as well. We often sit outside and listen to the guides as they park on theroad in front of our house. The noise and smell of the private off road vehicles impacts the neighborhood as well. 20120402-27/2 Sarah and Bill We would make several recommendations to the Forest Thank you for your comments. Alternative D would Sullivan Service regarding Soldiers Pass: close the road to motorized use (except for 1.Eliminate all public and private Jeep traffic, and convert administrative and emergency access). Should this the jeep road to a loop trail as part of the Soldiers Pass alternative be selected, the District could subsequently system, which would help spread out foot traffic. consider whether to modify the trail system to form an a 2.Keep the existing number of parking spaces at the loop with the existing road. trailhead. Post signs to explain that there is additional parking at the Brins East side of the trail system. Rangers The Forest Service does not plan to expand the parking and visitor center personnel should also explain this when lot. We are taking steps to improve visitor information suggesting the trail. on alternative parking and access points, for the entire 3.Clean up the rubber residue and the Devil's Kitchen, and district. We continually improve our trailhead repair other areas damaged by Jeep traffic. information signage to provide as much useful 4.Enhance signage at the trailhead (including other information to trail users, including trail etiquette. We trailheads) explaining appropriate behavior while hiking, also provide this information in our visitor guide, on our including the "rules of the road" for mountain bikers, website, and on partner websites. courtesy to other hikers, etc. Cleaning the residue on the rocks at Devil’s Kitchen is outside the scope of this analysis. However it would be monitored on Soldiers Pass in the vicinity of the “Seven Sacred Pools”. 20120402-27/3 Sarah and Bill Sedona is a beautiful and unique place, but with the great Thank you for your comment. Sullivan numbers of visitors, the risk of damaging its treasures through overuse is very high. We are very pleased to see the Forest Service taking the initiative to help prevent further damage to this wonderful resource.
22
Page 50 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120403-28 Jeannine Bethanis The trailhead is deffinitely overused. It is overused by the Thank you for your coments. Red Rock Western Jeeps Red Rock Jeep Co. They use it more times per hour and per is limited to 10 jeeps at one time but has no hourly or day than they are allowed by the Forest Service. This is daily limits for Soldiers Pass Road. There is no definitely something that can be controlled by the Forest documented evidence (based on quarterly use reports Service. The Trailhead is over used by the tourists and the and on monitoring completed by the Forest Service in Jeep Rentals and the very, very noisey Tom cars. The 2011 and 2013) that shows they have exceeded the tourists park on the streets where there is NO PARKING. authorized amount. They park in front of the entrance and on several streets (Rim Shadows Dr) above the trailhead and across the street The Forest Service has no authority to regulate vehicles from our park. They park in NO Parking areas below my that are rented outside the forest boundary. The Forest house on Canyon Shadows Dr. Today there were 5 cars Service must manage these vehicles in the same parked on my the street below my house. I have called the manner as privately owned vehicles. police and they say that if they give out tickets the tourists will tear them up because they are from out of state. This is Alternative B eliminates unguided vehicles and reduces ruining our streets and causes additional noise and the number of outfitter/guide trips per day (both fewer disruption in the neighborhood. The tourists turn around in vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C my circular drive way and turn around and back out using uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided my driveway which is a very annoying nuisance to me. They trips per day and reduces the number of outfitter/guide also use my neighbors circular drive way across the street. trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the The streets are always very dirty due to the traffic of jeeps, annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves Tom cars and autos going out of the trailhead. The people the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a get lost and yell at each other very loudly from their Tom forest plan amendment that provides more cars which is very annoying. Also people come down the management flexibility while managing for a maximum creek behind my house and when I ask why they are there number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all they say they are lost or could not find the trail. I think that motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and something has to be done to rectify this atrousis problem. emergency vehicles). Please help us in the neighborhood. We are extremely tired of the additional traffic and the annoyances the tourists The Forest Service has no authority to regulate parking, cause. noise, and other concerns that occur outside the forest boundary. All action alternatives would reduce the amount of motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of these issues occurring off-forest.
Under all alternatives the trailhead parking lot would remain open. Its use by visitors seeking to use the hiking trails and the associated issues that might result (such as parking) are outside the scope of this analysis. 20120403-29/1 George and Micki My wife and I have lived in our home on Canyon Shadows Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service has Emmons Drive since April of 2008. Each year we have experienced no authority to regulate parking, road condition, and continued destruction of the roads leading to Soldiers Pass other concerns that occur outside the forest boundary. Trailhead, especially Canyon Shadows Drive. Said All action alternatives would reduce the amount of
23
Page 51 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # destruction is caused by the great overflow of parked motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed vehicles due to inadequate parking at the trailhead. Often that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of trucks, vans and large SUVʼs are parked in front of private these issues occurring off-forest. residences limiting ingress and egress and destroying the berm, drainage ditches and landscaping. The Forest Service has identified an alternate location for the nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to develop that site due to the need for an easement across private lands (the easement has been requested but rejected). We are also attempting to increase visitor information on alternate parking and access points for the trail system. 20120403-29/2 George and Micki Traffic and overflow parking has increased over the years Please see response to comment 29/1. Emmons resulting in the collapse of the edges of the roadways, pavement cracking, pavement breaking off in large chunks and the general rapid deterioration of the roads. This has led to drainage and erosion problems, to which the City of Sedona has responded that there are no funds in the current budget available to repair the street damage. Last year, we spent $2,600 to repair the damage to the drainage conduit in front of our house where it had collapsed after large trucks and SUVʼs had parked on the edge of the pavement. 20120403-29/3 George and Micki Parking along the sides of the roads also inhibits proper Please see response to comment 29-1. Emmons traffic flow because these are two lane roads, not three or four which they become on high trail use days when parked cars clog our neighborhood streets. We understand that the trailhead was never designed to accommodate such a heavy volume of traffic which your recent study has demonstrated so tellingly. 20120403-29/4 George and Micki Moreover, the increased traffic flow and parking has led to: Thank you for your comments. Many of your points are Emmons 1. an increase of noise levels from jeeps, ATVʼs, blaring addresssed in the alternatives. Alternative B addresses radios, loud voices, etc. the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating 2. speeding and erratic driving, especially ATVʼs and rental unguided vehicles and reducing the number of jeeps outfitter/guide trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one 3. loss of privacy time and total per day). Alternative C addresses the 4. security concerns due to the inordinate amount of volume/noise issues by implementing a permit system strangers walking and driving through our neighborhood and to limit the number of unguided trips per day and curious or perniciously nosey drivers cruising our streets reducing the number of outfitter/guide trips per day. and inspecting our homes While Alternative C does increase the annual number of 5. illegal parking at the park inhibiting park usage by outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter residents issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment 6. illegal parking at the park inhibiting mailbox usage that provides more management flexibility while 7. mud and dirt being tracked onto residential roads (which managing for a maximum number of vehicles per
24
Page 52 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # is illegal in many areas) day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use Aside from the above, the increased traffic flow and on- (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). street parking has given Rim Shadows and Canyon Shadows Drives a “commercial feel” rather than the high The Forest Service has no authority to regulate parking, quality residential character it was intended to have. traffic levels, pedestrian access, and other concerns that occur outside the forest boundary. All action alternatives would reduce the amount of motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of these issues occurring off-forest. 20120403-29/5 George and Micki We propose the following remedies to correct this situation: Please see responses to comments 29/1 and 29/4. Emmons 1. eliminate all on-street parking (no-parking zones throughout) The Forest Service is unable to expand the existing 2. expand the existing parking area parking lot because the existing lot is immediately 3. relocate the parking area to state/federally owned land off adjacent to private land. The Agency does not have the Soldiers Pass Road which can accommodate increased authority to charge a higher fee for their permitted use. traffic as well as providing proper amenities National policy dictates that outiftter/guide fees be 3% 4. eliminate the use of ATV”s and rental jeep use of the of adjusted gross revenue for the permitted operations. trailhead Every year the District allocates a portion of its 5. restrict the use of the trailhead to Red Rock Jeep Tours outfitter/guide fee revenues to the maintenance of trails and impose a higher fee on their gross revenues to defray and roads. the costs of restoring the paths and trails as well as The inclusion of Soldiers Pass trailhead in the Red maintaining the roadways contiguous to and leading into the Rock Pass program is outside the scope of this trailhead analysis. 6. expand the Red Rock Ranger District to include the Soldiers Pass Trailhead on their passes and construct the necessary amenities that are required for a Red Rock Pass
20120403-29/6 George and Micki Julie, we trust that you will get a sense of our frustration, Thank you for your comment. Emmons fears and concerns over the current situation and we hope that the foregoing has been helpful in identifying and remedying the problems in the Shadows area. Therefore, we appeal to you for redress of these myriad problems facing us now. If you might require any further information regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. 20120403-30 Shari Y. Walter I have read Karen Dansby's letter re Soldier Pass trail. I Thank you for your comments. All action alternatives agree that the Soldier Pass be shut down to ATV's, SUV's address the levels of motorized use on Soldiers Pass and Jeeps and restrict commercial outfitters that have been Road. Alternative B responds to the motorized use granted a permit allowed in the area. I also have great volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles concern about the amount of foot/bike traffic on the and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips Cathedral trails. The amount of people on those trails the per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per past 2 months has been incredible. Cars are jammed in the day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the 25
Page 53 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # trail head parking lot, cars are parked bumper to bumper number of unguided trips per day and reduces the along Back O' Beyond road and jammed into the wash number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While areas and the area across from the trail head, the last 2 Alternative C does increase the annual number of days people have been parked at the "no parking" signs. As outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter I understood several years ago, these trail head parking issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment areas are designed to accommodate the amount of people that provides more management flexibility while that the trails will handle. If that's the case something needs managing for a maximum number of vehicles per to be done about all the usage on these trails, as the day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use number of parked cars well exceeds the number of parking (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). places at the trail head. This doesn't take into consideration the hikers and bikers who come in from VVSR. My parents This analysis focuses on Soldiers Pass Road only, and live down by the creek on Back O'Beyond circle, so I travel the management of Cathedral Rock is outside the the road every day at least once a day and am aware of the scope. However, the District is currently working with daily usage. the City of the Sedona to address parking at the Back o’ Beyond trailhead. Trailhead parking areas were not designed to control capacity. They were built based on the amount of available space where a parking lot could easily be built. The Distict is taking several measures to address the parking congestion that occurs across the red rock area. 20120405-31 Janice Johns I have been a resident on Soldier Pass Rd. for 25 years. Thank you for your comments. All action alternatives Over that time, the traffic, the noise, the disregard for illegal would reduce the amount of motorized use allowed on parking has diminished the beauty and undesired invasion Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that a reduction in of this erstwhile beautiful residential area and no longer can use would result in a corresponding reduction in noise, I enjoy sitting on my front porch without being disturbed by impacts to residents, and impacts to the natural rental vehicles, jeep tours and lost tourists driving around resources in the area. the neighborhood. In addition, when I used to hike the Soldier Pass Trail-the roadbed was on a level with the Alternative B responds to the motorized use adjacent growth. If you would now measure the roadbed, volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles you will find in almost two feet down due to the jeep traffic- and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips both commercial and rental. How sad that the beauty of this per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per residential area is being ruined. I appreciate the effort of day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the Julie Rowe representing the Red Rock Ranger District. At number of unguided trips per day and reduces the last, we will hopefully have some managed action. number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
26
Page 54 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120412-32/1 Virginia Farrell For about 15 years my property has been trespassed by Thank you for your comment. This project addresses hikers and bikers passing by my front and back doors, motorized use of Soldiers Pass road only. The climbing over my walls to access my driveway a number of management of hiking is outside the the scope of the times. I have vocally communicated with your office, most analysis. recently with Jennifer Burns, many of these incidents- too numerous to list here individually. Just last Easter Sunday a However, the Forest Service continually updates its hiker came from behind my house (north) and passed on the trailhead and other public information in an effort to west side to Soldier Wash. This wash passes in front of my address trail user etiquette. The ongoing improvement house. He took a left near the foot bridge (which has a No of our trail system has hopefully addressed some of Trespassing sign) and proceeded to the other bridge which these issues in the Soldiers Wash area. has culverts. After a recent flood I had rocks placed near this bridge to stablize the wash's bank. He climbed these rocks, lifted his bike over the bridge railing and proceeded on my driveway to the street. Signs don't discourage them, chicken wire sorrounds most of my property which they ignore. What else would they do to have their way? Also recently, hikers have come from the trailhead and head down Soldier Wash where our houses are quite visibale.
20120412-32/2 Virginia Farrell In certain areas, our streets have become trailhead parking, Red Rock Western Jeep Tours is currently authorized as much as 15 to 20 cars in front of houses. Who are these up to 10 vehicles at one time. Under all action people? One of the tourist told me Hyatt sends them here. A alternatives this would be modified to no more than two few days ago, while collecting mail at our mail boxes, I saw at one time. The Forest Service has no authority to 5 Red Rock Jeeps and 2 rental jeeps streaming into our regulate vehicles that are rented outside the forest neighborhood on their way to the Trailhead-- all as one boundary. The Forest Service must manage these group. vehicles in the same manner as privately owned Early this year, the City listed in the papers the streets they vehicles. will be leaning. I called them and asked if they will clean our street as they had a lot of dirt from the trailhead. He said NO Alternative B responds to the motorized use and explained why. He had been here about a couple of volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles weeks before and saw the dirty street. He mentioned it was and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips against City ordinance (health and welfare of citizens) for per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per vehicles to bring mud, dirt from the trails onto city streets. day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the He said he would call the Forest Service---did he? (Dan number of unguided trips per day and reduces the Neimy), City maintenance. number of outfitted and guided trips per day. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
The Forest Service has no authority to regulate parking
27
Page 55 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # on city streets.
We have recently revamped our management plan for road closures during wet weather. Hopefully this has reduced the amount of sediment in the streets, resulting from motorized use of the road. Additionally, all action alternatives would reduce the amount of motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of any sediment on the city streets. 20120412-32/3 Virginia Farrell Adding to extra traffic, noise, dust, Tom Cars, Rental Jeeps, Please see responses to comments 32/1 and 32/2. and ATV's have invaded our area driving around our neighborhood for a short trip into the forest. Closing the secret trail East of me has helped at the moment. I havn't seen bikers who used it the most. At the Trailhead, West of me, if the hikers would stay on trails and not turn right to hike Soldier Wash would be helpful. All you are doing is very much appreciated and we hope you can also alleviate the Trailhead problem.
20120416-33 Will Pumphrey I agree the Soldier's Pass area vehicle traffic exceeds Thank you for your comments. The terrain, presence of capacity and USFS needs an Action Plan. I suggest residential areas, and proximity to designated reducing traffic by, Finding an alternative location to allow wilderness do prohibit easy additions to the road the motorized vehicle use, while restricting SP. If system. Additionally, constructing a new road would be practicable, extend the "roadway" or path to create an a major undertaking and require a level of analysis that entrance‐exit loop. (I readily admit I do not have a working we do not have the capacity to take on at this time. knowledge of the terrain.) Plan traffic (unit) levels throughout the daily allowable time frame for a more orderly flow. All action alternatives would reduce the amount of Is there another entrance to the area? I fully understand the motorized use accessing Soldiers Pass Road. proximity of residential areas probably effectively eliminates Alternative B responds to the motorized use this choice. No one wants traffic near them. volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use
28
Page 56 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
20120417-34 Margaret Anderson I'm writing to convey my dismay about the increased ATV Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds and private Jeep use in the Soldiers Pass Trail area of the to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating National Forest near Sedona. Inexperienced drivers of ATVs unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted travel in areas that overlap with hiking trails which is a major and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one safety issue for hikers. In addition there has accumulated time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit ugly black tire marks that mar and cover the beauty of the system to limit the number of unguided trips per day red rocks. Jeeps on the jeep road are extremely loud which and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips ruins the hiking experience. Soldiers Pass Trail has been per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual one of my favorite trails in the 14 years I've lived in this area, number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily however, I've taken to only hiking early in the a.m. so I can encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan be finished with my hike before the trail opens at 8 a.m. just amendment that provides more management flexibility so I can avoid the vehicle traffic. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per I feel very strongly that the Soldiers Pass area should be day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use closed to ATVs and personal jeeps and vehicle access, if (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). any, be restricted to only commercial vehicles that have a permit to use the area.
20120419-35 Charles Mosley I am wondering if commercial traffic encounters would be Thank you for your comment. Soldiers Pass Road does reduced by requiring that they leave by a different trailhead not connect to any other roads on the forest system. than they used to enter the Soldier Wash Trails Area. I think The only way to access it is from the paved, City portion this might reduce turning movements on SR 89A and trips of the road. through the neighborhoods.
20120419-36/1 Noreen Wienges I live at 24 Pinon Shadows Circle, in the Shadow Estates Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds Homeowners' Association. My home is a little over a block to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating from the entrance to the trailhead, and in my 17 years unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted residing at this address, I have observed the traffic to the and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one trailhead increase from a manageable level to an extremely time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit unmanageable level. This current level of usage is not one system to limit the number of unguided trips per day that I think is appropriate for a residential neighborhood, for and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips the following reasons: per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use
29
Page 57 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120419-36/2 Noreen Wienges Noise Level: The "tom cars" rumble past our home, Please see response to Comment 37/1. sounding as if they are missing their mufflers. Sometimes private cars arrive in caravans and circle the area en masse The Forest Service has no authority to regulate parking, searching for the trailhead. Drivers of ATVs shout back and traffic levels, pedestrian access, and other concerns forth to each other. that occur outside the forest boundary. All action alternatives would reduce the amount of motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of these issues occurring off-forest. 20120419-36/3 Noreen Wienges Parking: Cars park along the side of SEHA's roads, Please see response to comment 37/2. wherever they can find a spot, sometimes resulting in a lack of parking for visitors to SEHA residents. I look out The Forest Service has identified an alternate location my front window, and instead of observing the serenity of for the nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is the desertscape, I watch hikers clamber out of their unable to develop that site due to the need for an vehicles, change their clothes in the street, or hold a post- easement across private lands (the easement has been hike tete-a tete. requested but rejected).
20120419-36/4 Noreen Wienges Street Conditions and Maintenance: The increased traffic Please see the response to Comment 37/2. and parking along the edge of streets not designed for parking has resulted in cracks in the pavement and crumbling of the roadway edges. Vehicles exiting the trailhead parking area drag mud on their tires. Such mud is quickly deposited on the street, leaving an ever-increasing red, dusty residue on Rim Shadows Drive. The City of Sedona says they have no money to repair the damage to the streets.
20120419-36/5 Noreen Wienges Ambiance: There is a loss of serenity in the neighborhood. Please see Response to comment 37/1 and 37/2. In addition to issues discussed above, I have observed hikers sitting on a neighbor's rock wall eating lunch. I have found hikers standing in my yard taking photos. Lost tourists continually drive into neighborhood driveways to turn around. I cannot walk the streets in my neighborhood (which I do daily for exercise) without being interrupted by a car pulling over and askirtg for directions. I do appreciate all that you do to maintain an excellent trail system in Sedona, and I hope that my comments will assist you in creating a solution to these growth issues. Sixteen years ago, the Forest Service considered closing this trailhead, and now I think it is time to do that.
30
Page 58 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment #
20120420-37 Elizabeth Gross Some suggestions at Soldiers Pass: Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds Void or greatly reduce/regulate usage hours of to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating outfitter/guide jeep use and motorized general public use. unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted Consider restricting street parking in residential area to and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one residents/permits only (allow residents to have up to 3 time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit parking permits per residence or something similar.) system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
The current gate is controlled by the HOA. All action alternatives include the installation of a second gate, located just beyond the trailhead parking lot. Access through this gate would be by permit only, and the Forest Service could apply time-of-day restrictions on that access. This is a mitigation factor that could be incorporated into the decision.
The Forest Service has no authority to manage or regulate parking on City streets. 2012-0423-38 Irwin and Yvonne We believe that the high utilization of this road by motorized Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to Sheer traffic puts at risk a unique national resource and would like the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating to encourage the Forest Service to take steps to reduce or unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted curtail access. Specifically, we would like to encourage the and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one Forest Service to either close this road to motorized traffic or time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit open it to limited commercial access by permit only so that system to limit the number of unguided trips per day utilization can be kept within acceptable standards. and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips We hope that you will keep us informed as to the desires of per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual our neighbors and the Forest Service plans regarding his number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily initiative. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
31
Page 59 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # 20120426-39/1 Nena Barlow I will address my comments to the motorized use aspect of Thank you for your comments. The District recognizes Soldier Pass, but let me preface my comments by saying that there are many factors contributing to use levels that motorized use is just one piece of the perceived total and the resulting issues that arise. The decision to "overuse" of Soldier Pass. There is no other trail in Sedona focus this analysis solely on motorized use was made where different user groups come into as much constant because it would allow us to address a piece of the conflict‐‐portions of the non‐motorized trail share portions problem in a more streamlined fashion. Recreation with the motorized route. Hikers and bikers are frequently management in Sedona is complex, and while this confused about the trail route, and end up hiking entirely on analysis focuses on one aspect of use within the project the Jeep road, whereby they are flustered when a vehicle area, we have other projects and efforts that are comes along. It is my assertion that this trail is not overused addressing nonmotorized use, visitor information, and by any one group, but that the combination of all users is partnering with the City and businesses that rent OHVs. what seems to cause conflict. When I am driving my Jeep on that trail, I expect to encounter 2‐3 other vehicles Data collected in 2011 and 2013 concur with your (commercial or otherwise) per hour, and it is in no way a statement that all user groups contribute to the current harried or unpleasant experience. It is the encounters I have situation. with bikers and hikers that are the most likely to be awkward for everyone involved. 20120426-39/2 Nena Barlow I am an avid hiker as well as a Jeeper. As a hiker, I can Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service enjoy 99% of red rock country without sharing the trail with strives to balance available experiences across the any motorized vehicles, AND as a hiker, I am disgruntled by District. any encounter with a motorized vehicle‐‐therefore, I avoid areas that overlap or are close to motorized roads‐‐an easy thing to accomplish. As a Jeeper, I have access to only a handful of low‐standard roads in the immediate Sedona area. It is my assertion that it is important to preserve motorized access to Soldier Pass, not ecessarily unchecked, but certainly as a more rare resource than non‐motorized opportunities on the district. That said, I will continue with my comments specific to the management of motorized use. 20120426-39/3 Nena Barlow First, there should be a moderate ROS Class management Thank you for your comment. The District has prescription for encounter levels between the current 15 recognized that the encounter prescriptions designated COMMERCIAL encounters per HOUR (for RN and R ROS in Amendment 12 (of 15 per day or 15 per hour) are classes) and 15 TOTAL encounters per DAY (for SPM, insufficient to effectively describe or manage recreation SPNM, and P classes). That is too drastic a difference in on the Red Rock Ranger District. As a result, recreation usage levels to be effective in such a small management specialists across the forest have developed a different area as Sedona. I would suggest an encounter level for the framework for describing recreational social settings. ROS Class Semi‐Primitive Motorized (SPM) of 10 total per This new framework is described in the recreation hour, or perhaps 5 commercial per hour. I assert that this section of the EA and in the Recreation Resource would be a reasonable level of maximum use for Soldier Report. It may be adopted as part of the Coconino Pass, based on the monitoring reports. forest plan revision process and may apply forestwide. An amendment to the current forest plan is part of
32
Page 60 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Alternative C in this EA. 20120426-39/4 Nena Barlow Second, IF it is unreasonable to consider a new moderate An alternative including an encounter exception acceptable encounter level, then I would suggest that for the Soldiers Pass road corridor was Soldier Pass receive the same management exceptions as considered but ultimately discarded from full the other popular roads in the immediate vicinity: Broken analysis. Please see response to comment 40/3. Arrow, Schnebly Hill Road, and Vultee Arch. That it has not received this same management exception already seems inconsistent to me. 20120426-39/5 Nena Barlow Personally, I feel that the parameter of 15 commercial Please see response to comment 40/3. encounters per hour are too high, not only for Soldier Pass, for the reasons listed in my introductory paragraph, not enough separation between the road and trail for motorized and non‐motorized users, but also for Broken Arrow and Vultee Arch. However, I appreciate the unrelenting demand for an area that receives approximately 3 million visitors per year, all of whom came here to see red rocks. We want to offer enjoyment, without diminishing the quality of the experience. 20120426-39/6 Nena Barlow How do we maintain an acceptable level of usage? Thank you for your comments. All action alternatives Commercial users are limited by permits, but, currently, would reduce use of Soldiers Pass Road. Alternative B public access is only limited by how many nearby parking responds to the motorized use volume/noise issue by places there are. Physical measures, such as free permits eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number issued per day for a coded gate, are both expensive and of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer dministratively cumbersome. At this time, it seems to me vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C that a well‐maintained "gatekeeper" obstacle at the start of uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided the trail is doing its job of filtering out a high‐volume of trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and vehicles. I would love to see a smaller parking lot, or even a guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase "loading and unloading only" zone at the Soldier Pass the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it trailhead, as the shenanigans with 2 parking there seems to resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C cause the most grief to the homeowners in the area. Public includes a forest plan amendment that provides more information availability as to trail conditions is critical, as well management flexibility while managing for a maximum as suggestions for lesser‐known roads and trails. number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
All action alternatives require the installation of a gate. While this does increase the administrative burden on the Forest Service, we have attempted to design the system to minimize that impact.
This project would not alter the management of the existing parking lot. The District is currently preparing to 33
Page 61 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # issue permits for trailhead transportation services; however the Soldiers Pass and adjacent residential areas have not been made available for this option, in an effort to reduce additional traffic through the neighborhoods. However, this is something that could be added in the future, if it were determined to be beneficial to trail users and the adjacent residents. 20120427-40 Dennis Tribble Thank you Julie and staff for the Soldiers Pass study. We Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds have lived one block from the trail head for 21 years. to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating Option 1: The worst problems are caused by rental and unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted privately owned jeeps and ATV’s with untrained drivers and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one invading the forest. We would like to see you prohibit time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit motorized travel beyond the parking area except for system to limit the number of unguided trips per day permitted commercial tour Jeeps. Continue to enforce and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips permit limits of Red Rock Jeep, who have in the past per day. Alternative C includes a forest plan exceeded their allotted usage. Hopefully Red Rock Jeep’s amendment that provides more management flexibility permit allocation can be reduced. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per Option 2: A simple and quick improvement would be to day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use shorten the hours the gate is open by at least two hours per (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). day. Presently the hours are 8 AM-6PM. Change it to 8AM- 4PM maximum. Note: People go in the gate at 4-6PM The current gate is controlled by the HOA. All action knowing they can exit later with no problem. alternatives include the installation of a second gate, Option 3: Close the trailhead completely. Is this possible? located just beyond the trailhead parking lot. Access Who decides? through this gate would be by permit only, and the Forest Service could apply time-of-day restrictions on that access. This is a mitigation factor that could be incorporated into the decision. 20120427-41 John and Barbara Thank you Julie and staff for the Soldiers Pass study. We Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds Badiaco have lived one block from the trail head for 21 years. to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating Option 1: The worst problems are caused by rental and unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted privately owned jeeps and ATV’s with untrained drivers and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one invading the forest. We would like to see you prohibit time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit motorized travel beyond the parking area except for system to limit the number of unguided trips per day permitted commercial tour Jeeps. Continue to enforce and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips permit limits of Red Rock Jeep, who have in the past per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual exceeded their allotted usage. Hopefully Red Rock Jeep’s number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily permit allocation can be reduced. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan Option 2: A simple and quick improvement would be to amendment that provides more management flexibility shorten the hours the gate is open by at least two hours per while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day. Presently the hours are 8 AM-6PM. Change it to 8AM- day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use 4PM maximum. Note: People go in the gate at 4-6PM (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). knowing they can exit later with no problem. 34
Page 62 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Option 3: Close the trailhead completely. Is this possible? The current gate is controlled by the HOA. All action Who decides? alternatives include the installation of a second gate, located just beyond the trailhead parking lot. Access through this gate would be by permit only, and the Forest Service could apply time-of-day restrictions on that access. This is a mitigation factor that could be incorporated into the decision. 20120428-42/1 Greg McCallum I want to express my thoughts on the Soldiers pass situation Thank you for you comments. Under Alternative C the as a frequent user of this trail as a Jeeper and a hiker. I road would still be open to the public, via a permit enjoy this trail and although it is short for a Jeep ride I like system. Under Alternative B it would be open only to the fact that I can drive to the back of the trail and start my the existing outfitter/guide, and under Alternative D it hike back into the wilderness from there. This is a fun Jeep would be closed to all motorized traffic. ride for me to bring friends that are visiting from out of town to as it is close to town and is not an all day event. I have never had a negative experience while interacting with others while on this trail in my Jeep. 20120428-42/2 Greg McCallum In looking at the road classification and expected encounter Thank you for your comments. The District has limits it seems really underrated for the actual use of the trail recognized that the encounter prescriptions designated given its location and popularity. I would hate to loose the in Amendment 12 (of 15 per day or 15 per hour) are motorized use of this trail due to the encounter issue. I think insufficient to effectively describe or manage recreation the encounters could be decreased by redirecting the hiking on the Red Rock Ranger District. As a result, recreation trail away from the Jeep specialists across the forest have developed a different road and putting up better signage to keep the uses framework for describing recreational social settings. separated better. We all know Sedona is becoming a more This new framework is described in the recreation popular tourist destination and this trail along with all the section of the EA and in the Recreation Resource others in the area are going to be used more by folks they Report. It may be adopted as part of the Coconino NF just need to be managed better to keep the peace. forest plan revision process and may apply forestwide. An amendment to the current forest plan is poart of Alternative C tin this EA.
Alternative B responds to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per
35
Page 63 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20120428-42/3 Greg McCallum If the plan is to limit the amount of motorized vehicles using Thank you for your comment. The District recognizes the trail then it would only be fair to limit the amount of that there are many factors contributing to use levels hikers, bicycles and equestrians too. Right? I know this is and the resulting issues that arise. The decision to the easiest way for the forest service to cut the interactions focus this analysis solely on motorized use was made but it always seems like the motorized vehicle users get the because it would allow us to address a piece of the short end of the stick. I would really be upset if this trail were problem in a more streamlined fashion. Recreation to be closed to motorized use to the public. I can imagine management in Sedona is complex, and while this that the home owners in this area want the trail closed to analysis focuses on one aspect of use within the project vehicles. This trail has been here much longer than the area, we have other projects and efforts that are houses in the area. The people that built and bought houses addressing nonmotorized use, visitor information, and in the area should have known the trail was there when they partnering with the City and businesses that rent OHVs. moved in. If the vehicles going in and out of the trail are breaking the traffic laws then that needs to be addressed for sure and those in violation should be sited by the local police. I know that the 4wheel drive crowd is in the minority when it comes to representation in issues like this and that is why I am writing this letter to make sure you realize that there are responsible
20120510-43/1 Kristin Cryer Yesterday at 7 am I was awaken by the sound of a Tom Car Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service has circling the streets around my home, passing the trailhead no authority to regulate traffic, trespass, or other issues itself, many of my neighboring homes for about 10 minutes. I that occur outside the forest boundary. All action then hear my neighbor who is walking his dog yelling " Get alternatives would reduce the amount of motorized use out ot there...you are on private propety. By now I am on Soldiers Pass Road on a daily basis. It is assumed realizing that the Tom car is 50 feet away from my front door that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of and about 100 feet off the road on to my property. I got these issues occurring off-forest. dressed and went out to find that these two boys on the rental Tom Car had run into and smashed my main drip line and there was water pouring out all over that side of my yard. After a futile phone conversation with the owner of the jeep rental (282-3012 RENT ME) who informed me that he was not responsible for the jeeps when they are rented out, I called the Sedona Police to make a report. Officer Lucas was very nice but said since the incident was an "accident" on private property it was not a police issue. The boys said they were lost and mistook my property for the Trailhead. However, since they had passed the trailhead gate several times in their early morning rampage around the neighborhood, I can only assume that since that gate was not yet open at that hour, they were attempting to bypass it
36
Page 64 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # through my yard. This kind of abuse is common in this neighborhood for those of us who live close to the trailhead. Last year the drivers of an ATV removed the post and rail fence on my property, took out two or three young trees and some manzanita as they drove across my yard to get out of the trailhead afater dark when the gate was closed. We have noise, trash on the streets, and property damage constantly due to motorized traffic on our streets caused by trailhead users.
20120510-43/2 Kristin Cryer Shadow Estates ownes the road used to enter the trailhead Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service has and the forest service hs an easement. The road is breaking no authority to regulate parking or other issues that down in places due to excess traffic and we have to bear the occur off-forest. If the HOA is interested in working with cost of repairing it as it is not a city road. There is parking on the Forest Service to discuss potential solutions to road the streets which is breaking down the shoulders. It is maintenance on the easement, it should contact the dangerous as the streets are narrow and cars block views of project manager for this EA, Julie Rowe. people walking on the road. Visability can be poor at times for both drivers and walkers.
20120510-43/3 Kristin Cryer Julie, these are some of the reasons that we here in Canyon Thank you for your comments. All action alternatives Shadows think that this trailhead should be closed to would reduce motorized use of the road. Alternative B motorized traffic or at least greatly restricted. But the responds to the motorized use volume/noise issue by personal heartbreak for me is the damage to the forest itself. eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number I moved into my house 18 years ago. For many of those of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer years I worked with Ken Anderson and together we put in a vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C gate to protect the homes at night. I see how the trail back in uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided the forest has widened to thee times its origional size with trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and so much egatation destroyed. I have notices the tire tracks guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase way into the forest and off the ever widening trail and the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it witnessed drivers far off the trail, crunching bushes and resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C trees in their path. I see the black tire marks and broken includes a forest plan amendment that provides more rocks at the sink hole from jeeps. The way I see it, passes management flexibility while managing for a maximum and patrols at the gate entrance cannot stop what happens number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all once a motor vehicle is inside and back into the trail. It motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and would take more friends of the forest, FS employees , emergency vehicles). vooluteerns etc. than possible to catch and stop the careless and constant abuse that goes on every day back in there. I It is assumed that reduction of motorized use on have seen the Forest Service close access to several Soldiers Pass Road would result in a corresponding motorized trails and roads in our district and I have been reduction of impacts such as those you describe. Once alerted to signs while hiking that say "Do not enter, land is this project is implemented, we will monitor the healing" We need a lot of "healing" here at Soldier Pass. conditions in the area and determine whether further Thank you for taking the time to read this and please share
37
Page 65 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # with those who would like some input regarding the decision action if necessary. to fix the problems of Soldier Pass overuse.
20120513-44/1 Chip Stalica My wife and I have a residence at 340 Rim Shadows Dr in Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to Sedona and have been concerned about the amount of jeep the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating and rental vehicle activity we routinely observe going past unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted our residence heading for Soldiers Pass Trail. We do not and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one see all the traffic as there is access to the trail from another time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit direction on Rim Shadows Drive. We imagine that we see system to limit the number of unguided trips per day roughly half the activity. We have never actually counted the and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips number of vehicles per day, but frequently there is an almost per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual constant flow of jeeps, buggies, ATV's and private vehicles number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily all heading for the trail. One day we were driving through our encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan neighborhood slowly admiring the red rocks and a neighbor amendment that provides more management flexibility who did not recognize our car yelled in an irritated voice, while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per "The trail is over there!", obviously exasperated due to the day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use number of vehicles that criss cross the neighborhood (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). multiple times looking for entrance to the trail. We did not understand what sort of activity level was prescribed or acceptable but now have a much better understanding thanks to your correspondence. 20120513-44/2 Chip Stalica We do love having the trail nearby and frequent it by walking Thank you for your comment. Please see response to from our house. We consider it a treasure and something to Comment 44/1. be preserved well into the future. The amount of commercial and private traffic has had the effect of degrading the trail The District has recognized that the encounter and has taken away from the Soldiers Pass Trail experience prescriptions designated in Amendment 12 (of 15 per that we and most are seeking. The Forest's Semi-Priimitive day or 15 per hour) are insufficient to effectively designation allowing 15 encounters per day seems logical describe or manage recreation on the Red Rock and we support this level of usage. We have thoughtfully Ranger District. As a result, recreation specialists considered just how to reduce usage to this level and not across the forest have developed a different framework completely eliminate other stakeholders usage of the area. for describing recreational social settings. This new We have also considered that the rate of usage will only framework is described in the recreation section of the tend to increase over time unless management of this EA and in the Recreation Resource Report. It may be situation is undertaken. adopted as part of the Coconino NF forest plan revisoin process and may apply forestwide. An amendment to the current forest plan is part of Alternative C in this EA. 20120514-44/3 Chip and Marla We believe that restricting the level of usage is entirely Please see response to comment 44/1. Stalica feasible and warranted. There may be many ways to accomplish this. One way is to install a card key gate access All action alternatives include the installtion of a gate to that would only allow a rescribed number per day of control access. The Forest Service would continue to commercial interests (jeeps and rental vehicle) and private monitor use of the road and would develop mitigations vehicles. Another option instead of a card key would be a (such as additional signage) if necessary. 38
Page 66 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # daily code with a separate daily code for the jeep, rental, and private usage. This should be possible considering that power is available for card key and gate operation and that prices for this type of system have become very reasonable. After the prescribed number of gate operations for the three major stakeholders (jeep, rental vehicle, and private) have been satisfied, all other vehicular access is denied. "Tailgating" of vehicles where additional vehicles would follow the first while the gate is open would likely occur at times, but this could be discouraged by signage and monitored if it appears there are major issues. There may be other ways to limit access through this type of system that would minimize the amount of administration required. Also, clearer and more obvious signage directing traffic to the trail is necessary We do our best to help direct people to the trail, but we see many vehicles over and over making U- turns through the neighborhood as they are seeking the trailhead. In closing, unlimited access has been counter to the mangement prescriptions for Soldiers Pass Trail and with time will only worsen. Limiting motorized vehicle access is the only way to preserve the Forest's goals, minimize social conflicts, allow the private access, and allow commercial ventures a piece of the pie as well.
20130105-45 Andre Lhotka I'm so glad for the opportunity to give feedback on the social Thank you for your comment. All action alternatives interactions at Soldier's Pass. I enjoy hiking, love Soldier's would reduce the daily level of motorized use on Pass but I was not impressed by the jeep & hiker Soldiers Pass Road. It is assumed that this would result interactions. I no longer go to Soldier's Pass because of the in a corresponding reduction in conflicts between hikers jeeps. I felt like I was going to be run over. I may have been and motorized users. lost on the jeep trail. Perhaps that's just my fault, but it seems unlikely that I'm the only one making this mistake. Alternative B responds to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per 39
Page 67 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
20130125-46/1 Joseph Hawk I live on Soldiers Pass Road. My wife and I frequently hike Thank you for your comment. Many of our Soldiers Pass Trail. When we have guests visiting, a hike on outfitter/guide permittees (whether on Soldiers Pass Soldiers Pass Trail is how we introduce them to Sedona's Road or elsewhere) do encourage their passengers to Red Rocks. We have NO problem in sharing the experience explore our hiking trails after their jeep tour is over. with those who make the trip by Jeep tour. We appreciate that many visitors to Sedona (for whatever reason) need to (or choose to) explore as passengers on a Jeep tour. I would hope that a Jeep tour on Soldiers Pass Trail would encourage visitors to explore on foot other trails in the area - especially when they are able to witness hikers sharing a small portion of the trail. The direct interaction between Jeep and hiker is over very limited areas of the trail. A Jeep tour on Soldiers Pass Trail might often entice a visitor to return to the area.
20130125-46/2 Joseph Hawk I would be most upset were hikers denied access to the trail Thank you for your comment. This project focuses on (or portions of the trail). It is a trail that leads to many other motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road. No restriction on trails, allowing us to make a short or long loop. Devil's hiking or hiking access is proposed. Kitchen is of Geologic interest. Likewise the potholes of 7 sacred pools are of both Geological and biological interest To clarify, it is only motorized use of the road (which is (particularly when the small bullfrogs are vocal during sometimes referred to as a jeep “trail”), and not use of mating season). the hiking trails, that is considered out of compliance Soldier Pass Trail (in a short distance) provides a tangible with Coconino NF Forest Plan direction. demonstration of the beauty of the area. If Soldier Pass Trail is currently "out of compliance", that is not necessarily bad thing - certain situations merit an exception (particularly when the situation is exceptional).
20130125-47 Mark Watson I belong to two hiking groups that use the Soldier Pass area. Thank you for your comments. The District encourages I have never found the pink jeep tours to be any bother. That hikers to stay on the designated nonmotorized trail and said, if signs would encourage hikers to stay on the trails to to not use Soldiers Pass Road. Compliants about the east of the dirt road then the only places where "social hiker/jeep interactions come primarily from hikers using encounters" would frequently occur would be in the sacred the road instead of the nonmotorized trails. To clarify, it pools area and around Devil's Kitchen. is Red Rock Western Jeep Tours that is permitted to I am curious: is it mostly the pink jeep tour operators use Soldiers Pass Road, not Pink Jeep Tours. complaining about hikers on the road, or vice versa? The Soldier Pass area is a special area for hikers because it is a crossroads for so many linked trails. I like to reach Soldier
40
Page 68 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Pass by walking from my house via Tea Cup Trail, and then Soldier Pass is an entry way for walking to Vultee Arch Road area or heading towards uptown. 20130125-48 Patrick Sexton I do Trail Patrol for the Friends of the Forrest. I patrol the Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to Soldiers Pass area at least twice a month. I visit with a lot of the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating Hikers and Tourists when I get on the Soldiers Pass Trail. unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted They are really amazed with the beauty of the area. The and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one Hikers are there for the enjoyment of the area, but the Jeeps time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit are there for the money. When I stmi on the Jordan Trail I system to limit the number of unguided trips per day am sick with the damage the Jeeps are doing to the area. and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips The black tire marks on the rocks. Itjust defaces and per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual detracts from the natural beauty of the area. I have no number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily questions in my mind that the Jeeps should be restricted. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20130126-49 Anna Dickenson I am so glad that I can voice my opinion on Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to hikers/mechanical. As a hiker who has hiked that area for the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating years, I most certainly vote for hikers ONLY. Way too many unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted problems with the off road, as you well know. and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20130126-50 Shelley Holiday As a resident and home owner in West Sedona, and a An alternative to make the area open only to motorized member of the Oak Creek Watershed Council, here is my use was not considered because it would not be "public input" regarding the recent newspaper article: consistent with forest plan direction for the Soldier Pass is one of my favorite hikes for many reasons, Neighborwoods Management Area (Sedona’s including easy access from town, varied terrain, interesting Backyard).The management emphasis for this area is features, and the possibilities of a short yet satisfying jaunt to support resident health, safety, and quality of life. or a longer hike further up the trail. I always suggest it for Relatively quiet, easily accessed National Forest visiting friends and family. Of course, I would love to be supports wildlife, scenic viewing, and experiencing there without the noise and the smell of the Jeeps, not to nature (Coconino NF Forest Plan, MA 24, pp. 206-40 to mention the black tire marks all over the rocks. My 206-42).
41
Page 69 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # preference would be to eliminate any and all vehicular traffic in that area, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but because of the many ways in which that type of traffic negatively impacts Oak Creek through erosion and pollution. That said, I would certainly rather be able to go there even with the Jeeps than to not be able to go there at all. The option of making it an area for motorized use only is something that should not even be considered. Thank you for your attention to this amazing and beautiful natural wonder that we are so fortunate to have right in the middle of our city.
20130128-51 Kate Buttles In my opinion, Pink Jeeps is single-handedly ruining most of Thank you for your comment. To clarify, it is Red Rock the popular trails for anyone who lives here – and probably Western Jeep Tours that is permitted to use Soldiers many tourist hikers as well. There is no way to mediate nor Pass Road, not Pink Jeep Tours. even to enjoy the “peace and quiet” – which is missing. I stopped going to one of my favorite trails – Broken Arrow because after almost getting run down- having all kinds of Alternative B responds to the motorized use overhead planes, etc, it is not any fun any more This is not volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles even mentioning things I have seen at Soldiers such as and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips jeeps pulling up, tourists jumping out, taking a picture of the per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per devils kitechen and then zooming off to annoy other people day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the who were there to appreciate the beauty. I do not believe number of unguided trips per day and reduces the that the jeeps should be allowed in at Soldiers Pass at all number of outfitted and guided trips per day. . While and should definitely be limited in other areas- Why would I Alternative C does increase the annual number of want to go hiking to see a continuous parade of jeeps – I go outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter to enjoy the beauty and to have a meaningful experience. issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment Thank you for reading this email. I know it is difficult to that provides more management flexibility while contain the Jeeps who make a good living here but there is managing for a maximum number of vehicles per less and less balance between people who moved here to day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). enjoy Sedona and jeeps roaring through the forest.
The Forest Service seeks to balance opportunities across the district and has ensured there are opportunities for hiking in places without jeep tours.
This project focuses on Soldiers Pass Road only. Management of use on Broken Arrow Road is outside the scope of this analysis. 20130128-52 Daniel Holland I had a voicemail message from Daniel Holland, a 27 year Thank you for your comment. Please see our response resident of Sedona. He read an article in the Red Rock to comment 50.
42
Page 70 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # News talking about the Soldiers Pass Environmental Assessment for outfitter-guide permitting. He read that one of the alternatives that may be considered in the analysis to address the encounter problem is changing the area to a Jeep only area. Mr. Holland stated that is very against having the area a Jeep only area. He favors a low-tech access for the area, and primarily supports hiking, with some mountain biking. He believes hikers should have priority on the National Forest. He does not believe the National Forest should be used by outfitter-guides at the expense of the public.
20130128-53/1 Bruce Misamore I have already commented on this, but will do so again since Thank you for your comment and continued there appears to be some new twists on the argument. involvement. I have regularly taken guests up the Soldier Pass off roading trail in my Jeep Rubicon. While there have been "encounters" with hikers on the places where the hiking and off roading trails intersect, or from hikers walking on the off roading trail,they have always been most cordial. While I'm sure that the ultra environmentalists or ultra hikers would prefer not to see any vehicles "marring" their hiking experience, it is one of the best off roading trails available to Sedona residents and that should be considered despite minority outcries.
20130128-53/2 Bruce Misamore It has also been my experience that the off roading trail is Please see the response to your comment 20120329- not "overused". The commercial entity which uses the trail 13. uses the trail only a few times during the day, even in high Alternative B responds to the motorized use season, unlike the very heavy usage of Broken Arrow by volume/noise issue by eliminating unguided vehicles Pink Jeep, which I avoid with my own vehicle due to the and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips heavy usage by Pink Jeep. I have very rarely met another per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per vehicle on the Soldier Pass off roading trail when I have day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the used the trail. It happens only occasionally and then it is number of unguided trips per day and reduces the usually the commercial operator. If the Forest Service really number of outfitted and guided trips per day. . While believes that the trail is being overused, and I don't Alternative C does increase the annual number of understand why that is the belief, then limit the commercial outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter operator to only a couple of trips per day, and require issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment permits on a limited basis from other off roaders. The last that provides more management flexibility while thing the Forest Service should do is to limit usage to please managing for a maximum number of vehicles per the whims of one set of users - hikers - at the expense of day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use other users. (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
43
Page 71 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment #
20130129-54 Wayne Johnson I have hiked the Soldier's Pass trail several times times over Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to the past 5 or 6 years. It is a special place where folks can the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating enjoy nature at it's finest. Jeep dust and noise ruin the unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted experience for those on foot. I would like to see the tour and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one company jeeps banned from that area. time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit On another note, I have also heard the silence shattered system to limit the number of unguided trips per day several times by Sedona Offroad Adventures "Hummer" tour and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips vehicles which are loud to begin with. What is very annoying per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual is the loudspeakers the drivers use to relate information to number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily their cargo of tourists. I have heard the speakers from 1/3rd encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan of a mile away or more on several occasions, along the amendment that provides more management flexibility Loop Road and on Schnebly Hill Road. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).The issue of noise from the amplification system used by Sedona Offroad Adventures has been addressed by working with the company to reduce the volume of their system and its use in areas where it could negatively impact other forest users. 20130201-55 Marie Kauffman Greetings, I am writing to give my views on the Soldiers Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to Pass use area. I have done some jeeping as well as hiking the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating and believe that what is important here is public safety and unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted environmental protection. and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one I would definitely NOT close that beautiful area to hikers in time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit favor of the sole jeep co. that has access,( although the system to limit the number of unguided trips per day company would love it!) I believe the greater good is for and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips pedestrian use. That said, one could easily restrict the # of per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual trips per day the jeeps could make, and have signage to number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily make hikers aware of their presence. encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan Actually, with their noise the jeeps let their presence be amendment that provides more management flexibility known, to the detriment of animal habitat in the area. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
An alternative to make the area open only to motorized use was not considered because it would not be consistent with forest plan direction for the Neighborwoods Management Area (Sedona’s Backyard).The management emphasis for this area is to support resident health, safety, and quality of life.
44
Page 72 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # Relatively quiet, easily accessed National Forest supports wildlife, scenic viewing, and experiencing nature (Coconino NF Forest Plan, MA 24, pp. 206-40 to 206-42). 201230201-56 Adrianne Uhl Read Jeff Bear's article in the Cottonwood Journal. I am a Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to hiker and truly enjoy the Brins Mesa, Soldier Pass paths.... the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating especially since you can hike them in a loop. Sedona does unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted not have a lot of loop trails and I would hate to see hikers and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one forbidden to use these trail. On the other hand..... I am sure time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit the jeep company brings in lots of business for the City of system to limit the number of unguided trips per day Sedona, which again... is something I would hate to see and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips discontinued. I think the Forest Service should try to bring per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual the area into compliance with keeping both.. possibly number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily reconfiguring the jeep trail and/or the hiking trail. Sedona encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan relies on both hikers and jeep tour customers for their amendment that provides more management flexibility $$$$$$$. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
An alternative to make the area open only to motorized use was not considered. Please see our response to comment 50. 20130203-57 Don Dickinson In response to a Jan 25 article in the RED ROCK NEWS...It Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to is my belief that jeep tours have scared the earth entirely too the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating much already. There is no way to keep humans off of dirt unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted roads. If you want to keep humans safe and eliminate and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one further damage to our scenic treasure, then restrict the jeep time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit tours to paved roads and some low quality sites. The sink system to limit the number of unguided trips per day hole on Soldier Pass, for example, is a high quality site and and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips should be foot-traffic only. per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20130204-58 Jeannine DeThanis I received a phone call from Jeannine, who has lived near Thank you for your comment. Alternative B responds to the Soldiers Pass Trailhead for 17 years. She expressed the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating her feeling that the Soldiers Pass area is too busy and too unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted loud. She said the Jeeps and Tomcars have destroyed the and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one
45
Page 73 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # road, which is now 5-6 feet deep. She said the Tomcars are time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit the worst nuisance. The Tomcars are loud and disruptive system to limit the number of unguided trips per day on their own, but the drivers are also yelling and screaming and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips at each other, especially when they get lost and want to per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual know where to go. The uses are just wrong for a residential number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily neighborhood. She offered 2 preferences: encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan 1.Shut the area down to everything. No motorized travel amendment that provides more management flexibility and no hiking. while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 2.Close the area to all motorized and mechanized travel. Pedestrians only This project focuses on motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road only. Management of hiking and mountain biking is outside the scope of the analysis.
20130219-59 Virgian Farrell I had a phone call from Virginia Farrell, a homeowner in the Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service has Rim Shadows subdivision near the Soldiers Pass Trailhead. no authority to regulate parking on streets located off She stated that cars are illegally parking on the street the forest. Local businesses are allowed to transport because the Soldiers Pass Trailhead is full. Since there is people to the trailhead, as long as they are not no shoulder, the cars are parking in the traffic lane and are advertizing that they provide this service. We will be blocking the flow of traffic. She identified this as a safety working in 2016 on increasing and improving our problem. I told her that since the cars are in possibly in communications on this service with our local business violation of an ordinance pertaining to a city street and not and tourism communities. the actual trailhead, she needed to call the Sedona Police Department. She said that she has done that before and the Police don’t respond and tell her to call the Forest Service. She also mentioned that The Inn at Sedona (Best Western) is brining vans of people to the trailhead and dropping them off. I checked with Jeff Gilmore, Recreation Special Uses, and he said that activity is common and as long as the Hotels are not providing a guide service, they are fine 20130430-60/1 Chuck Murray I saw your request in the paper for input regarding Soldier Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service has Pass Trail usage. My husband and I live in the Shadow no authority to regulate parking, litter, or other issues Estates subdivision, about a block from the trailhead. We occurring outside the forest boundary. The Forest enjoy being able to go hiking right from our front door. Service has identified an alternate location for the Our concern is less with the other hikers. For the most part, nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to they are quiet and considerate of the residential setting. develop that site due to the need for an easement Often, they do park on the streets when the lot is full. across private lands (the easement has been requested Occasionally, there is trash in front of our homes. The cars but rejected). parked along the roadway contribute to the crumbling edges of our streets. We wouldn't want the whole neighborhood
46
Page 74 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # to be off limits to street parking, since our guests or workers park there from time to time.
20130430-60/2 Chuck Murray The real problem here is the motorized vehicles. The ATV's, Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds Tomcars and Jeeps noisily roar around the neighborhood, to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating shouting from one car to the other. They are a hazard unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted sharing the trail with pedestrians, creating dust, noise and and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one endangering hikers and mountain bikers. The road isn't time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit long, so they come right back or tear up the vegetation "off system to limit the number of unguided trips per day roading." They never get off their machines to actually enjoy and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips the nature they are visiting. per day. While Alternative C does increase the annual Neighbors by the trailhead have had vehicles drive through number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily their yards, tearing up fencing, irrigation and plants. The encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan Red Rock Jeep tours are not a problem. They go in, do their amendment that provides more management flexibility tour and drive out. Perhaps a gate between the parking lot while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per and the trail, for which only Red Rock Jeeps have the code, day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use would limit the motorized usage of the trail. (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). Better signage to the trailhead would reduce the number of lost tourists wandering the neighborhood. Another access The Forest Service has no authority to regulate parking, point could reduce usage at this site. Please strongly traffic levels, and other concerns that occur outside the consider closing this trail to motorized vehicles. forest boundary. All action alternatives would reduce Thank you for considering our input. If you wish to discuss the amount of motorized use on Soldiers Pass Road. It this further, please feel free to call. is assumed that a reduction in use would result in a reduction of these issues occurring off-forest.
In the past the Forest Service has proposed additional signage to direct users to the trailhead, but the idea was rejected by the Home Owners Association. The Forest Service has identified an alternate location for the nonmotorized (hiking) trailhead parking but is unable to develop that site due to the need for an easement across private lands (the easement has been requested but rejected). Even if the nonmotorized trailhead were relocated, the only possible access to Soldiers Pass Road is where it is currently located. 20130430-61 Irwin and Yvonne We believe that the high utilization of this road by motorized Thank you for your comments. Alternative B responds Sheer traffic puts at risk a unique national resource and would like to the motorized use volume/noise issue by eliminating to encourage the Forest Service to take steps to reduce or unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted curtail access. Specifically, we would like to encourage the and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one Forest Service to either close this road to motorized traffic or time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit open it to limited commercial access by permit only so that system to limit the number of unguided trips per day
47
Page 75 Soldiers Pass 2012 and 2013 Pre-Scoping Content Analysis - Individual Response to Comments
Date and Name Comment/Issue Response Comment # utilization can be kept within acceptable standards. and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. . While Alternative C does increase the annual number of outfitted and guided trips it resolves the daily encounter issue. Alternative C includes a forest plan amendment that provides more management flexibility while managing for a maximum number of vehicles per day.Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). 20130502-62 Unknown Regarding need for increased directional signage for the Thank you for your comment. In the past the Forest Soldier Pass TH. I told him he needs to contact the city Service has proposed additional signage to direct users street dept. for that. However, in the course of the call he to the trailhead, but the idea was rejected by the Home brought up the issue with the rental vehicles and the poor Owners Association. maps that they are given with the rental and that it is part of the problem with them not finding the TH. I told him that The Forest Service has no authority to regulate vehicles these are rental vehicles that the FS does not control, nor do that are rented outside the forest boundary. The Forest we control the maps/info they get. Service must manage these vehicles in the same manner as privately owned vehicles. We have attempted to engage the rental companies on providing better information to their clients. In 2016, we will be hiring an OHV Coordinator, who will work closely with these businesses, the City, and other entities to improve visitor information on OHV opportunities outside of residential neighborhoods and OHV user etiquette.
48
Page 76 US-89 ¤£US-180 ¤£
Flagstaff ¨¦§I-40 ^ ¨¦§I-40 Soldiers Pass Project Area I-17 (See Insert) ¨¦§ AZ-89A«¬
VUCOC-3 Sedonajk ^ AZ-89A«¬ Cottonwood AZ-179«¬ ^ ¨¦§I-17
Camp Verde «¬AZ-87 ^ ^ Clints Well AZ-260«¬
Soldiers Pass Project Area Detail LEGEND
jk = Soldiers Pass Project Area
= Coconino National Forest jk
= Major Roads
1:900,000 Miles 01.753.5 7 10.5 14 17.5 / Page 77
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 78 December, 2015 Soldiers Pass Motorized Use Environmental Assessment Project Update This project update includes an analysis timeline, the project’s background and location, the need for the proposal, a summary of public involvement efforts, key issues identified from public comment and draft alternatives that have been developed to date. Alternative C is the proposed action.
The purpose of this update is to provide interested parties with draft but updated information on the Soldiers Pass Motorized Use Environmental Assessment (EA) while the EA is prepared for public comment. The EA will be available for public comment for 30 days and the notice and comment period is estimated to begin in January, 2016. Additional notification will be provided when the EA becomes available. No comments are being solicited at this time. Analysis Timeline (Projected Estimate Only) • January 2016: Preliminary EA available for 30 day notice and comment
• February-March 2016: Content Analysis and preparation of final EA and draft decision notice and finding of no significant impact (DN/FONSI)
• April 2016: 36 CFR 218 45-day objection period for final EA and draft DN/FONSI
• June-July 2016 – Objection resolution, if applicable
• July 2016 –Final DN/FONSI published Project Introduction The Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest (hereafter referred to Coconino NF) is proposing to revise the current management of motorized use on the Soldiers Pass Road in Sedona, Arizona. The purpose of this proposal is to reduce conflicts that are occurring on adjacent City of Sedona and private properties as a result of the volume of motorized traffic that is accessing the forest.
The environmental assessment (EA) will determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing an environmental assessment, agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations is fulfilled. Location Soldiers Pass Road is comprised of three Forest Service roads (FR9904, 9904B and 9904C). Together they are about 1.2 miles in length. The forest portion of the Soldiers Pass Road is accessed from State Highway 89 out of Sedona, Arizona by following the Soldiers Pass Road that is maintained by the City of Sedona (figure 1). For approximately 2 miles, the city-maintained road winds through residential neighborhoods. At the northernmost point of the Canyon Shadows subdivision access to the Coconino NF is through a gate managed by the Shadow Estates Home Owners Association. A private road easement allows public access across the private property to the national forest.
1
Page 79
Figure 1. Vicinity map
2
Page 80
Figure 2. Soldiers Pass Project Area Map Background For the purposes of this analysis, “Soldiers Pass Road” refers only to the portion designated as Forest Roads 9904, 9904B, and 9904C and does not include any of the paved portions lying on City of Sedona property.
The 196-acre project area is located in Yavapai County. Soldiers Pass Road offers a four-wheel drive (4x4) opportunity for recreational motorists. While such opportunities are plentiful on the Red Rock Ranger District as a whole, there are only two roads (Soldiers Pass and Broken Arrow) that offer recreationists a 4x4 motorized opportunity within City limits. Due to their proximity to town these roads are in high demand with visitors who rent jeeps or other off-road vehicles and have limited time for their 4x4 experience.
About 2 miles of non-motorized trails are located within or partially within the project area: Soldier Pass, Grand Central, Tea Cup, Jordan, and Adobe Jack. These trails extend beyond the project area and connect to a broader network comprised of over 20 trails. The trails are easily accessible and are very popular with residents and visitors for hiking and mountain biking.
3
Page 81 The Soldiers Pass Trailhead is located at the southern edge of the project area, at the forest boundary (figure 2). The trailhead provides parking for 14 vehicles. The access gate is operated by the Shadow Estates Home Owners Association (HOA), and it is open to public motorized use from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm daily. During these hours, the parking lot and Soldiers Pass Road are accessible. Outside these hours, the gate is closed and locked. Non-motorized users can access the area at any time.
One outfitter/guide company, Red Rock Western Jeep Tours (RRWJT), has provided guided jeep tours on Soldiers Pass Road under a Forest Service special use authorization (permit) since 1989. The permit authorizes a maximum of 2,100 jeep tours annually.
Need for the Proposal The purpose and need for the Soldiers Pass project has been determined by comparing the desired conditions to the existing conditions. The desired conditions relevant to this project relate to the compatibility of forest uses in the vicinity of Sedona’s neighborhoods, as defined in the Coconino National Forest Plan as amended (USDA Forest Service 1987)...
The proposal is needed to bring motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road into compliance with forest plan direction for recreational settings in this area. The Soldiers Pass Road is currently designated for public motor vehicle use for all vehicles, yearlong. Current use levels do not comply with the forest plan direction, which directs social encounter1 rates for the Soldiers Pass area to be 15 per day. Data collected from 2010 to 2011 indicates motorized use of Soldiers Pass Road complied with forest plan direction only 2 percent of the time, with an average encounter rate of 12 per hour. Just under one-third of this use (29 percent) came from RRWJT. The other two-thirds of motorized use were comprised of private and rental vehicles. Rentals consist of jeeps, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and other off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
The proposal is also needed because excess levels of motorized use are creating social conflicts on both the forest and adjacent private lands. While total use has increased over time, public comments indicate that the majority of conflicts result from the use level occurring at any one time and/or during the course of a day. Several non-motorized trails intersect the road, bringing hikers and mountain bikers into close contact with vehicles at multiple points, increasing the risk of potential safety hazards. The increase in motorized use over time is resulting in noise disturbance to private landowners and decreasing the quality of the recreation experience for forest visitors. An additional factor is that the Forest Service trailhead is difficult to locate, which results in rental vehicles often circling the residential areas, adding to the noise disturbance.
The desired condition is to manage recreational uses in a way that addresses local neighborhood concerns and reduces the impacts of recreational use on residential quality of life, while maintaining recreational opportunities for motorized travel on a four-wheel drive road that is rough and in primitive condition. The forest plan directs that disturbance from commercial activities accessing National Forest lands through neighborhoods be minimized and activities modified as needed to address resident concerns for safety (Coconino National Forest Plan, pp. 206-40, 206-42).
Public Involvement On February 28, 2012, the District asked the public to comment on the purpose and need for action and to provide potential management solutions that would be used in the development of the proposed action. Interested parties included the Shadow Estates HOA, the City of Sedona (hereafter referred to as the “City”), other local agencies, and parties generally interested in outfitter and guide topics. Forty-four comments were received. The majority of comments can be categorized into two
1 The Coconino Forest Plan defines a social encounter (encounter) as one group of six or fewer people, or one vehicle. A group larger than 6 or more than one vehicle would be considered two or more encounters.
4
Page 82 issues of concern: noise disturbance from motorized use and conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized users.
In October of 2013 the project was posted on the Coconino NF’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). It has appeared on all subsequent SOPAs since that time. On January 25, 2013, the District repeated its request for public comment on the purpose and need with an article that was published in the Red Rock Daily News (local newspaper). Eighteen comments were received. Comments were similar to those submitted in 2012.
In December 2014, draft alternatives were presented to the Sedona City Council at a public meeting. This generated additional comments, primarily from the residents of the Shadow Estates subdivision. As a result of comments a potential alternative that had been dismissed (no motorized use) was categorized as an action alternative to be fully analyzed.
Since 2014 the District has provided updates to the City and interested residents regarding the status of this project. Residents were encouraged to submit observations of any perceived conflicts or concerns resulting from motorized use in the area – such as overcrowding by vehicles and damage to vegetation. Issues The majority of public comments received can be categorized into two issues of concern: noise disturbance from motorized use, and conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized users. While most respondents cited conflicts and noise occurring on City streets or private property, these issues also occur on the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the project area. Additionally, the Forest’s management of motorized uses in the project area has a direct effect on how these issues manifest on the adjacent non-NFS lands. The project record provides individual responses to comments received.
Issue 1: Noise Disturbance Several commenters expressed concern over the noise generated by motorized use of the Soldiers Pass Road. In 2014 this issue had become the primary concern to residents affected by motorized users passing through the neighborhood enroute to the trailhead. Most comments cited OHVs (as opposed to jeeps) as the cause of excessive noise – specifically tomcars. Commenters stated the noise created by motorized users reduces the quality of life for residents, especially for those living closest to the trailhead. OHV noise also has the potential to reduce the quality of recreation experience for nonmotorized trail users within the project area.
The indicator used to evaluate this issue is the number of motorized vehicles allowed. This indicator is measured both in vehicles per day and vehicles at one time. A key qualitative assumption is that reduced motorized use (fewer vehicles) would reduce noise levels and therefore impacts from noise.
All alternatives respond to this issue, though in varying degrees. Alternative B responds to this issue by eliminating unguided vehicles and reducing the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (both fewer vehicles at one time and total per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles).
Issue 2: Conflicts between User Groups Many comments reflected concern over the proximity of hiking and motorized use in the project area. The Soldier Pass, Jordan, and Tea Cup trails all intersect the road. This is especially prominent at the sinkhole, known as Devil’s Kitchen. This geologic feature is a key destination within the Soldiers Pass area, and hikers, mountain bikers, and motorized users are frequently present at the same time. Many comments cited the safety concerns of having high levels of both motorized and non-motorized use in the same area,
5
Page 83 especially as many OHV drivers are perceived as driving too fast for this road. In addition to safety, the high levels of motorized use degrade the recreation experience of non-motorized users on these trails.
The indicator used to evaluate this issue is the number of motorized vehicles allowed. This indicator is measured both in vehicles per day and vehicles at one time. A key assumption is that reduced motorized use (fewer vehicles) would result in reduced potential for conflict and safety concerns.
All action alternatives respond to this issue, though in varying degrees. Management approaches that focus on daily or AOT limits even out use levels and reduce the times of peak impact since there are times of the year when motorized used on Soldiers Pass is much higher. Daily and AOT use levels are used as the measures for impact to the issues raised by the public. Alternative B eliminates all unguided vehicles and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day (fewer vehicles at one time and per day). Alternative C uses a permit system to limit the number of unguided trips per day and reduces the number of outfitted and guided trips per day. Alternative D eliminates all motorized vehicle use (except for administrative and emergency vehicles). In addition to issues raised by the public, resource concerns were raised by Forest Service specialists, including noise impacts to peregrine falcons nesting in the area, potential impacts to frog habitat in the location commonly called “Seven Sacred Pools,” and consistency with forest plan direction for social encounters. These concerns are evaluated in environmental consequences. Proposed Action and Alternative Development In 2011 the District provided the public with a purpose and need and asked for suggestions on how to manage Soldiers Pass. In June of 2012 the interdisciplinary team (IDT) examined public comments and finalized a proposed action. The Forest Service is combining the proposed action scoping period (Forest Service Handbook 19091.15, Chapter 10, sec. 11) with the 30-day notice and comment period which is required by 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B.
The current range of alternatives includes four alternatives (including no action) analyzed in detail and three alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study. Proposed Action and Alternatives
Summary of the Final Proposed Action The proposed action project area encompasses 196 acres or about 5 percent of the Middle Oak Creek Watershed. Red Rock Western Jeep Tours would continue to operate guided jeep tours on the Soldiers Pass Road. Their authorized use allocation would be adjusted from 10 vehicles at one time and 2,100 vehicles per year to two vehicles at one time and 12 vehicles per day, with 4,380 vehicles per year. Other motorized use would be managed with a free permit reservation system and 12 permits per day would be issued. A project- specific amendment to the forest plan would remove the current direction for ROS social encounters guideline of 15 encounters per day and replace it with a guideline that is more descriptive of the recreational setting a forest visitor could typically expect. The proposed action would require the installation of a gate to control access. Gate placement would not increase parking capacity. See alternative C for additional information. The Coconino National Forest is currently operating under the 1987 Coconino National Forest Plan, as amended. The Forest is in the process of revising the forest plan and a record of decision (ROD) is anticipated in 2017. A project specific forest plan amendment is required as the proposed action would not meet the current forest plan management direction for encounter levels in this area. This project is amending the Coconino National Forest Plan under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.13) as a nonsignificant amendment.
6
Page 84 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study All alternatives were evaluated to determine how well the proposal would accomplish the purpose and need for action. Three alternatives were developed but eliminated from detailed analysis: (1) amending the forest plan, to make direction for social encounters reflect the existing condition; (2) applying an ROS exception to the road corridor, allowing higher social encounters than would otherwise be prescribed; and (3) actively manage use to meet current plan direction. Adjust the Forest Plan ROS Guidelines Under this alternative, the only action would be to change the forest plan ROS guidelines for social encounters in the entire project area (for both the motorized road and nonmotorized trails) from 15 encounters per day to 15 per hour. This would require a project-specific (nonsignificant) forest plan amendment. RRWJT’s authorized allocation would be adjusted from 10 vehicles at one time (AOT)/2,100 trips per year to two vehicles AOT/12 vehicles per day/ 4,380 per year. Other management actions would not change.
This alternative would address the issue of forest plan consistency. It would also make management of Soldiers Pass Road consistent with management of the recreationally-similar area of Broken Arrow Road. It would reduce RRWJT’s contribution to hourly encounter levels by reducing their AOT limit, thereby potentially reducing the overall motorized encounter levels. However, it would not be likely to reduce noise levels, and it would not address the social conflicts occurring on the road or on the adjacent City and private property. Additionally, as the tourism industry continues to grow, it is likely that use levels would exceed 15 encounters per hour within a few years. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action. For these reasons it was considered but eliminated from detailed study. Apply an ROS Exception for the Road Corridor This alternative would apply an exception to the ROS encounter guidelines for the Soldiers Pass Road corridor only, allowing motorized encounters to be 15 per hour. This would require a nonsignificant forest plan amendment. The rest of the project area, including all nonmotorized trails, would remain at 15 encounters per day. RRWJT’s authorized allocation would be adjusted from 10 vehicles AOT/2,100 trips per year to two vehicles AOT/12 vehicles per day/ 4,380 per year. Other management actions would not change.
This alternative would address the issue of forest plan consistency. It would also make management of this road consistent with management of the recreationally-similar Broken Arrow Road. It would reduce RRWJT’s contribution to hourly encounter levels by reducing their AOT limit, thereby potentially reducing the overall motorized encounter levels. However, it would not be likely to reduce noise levels, and it would not address the social conflicts occurring on the road or on the adjacent City and private property. Additionally, as the tourism industry continues to grow, it is likely that use levels would exceed 15 encounters per hour within a few years. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action. For these reasons it was considered but eliminated from detailed study. Reduce Use to Levels Compliant with the Coconino NF Forest Plan Under this alternative, the District would actively manage motorized use to reduce it to the level of 15 social encounters per day. RRWJT’s would be adjusted, either to two vehicles AOT/12 vehicles per day/ 4,380 per year, making it consistent with other motorized outfitter/guide use on the District. The remainder of available use would be allocated to the general public, via some form of permit system. This alternative addresses the issue of forest plan consistency. It also addresses the issues of noise and social conflicts by significantly reducing the use. However, the allocation between RRWJT and the general public would be problematic. Only 3 vehicles per day would be available to the general public. At the time this alternative was developed (2012) enforcing only 15 trips per day did not seem like a reasonable management option because it would not meet the public need for access to the recreation opportunity. At that time, alternative D (no motorized use) was also on the “not 7
Page 85 considered in detail” list, for the same reason. The District decided the “no motorized use” would be an alternative that should be analyzed in detail to best respond to the public comments that were received in December of 2014. At the same time, specialists identified the need to redesign the ROS framework. This alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study because it was modified and resulted in the development of alternative C (proposed action). Alternatives Considered In Detail Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) In Alternative A (no action) there would be no changes in current management and the forest plan would continue to guide management of the area. Red Rock Western Jeep Tours’ (RRWJT) use allocation would remain at 10 vehicles at one time with a maximum of 2,100 vehicles per year. Other motorized use would remain unregulated. The social encounter guideline for Soldiers Pass would not be modified and use would continue to exceed (be non-compliant with) forest plan direction. Social conflicts would not be addressed or reduced. Alternative B - Outfitter/Guide Use Only This alternative was developed to respond to comments that noise disturbance and social conflicts were resulting from the high volume of unguided motorized vehicles. Alternative B would restrict motorized use to Red Rock Western Jeep Tours (RRWJT) and prohibit all other motorized use, (with the exception of emergency responders, see below).
RRWJT’s authorized use allocation would be adjusted from 10 vehicles at one time and an annual maximum of 2,100 vehicles to two vehicles at one time, up to12 vehicles per day and 4,380 vehicles per year. This would make their “at one time” and daily use consistent with most other motorized outfitter/guide use on the District.
This alternative would require the installation of a gate just beyond the trailhead parking lot. This gate would remain closed and locked. Only RRWJT, the Forest Service, and emergency responders would have access. Gate placement would not increase parking capacity.
The travel management designation for the Soldiers Pass Road and associated spurs (FR 9904, 9904B, and 9904C) would change from open to motorized vehicle use to non-designated (meaning closed to all motor vehicle use except permitted use or administrative use). Alternative C – Outfitter/Guide and Public Use by Permit - Proposed Action This alternative was developed from public comments and suggestions received since 2012 for managing Soldiers Pass.
In alternative C, Red Rock Western Jeep Tours (RRWJT) would continue to operate guided jeep tours on Soldiers Pass Road. Their authorized use allocation would be adjusted from 10 vehicles at one time and 2,100 vehicles per year to two vehicles at one time and 12 vehicles per day with 4,380 vehicles per year. This would make their “at one time” and daily use consistent with most other motorized outfitter/guide use on the District.
Other motorized use would be managed with a free permit system. Twelve permits per day would be issued, making public access available in the same amount as that for the permitted outfitter/guide. Permits would be issued on a first come, first served basis and would be available to individuals only (not to businesses seeking to obtain them for clients). Permits would be issued by day, for access anytime between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm.
This alternative would require the development of a permit reservation system and the installation of a gate to control access. Gate placement would not increase parking capacity. 8
Page 86 The travel management designation for the Soldiers Pass Road and associated spurs (FR 9904, 9904B, and 9904C) would change from open to motorized vehicle use to non-designated (meaning closed to all motor vehicle use except permitted use or administrative use).
A project-specific forest plan amendment under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.13) that would modify the semi-primitive motorized ROS encounter guideline is proposed. The non-significant amendment would remove the semi-primitive motorized ROS guideline of 15 social encounters per day. The replacement guideline language would read: “Visitors may expect moderate to high contact with other visitors. Moderate evidence of use is present. Social encounters are higher within ½ mile of trailheads, paved roads, and residential areas “(see appendix A). Alternative D - No Motorized Use This alternative was developed in response to comments received at a 2012 public meeting. In alternative D Soldiers Pass Road would be closed to all recreational motorized use. Red Rock Western Jeep Tours’ authorization for this location would be allowed to expire at the end of the current permit term and would not be reissued.
This alternative would require the installation of a gate just beyond the trailhead parking lot. Gate placement would not increase parking capacity. This gate would remain locked, and only the Forest Service and emergency responders would have access.
The travel management designation for the Soldiers Pass Road and associated spurs (FR 9904, 9904B, and 9904C) would change from open to motorized vehicle use to non-designated. They would be closed to motorized use except for administrative and emergency access. Alternative B-D Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring In alternatives B and C Forest Service outfitter/guide compliance officers would check monthly to ensure that authorized vehicles parking on the bedrock slab above the “Seven Sacred Pools” site are not dripping vehicle fluids that may wash into the pools during rain events resulting in decreased water quality. Under all action alternatives use of the Broken Arrow Road would be monitored to observe the effects of displacement. Comparison of Alternatives Table 1 provides a summary of the current alternatives analyzed in detail.
Table 1. Comparison of alternatives analyzed in detail Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Management of No Action Outfitter/Guide Outfitter/Guide No Motorized Motorized Use (Current Use Only Use and Public Use Management) Use by Permit AOT* Unlimited 0 Not regulated 0 Unguided Per day Unlimited 0 12 0 Vehicles Per year Unlimited 0 4,380 0 AOT 10 2 2 0 Outfitter/Guide Per day Unlimited 12 12 0 vehicles Per year 2,100 4,380 4,380 0 Miles of Road Open to 1.2 0 0 0 Motorized Use Miles of Road Open by Permit 0 1.2 1.2 0 Only 9
Page 87 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Acres Affected 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 Installation of Gate No Yes Yes Yes Forest Plan Amendment No No Yes No *AOT is “at one time”
10
Page 88 AB 2046 CITY COUNCIL January 12, 2016 AGENDA BILL Regular Business
Agenda Item: 8b Proposed Action & Subject: Discussion/possible direction regarding the conversion of 101 public parking spaces, located directly on Main Street (89A) in Uptown Sedona, from free to pay-to-park.
Department City Manager’s Office
Time to Present 30 minutes Total Time for Item 90 minutes
Other Council Meetings N/A
Exhibits A. Map of Uptown SR89A Parking Spaces B. Revenue and Expense Analysis C. Parking Management Plan – 2012 Update D. Case Studies
City Attorney Expenditure Required Reviewed 1/5/16 RLP Approval $0 Amount Budgeted $ 250,000 (phased over 2 years, Discuss and give direction $100,000 in FY16) City Manager’s on installing parking meters Recommendation Account No. 22-5510-00-6862 on Main Street in Uptown. (Description) 5510-000603 Finance Approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Background: In 2005, the City of Sedona contracted with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. to develop a strategic parking management plan with a special focus on the problems with parking and traffic in Uptown. This study was completed in 2005 and subsequently updated in 2012 (2012 full report is included as Exhibit C). These studies provided important data and recommendations on how to best implement an overall parking management strategy for this area. Many of these recommendations have now been implemented. The next step in the execution of this comprehensive strategy is the conversion of the free on-street parking on Main Street/89A in Uptown to pay-to-park using paid parking kiosks. The paid parking kiosks, or pay stations, require only one piece of equipment per 10 or so parking spaces instead of more traditional meters that would require a meter at each parking space. A map of the Uptown on-street parking is included as Exhibit A.
Page 89
Summary of Progress to Date:
The City has implemented or is in the process of implementing the majority of the shortest- term recommendations from the 2012 study update. The next logical step is the installation of paid parking kiosks for the on-street parking areas in Uptown (101 spaces).
The initial recommendations made in 2012 were: 1. Create more free public parking spaces. 2. Improve signage in order to help guide motorists to underutilized free public lots. 3. Increase enforcement of existing parking time limits. 4. Make underutilized public parking spaces more convenient and accessible. 5. Lease a specific off-street lot and designate it for tour bus parking. 6. Re-evaluate circulator shuttle to connect the greater Uptown area, Hillside, and off- street parking facilities. The next recommendation in the “short term” (1-3 years) was: 7. Encourage and incentivize motorists to more efficiently use all available parking options by installing parking meters/kiosks for the on-street parking only.
1. Creating more free public parking spaces:
In both the 2005 and 2012 studies, it was noted that although an adequate supply of parking existed in Uptown, more public parking spaces should be added, especially for longer-term planning as numbers of users were expected to grow as the economy improved.
The consultants defined “create more parking” to mean partnering with local businesses and property owners, in order to more efficiently use the spaces that already existed and re- appropriate them from private to public use. This recommendation was carried out successfully. The tables below illustrate the free public parking that existed before and after this solution was implemented.
Page 2 Page 90
The map above is the original map (Figure 4-1) used when studying the on-street and off- street public parking areas available in Uptown in 2012. The map below shows (with the
Page 3 Page 91 purple highlighted areas) the parking areas that the City of Sedona has added for the public to use. Some have day and/or time restrictions imposed.
As shown in the table above, since 2013 the City of Sedona has “created” 168 additional free public parking spaces for Uptown, making the new total number of public spaces 518. That number is up from the original of 350 spaces, for a gain of almost 50%.
It is worth noting, however, that both the 2005 and the 2012 studies showed that a lack of parking was not the main problem and that while parking was often available, the free public, off-street spaces were underutilized.
2. Improving wayfinding signage:
Wayfinding to the off-street lots was insufficient in 2012. A wide variety of aesthetics and verbiage on directional signs, as well as signs within the parking lots themselves, were confusing. “No Parking” signs and signs threatening “tow away” within individual private lots was visitor unfriendly. Clear and uniform directional signage that says “free public parking” has since been installed throughout Uptown. New “Public Parking” signs with a uniform, red- rock inspired design have been installed at all public parking lots.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the 2012 study was clear in stating that this improvement was to be used in conjunction with all of the other recommendations. This excerpt was taken from section 2, page 5 of the study: “However, much like parking enforcement, a wayfinding program by itself is not enough to solve a district’s parking problems if there are basic issues related to parking supply and demand.”
3. Increase enforcement of existing time limits:
Parking turnover is an important factor and, when left unregulated, can lead to problems. The 2005 and 2012 studies indicated that, though a lack of parking turnover in on-street Uptown parking spaces did not contribute significantly to the problems in the area, increased
Page 4 Page 92 enforcement of existing parking time limits was necessary as part of a comprehensive parking management plan.
As shown in the chart taken from the updated 2012 study (labeled Figure 1-4), the data indicates that the average vehicle is staying for less than two hours and far less than the posted three-hour time limit.
To address enforcement, in 2012, the city hired two new community service aids (or CSA’s) to better monitor and enforce existing time limits for Uptown on-street parking as part of a comprehensive parking/traffic management solution. There are now a total of four, part-time CSA positions authorized. The CSA’s enforce not only the time restrictions on Main Street, but also the time and day restrictions for the employee/owner reserved spaces in the public/private lots.
4. Make underutilized public parking spaces more convenient and accessible:
The City has been, and is now in the process of, improving pedestrian access from and to off-street lots, including the City Municipal Lot. The most noteworthy of these includes building an elevated pedestrian walkway and elevator to provide access from the City Municipal lot and the Wayside public parking lot to Main Street. This project includes adding sidewalks and pedestrian lighting, and creating ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility throughout the entire length of the connection (not just the elevated walkway and elevator). This, along with the improved signage makes previously underutilized lots easier for visitors and employees to find and use. These improvements also address what the Nelson/Nygaard studies termed the “perceived safety” of the City’s free public parking facilities. The Wayside pedestrian walkway and elevator project should be completed by fall 2016. The smaller Arroyo/Roble pedestrian connection was completed in 2015.
5. Lease a specific off-street lot and designate it for tour bus parking:
An appropriate location has not yet been identified to be used specifically for tour bus parking. This will be an item that the Uptown Parking Advisory Committee will continue to pursue.
6. Re-evaluate circulator shuttle to connect the greater Uptown area, Hillside, and off-street parking facilities:
Page 5 Page 93 This will be evaluated as part of the City’s multimodal traffic and circulation master planning effort which will be initiated in 2016.
Root of the Problem: Supportive data & Sedona specific details:
In both the 2005 and 2012 parking management assessments, interviewees frequently expressed that they believed there were simply not enough parking spaces to accommodate the amount of visitors to the Uptown area. However, the study results showed that, except possibly during the busiest weekends, there was sufficient free, off-street parking available, but that it was under-utilized. The three charts below (taken from the 2012 assessment) illustrate this point:
As shown to the left (Figure 1-2), off-street public parking spaces were, at most, 38% occupied during weekday peak hours of 11 AM – 3 PM. Compare this to the on-street parking, which was consistently occupied at over 100%.
As shown to the right (Figure 1-3), even on a Saturday, free public parking spaces were underutilized, especially considering that these numbers were recorded prior to the city adding 168 off street spaces in 2013, and only considering the Sinagua Plaza garage and the City Municipal Lot.
Finally, the graph (Figure 4-7) to the left shows the occupancy rate of the City Municipal Lot on a weekday as compared to a Saturday. This is the lot that will receive the lion’s share of improvements being made with regard to sidewalks, lighting, and ADA accessibility.
Page 6 Page 94 Historically, a city wishing to "solve its parking problem" has almost always sought an increase in supply and more enforcement. Unfortunately, simply increasing parking supply often encourages more auto use, as people are incentivized to drive to places that offer plenty of "free parking." Furthermore, simply increasing supply or enforcing inefficient regulations will never address the core problem of concentrated demand, in which popular on-street spaces are consistently oversubscribed while nearby off-street spaces remain underutilized.
When occupancy consistently exceeds 100%, merchants are already losing possible clientele who drive through and cannot find a parking spot, become frustrated, and decide not to bother stopping in Uptown at all. It is therefore in the interest of merchants and visitors alike for the City to encourage motorists to use the free off-street parking areas available to them. The management of the demand, and incentivizing use of off-street lots to balance supply and demand, is done through pricing, charging for the prime spots with the highest demand. According to the Nelson/Nygaard studies, parking pricing is the most effective tool to correct supply and demand imbalances and generate the appropriate turnover for short-term curb parking spaces that is so critical to the success of local businesses.
This also follows widely accepted economic theory. When parking spaces located close to desired shops become commodified (as they do with the high demand and occupancy rates in Uptown) it makes sense to ask people to pay to use the most desirable parking. Both surveys conducted found that, on any given day, at least 93% of Uptown parking spaces were taken up by visitors. This means that the people using these parking spaces are tourists who are likely already planning on spending money at local businesses. Meter pricing will improve convenience by helping to ensure both turnover and parking availability for customers, and most studies suggest that the majority of visitors would rather pay a small fee to be able to quickly and conveniently find a parking space. Meters have also been found to decrease traffic congestion, so that when a motorist chooses to park, he or she can do so without circling the block or searching aimlessly. These studies even showed that this tactic reduces “parking and ticket anxiety,” and suggests that when visitors come to a bustling, tourist destination such as Sedona, they expect to pay to park in the most desired locations. This assertion has been further validated by Sedona’s own Park Rangers who patrol Uptown and routinely report that visitors are asking where to pay for on-street parking.
It is also important to emphasize that the recommendations made in the 2005 and 2012 studies are designed to work together to meet Uptown’s parking management goals. While the recommendations could theoretically be implemented as individual pieces, their effectiveness can only be ensured if they are implemented together. It is important, to the greatest extent possible, that the recommendations be implemented as a cohesive "package" of reforms.
Examples of where, why, and how paid parking has worked elsewhere:
There is a substantial body of research documenting the benefits of paid parking to regulate supply. The Nelson/Nygaard studies and staff research have uncovered examples of metered parking being used as an effective parking management tool in dozens of different parking studies, and in many other cities. However, regardless of this accepted practice, the 2005 and 2012 studies included detailed analyses of local conditions in Sedona specifically, which warranted the recommendation to install paid parking. Nelson/Nygaard is a planning
Page 7 Page 95 firm and does not do meter installation or operations; therefore there is no financial incentive for them to simply recommend meters in every situation or in situations where it is not warranted.
With that said, they do regularly recommend paid parking for all the reasons cited previously. According to Nelson/Nygaard, cities that typically do parking studies do so because they are having parking “problems.” Almost all of those parking problems are related to inefficient management of their existing supply. Use of pricing is simple economics. Free unregulated on-street parking in high demand areas is an inefficient use of a public resource. When demand exceeds supply, as it does in Sedona, on-street pricing is the most effective way to ensure that some spaces remain available. People don’t cause congestion looking for parking. More “price sensitive” motorists and long-term parkers are incentivized to drive to lower cost/free off-street options.
Paid parking, however, is not successful in all cases. When the addition of paid parking is used predominantly as a revenue generator for a city, especially in cities where their downtown district (or parking district area) is already struggling to attract patrons, and there is not a shortage of parking supply, it is not generally a prudent or effective parking management strategy.
In addition to the vast body of research on this topic, several specific cities with paid parking implemented were studied by staff. These case studies substantiated the conditions under which paid parking programs typically succeed vs. fail. Paid parking systems were considered to be a success when better parking management was achieved and more benefits were realized than drawbacks, including increases in business growth and revenue and the re-balancing of parking supply and demand. As explained by Sedona’s consultants in the 2012 (and 2005) study, better parking management is accomplished when a city can find a price for on-street parking that shifts the parking behaviors of not all, but just enough motorists to reach target occupancy levels.
Successful models were found in those communities, which like Sedona, had strong tourism, demand for parking exceeding supply, and paid parking was used as part of an overall parking management plan. Staff spoke directly with merchants, Chambers of Commerce, and representatives from the cities or towns to ask questions about their experiences with paid parking and the use of paid parking in their areas. The successful models evaluated included Telluride, Colorado; Park City, Utah; and Pasadena, California.
Merchants in the Sedona public meetings asked staff to research Sarasota, Florida and cited it as an example of a community where paid parking was considered a failure and harmful to business. When staff researched this city, it was found to have already had a struggling business district and the motivation for implementing paid parking was an attempt to generate revenue for a city struggling with its financial condition, not to be used as a method to better address parking supply and demand imbalances.
San Pedro is included as another example of an unsuccessful implementation. Additional information on the aforementioned case studies is included as Exhibit D.
Page 8 Page 96
Stakeholder Interviews in 2012:
Along with all of the quantitative data collected in both the 2005 and 2012 studies, there were also dozens of interviews with stakeholders. These stakeholders included visitors, local residents, people who commute to Uptown for work, business owners, and city representatives.
The only thing that almost everyone agreed on was in their answer to this open-ended question: “What does this parking project’s failure look like?” Almost every interviewee answered, in one way or another, “inaction.” The community at large agreed that something must be done and that inaction or doing another study makes the time and money that has already been spent researching this project a waste.
Outreach to Stakeholders in 2015
In fall 2015 two meetings of the Uptown Parking Advisory Committee (UPAC) were held to revisit the findings of the 2005 and 2012 studies, discuss next steps in the paid parking pursuit, develop an outreach strategy for Uptown merchants and stakeholders, and to learn about the new technology and various options that are available if the City were to use customizable and flexible paid parking kiosks. It is worth noting that several members of the UPAC are opposed to implementing paid parking.
Two public meetings were then held in November 2015, focused specifically on providing information and soliciting input from the Main Street merchants and property owners. Between both outreach meetings, there were a total of 43 individual attendees, mostly business owners. The overwhelming sentiment from those who attended the meetings was a strong opposition to the implementation of paid parking. Comments included:
• Visitors will stop coming to Sedona, or at least to Uptown. • Visitors will chose another vacation destination entirely, or at a minimum only go to Cottonwood, and maybe Tlaquepaque or the Village of Oak Creek where parking is free. • No one coming to Uptown would be willing to pay for parking. • Parking meters have been installed other places and it has destroyed their business district. • The average tourist in Sedona is in his/her 50’s and will not be able to figure out how to use the new technology.
Next Steps if Implementation is to Occur
The latest technology in paid parking kiosks provides a great deal of flexibility in pricing structures, options for coupons for discounted or free parking, and options for advertising or doing other promotions through this technology. If implementation was to move forward the City would work with and through the Uptown Parking Advisory Committee (UPAC) to involve the merchants to collaboratively determine parking pricing and time-restrictions, as well as other possible options. The City and the Committee would also be responsible for proactively ensuring that local businesses, residents, and visitors understand any new
Page 9 Page 97 parking policies and programs, and how those policies are meant to improve parking in Uptown.
It is anticipated that pricing would be set based on season/demand. Peak seasons or peak times would likely be set higher and slower seasons/times would be set at lower rates. In addition to seasonal adjustments, parking could be discounted or free on certain days to encourage local shoppers, etc. Pricing can be changed frequently, as necessary, through the newer software. Monitoring would be ongoing.
It was also suggested during the most recent public meetings, that the existing three-hour time limits are not sufficient. The City would also work with merchants to revisit those restrictions and possibly test the extension of those limits to four hours to provide sufficient time for shopping, dining, and possibly taking a tour. It is also worth noting that the consultants did recommend a 4-hour time limit instead of the 3-hour, should paid parking be implemented.
The City and the Uptown Parking Advisory Committee would also be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the overall parking management strategy for Uptown. Should elements of the program be ineffective or problematic, they could be modified.
The studies also recommended that the City utilize any net parking revenue for Uptown improvements supported by merchants, property owners, and local businesses. The City would seek to form a citizen’s work group made up of Uptown stakeholders, or work through the existing UPAC, to gain consensus on the highest priorities and reinvest the funding in those ways. Possible projects include, but are not limited to, beautification and other aesthetic improvements, enhancement of transit such as the reinstitution of a circulator, valet parking services during peak periods, or construction of additional parking if needed.
Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
Exhibit B includes an itemization of the estimated revenues and expenditures associated with a paid parking program. These are preliminary estimates only and will require further refinement. As was previously mentioned, it is the City’s intention and desire to work with the Uptown Parking Advisory Committee and/or other representatives of Uptown businesses to cooperatively determine the functionality and features of the equipment, and pricing of the parking. With that said, preliminary estimates anticipate approximately $350,000 in new net revenue annually.
Conclusion
As explained in the 2012 study, “Sedona has a geographic imbalance between parking supply and demand.” Short of redesigning Uptown completely, the City has tried employing the various recommendations suggested, except for the installation of paid parking for the most sought after parking spaces. The City has far more to gain in sales tax dollars from thriving Uptown businesses than it does from any parking meter fees, especially since any gain in revenue is already earmarked to be reinvested into Uptown. The only goal of implementing paid parking for these 101 parking spaces is to redistribute excess parking demand. This will be for everyone’s benefit as it will improve traffic flows, reduce congestion,
Page 10 Page 98 and bring parking stall occupancy rates down to optimum rates for merchants, which has been shown to be better for businesses.
Community Plan Consistent: Yes - No - Not Applicable
Board/Commission Recommendation: Applicable - Not Applicable
Alternative(s): MOTION I move to: discussion and direction only.
Page 11 Page 99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 100 N SR 89A UPTOWN PARKING SPACES
PUBLIC PARKING (95) HANDICAPPED PARKING (5) MOTORCYCLE PARKING (1)
¯ 0 45 90 Feet MESQUITE AVE
PRICE RD
This map is designed to provide as-is information only. The data SCHNEBLY RD is not accurate to engineering or surveying standards. The JORDAN RD City of Sedona is not liable or responsible for loss or damages CEDAR ST rising from the data contained on this map. SUNSET LN GIS, City of Sedona. 12/22/2015 SMITH RD
ASPEN RD WILSON RD
MOUNTAIN VIEW DR
FOREST RD
APPLE AVE VAN DEREN RD JORDAN RD
N STATE ROUTE 89A
AMARA LANE
ARROYO ROBLE DR
L'AUBERGE LN
VIEW E OF SL AI
Page 101 ART BARN LN
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 102 Exhibit B - Paid Parking Revenue and Expense Analysis
Revenues 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Meters $232,704 $232,704 $232,704 101 spaces @ $1.00/hr x 8 hours/day x 360 days x 80% avg occ* Citations $280,000 $280,000 $280,000 Average of 20 tickets per day/350 days @$40 cite rate Less Uncollected ($84,000) ($84,000) ($84,000) Est 70% collection rate Total Expected Revenue $428,704 $428,704 $428,704
Expenses** Equipment Supplies $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Ticket and Receipt Stock Pay Stations $168,000 $10,000 $10,000 14 @ $12,000 each, plus ongoing software subscriptions for kiosks Handheld devices, software, setup and training for Enforcement $53,000 $7,000 $7,000 Ongoing includes software maintenance, and setup for interface w/Court Cellular Communication $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 To transmit data for enforcement,reporting, financial info, etc. Warranty Protection $9,000 $9,000 $750/unit per year Staffing Part-time labor $37,440 $38,563 $40,106 Should additional staffing for CSA's for enforcement or finance payment processing, collections, etc. be necessary. Estimating 2 part-time staff @ $15/hour and 20% payroll burden Other Expenses Postage $1,500 $1,750 $1,750 Collections letters DMV Records $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Ownerless plate address match-ups Printing/Publishing $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Informational brochures/promotional materials/coupons
Total Estimated Expenses $292,940 $99,313 $100,856
Net Revenue $135,764 $329,391 $327,848
* assumes estimated annual average. May be $1.50/hour during busiest months and less than $1/hour during slow season - parking fees TBD ** Expenses do not include existing expenses such as private parking leases, CSA wages and benefits, uniforms, vehicles and fuel, etc. which are part of the overall parking management program in Uptown but already included in the operating budget
Page 103
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 104
City of Sedona Uptown Parking Management Plan – 2012 Update Administrative DRAFT
November 2012
Page 105 SEDONA UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary ...... 1-1 Purpose of this report ...... 1-1 What this report contains ...... 1-1 Key Findings ...... 1-1 Parking Recommendations ...... 1-5 2 Introduction ...... 2-1 3 Stakeholder Outreach ...... 3-1 Introduction ...... 3-1 Summary of Key Themes ...... 3-1 4 Updated Parking Analysis ...... 4-1 Methodology ...... 4-1 Parking Inventory and Regulations ...... 4-3 Parking Occupancy ...... 4-5 Parking Turnover ...... 4-11 Summary of 2012 Key Findings ...... 4-12 5 Recommendations ...... 5-1 6 Appendix A – Stakeholder Interview Notes ...... 6-1 7 Appendix B – 2005 Parking Management Plan ...... 7-1
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i Page 106 SEDONA UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Main Street Parking Occupancy ...... 1-2 Figure 1-2 On- and Off-Street Parking, Thursday ...... 1-3 Figure 1-3 On- and Off-Street Parking, Saturday ...... 1-3 Figure 1-4 Parking Turnover, Main Street ...... 1-4 Figure 1-5 Share of Vehicles Parking 3+ Hours, Main Street ...... 1-4 Figure 1-6 2012 Uptown Parking Recommendations ...... 1-7
Figure 4-1 2012 Uptown Parking Study Area ...... 4-2 Figure 4-2 Inventory of Uptown Parking (2012 Study Area) ...... 4-3 Figure 4-3 Existing Parking Signage ...... 4-4 Figure 4-4 Main Street – Public Vehicle Spaces (No Loading, No Motorcycles) ...... 4-5 Figure 4-5 Main Street – All Spaces ...... 4-6 Figure 4-6 Forest Road ...... 4-6 Figure 4-7 Municipal Lot ...... 4-7 Figure 4-8 Sinagua Plaza (Upper + Lower) ...... 4-8 Figure 4-9 All Public Off-street (No Employee Parking) ...... 4-8 Figure 4-10 On- and Off-street Public Spaces, Thursday ...... 4-9 Figure 4-11 On- and Off-Street Saturday ...... 4-10 Figure 4-12 Summary of Public Parking Spaces...... 4-10 Figure 4-13 Parking Turnover, Main Street ...... 4-11 Figure 4-14 Share of Vehicles Parking 3+ Hours, Main Street ...... 4-11 Figure 4-15 Main Street Parking Occupancies, 2005 ...... 4-13 Figure 4-16 Municipal Lot Parking Occupancies, 2005 ...... 4-14 Figure 4-17 Potential Public Parking, 2005 ...... 4-14 Figure 4-18 Parking Turnover, 2005 ...... 4-15
Figure 5-1 Summary of Parking Management Plan ...... 5-2 Figure 5-2 Example Parking Facility Costs, by Location and Type ...... 5-24
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii Page 107 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT In 2005 the City of Sedona completed the Sedona Parking Management Study with the help of Parking Research & Solutions. This study was a comprehensive parking analysis that evaluated parking demand and behavior in the Uptown and Highway 179 corridors areas of Sedona. The 2005 study ultimately concluded that parking management in Sedona, especially in the Uptown area, should undergo a comprehensive overhaul. The study resulted in a new Uptown Parking Management Plan with nine parking recommendations. Since 2005, much has changed in the City of Sedona as it adjusts to a new regional and national economic context. In August of 2012, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates was contracted by the City to provide an update to the 2005 Study (in “admin draft” format). This report represents the 2012 Update to the 2005 Uptown Parking Management Plan. WHAT THIS REPORT CONTAINS Chapter 2 gives a brief description of the project background and the scope of this study. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the stakeholder feedback received in 2012. Chapter 4 summarizes the 2012 parking study and compares the 2012 data with the 2005 findings. Chapter 5 includes the specific 2012 recommendations for improving parking in Uptown. Appendix A includes the detailed notes from the stakeholder interviews. Appendix B includes the complete 2005 Parking Management Plan. KEY FINDINGS After a series of stakeholder interviews and a new detailed survey of actual parking conditions in Uptown, Nelson\Nygaard identified a number of key findings about parking trends, issues, and opportunities. The key findings are discussed in this section. The twelve recommendations (Figure 1-6) based on these findings are discussed in the next section. 1. Demand for on-street parking is very high, which impacts parking availability and traffic flow. As shown in Figure 1-1, the publicly available vehicle parking spaces (i.e. not including loading or motorcycle parking) on Main Street were consistently at or near 100% occupancy beginning at 10 AM until the end of the count period (6 PM) for both Thursday and Saturday. Furthermore, peak occupancy along Main Street was 101% on Thursday at 2 PM and 102% on Saturday at 1 PM. This means that all legal parking spaces are occupied and some vehicles are parking illegally.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-1 Page 108 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
As a result of these high occupancies, the typical motorist driving down Main Street will be unable to find an on-street parking space. The cumulative effect of multiple vehicles “cruising” down Main Street searching for parking is undoubtedly contributing to traffic congestion issues. Studies have shown that a significant amount of traffic congestion – 28% on average in “main street retail / commercial” districts – is from motorists who have arrived at their destination but are searching for a parking space.1 This number is likely higher in districts with a large number of occasional visitors who are not as familiar with the location of available parking. Figure 1-1 Main Street Parking Occupancy
Thursday Saturday
110% 102% 101% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
2. Demand for off-street spaces (in the Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza) is much lower than demand for on-street spaces. In the Municipal Lot, peak occupancies for Thursday and Saturday were 35% and 64%, respectively. In Sinagua Plaza, peak occupancies for Thursday and Saturday were 47% and 89%, respectively. As shown in Figures 1-2 and 1-3, when only including public parking in these facilities (i.e. no employee spaces), peak occupancies for public parking were even lower on both Thursday (38%) and Saturday (76%). 3. There is a geographical imbalance between parking supply and demand. During the on-street peak period on Thursday (101% at 2 PM), there were 98 available spaces in the Municipal Lot and 69 public spaces available in Sinagua Plaza. During the on-street peak period on Saturday (102% at 1 PM), there were 73 available spaces in the Municipal Lot and 4 public spaces available in Sinagua Plaza. That means that during peak demand periods when there is no parking available on Main Street (and occupancy is above 100%), there are nearly 200 empty parking spaces available just a few blocks away. Once again, this availability does not
1 Donald Shoup. The High Cost of Free Parking. APA Planners’ Press (Chicago, 2005).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-2 Page 109 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
include the dozens of other private lots in the Uptown area. This suggests not a lack of parking, but an imbalance between parking supply and demand. Figure 1-2 On- and Off-Street Parking, Thursday
Main Street - Public Vehicle Spaces Off-Street Public Spaces
110% 101% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 38% 40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Figure 1-3 On- and Off-Street Parking, Saturday
Main Street - Public Vehicle Spaces Off-Street Public Spaces
110% 102% 100%
90%
80% 76%
70%
60%
50%
40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
4. Part of the imbalance in parking demand can be directly attributed to inadequate and inconsistent signage, limited lighting, and poor pedestrian conditions.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-3 Page 110 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Parking signage remains a key issue in Uptown. While efforts have been made since 2005 to improve signage, the lack of consistent, user-friendly, and intuitive signs makes it difficult for drivers and visitors to easily find parking, especially in the off-street parking facilities. Furthermore, the large number of signs in private off-street facilities that announce parking restrictions and threaten vehicle towing have the effect of actively discouraging visitors. Poor lighting also contributes to employee and visitor concerns about perceived safety and security when parking in the off-street lots. Finally, pedestrian access to off-street and/or remote lots can be challenging due to the lack of lighting discussed above, steep slopes, and gaps in the sidewalk network in the vicinity of off-street parking facilities. 5. While some vehicles exceed the 3-hour parking limit, parking turnover does not appear to be a major issue in Uptown. On Thursday, the average length of stay for a vehicle (in hours) was 1.8 hours (see Figure 1-4). Block #2 (east side of 89A from Forest Road to Jordan Road) had the longest average length of stay at 1.9 hours. On Saturday, the average length of stay for a vehicle (in hours) was 1.7 hours. Block #4 (east side of 89A from Jordan Road to the loading zone) had the longest average length of stay at 1.9 hours. In addition, only a small percentage of vehicles parked in the on-street parking spaces stay three or more hours. Given these behaviors, recent plans for increased enforcement of existing 3-hour time limits for on-street parking in Uptown will likely be ineffective at increasing the availability of on-street parking spaces, since the majority of vehicles are not overstaying the current time limits. Even reducing the 3-hour time limits to two hours would likely be an ineffective strategy for increasing parking availability because the average length of stay for on-street parking spaces in Uptown is already less than two hours on all blocks during all survey times. Figure 1-4 Parking Turnover, Main Street
Average Parking Block ID Duration (Hours) Thursday Saturday 1 1.91 1.38 2 1.92 1.62 3 1.56 1.59 4 1.82 1.91 7 1.70 1.72 8 1.82 1.72 ALL 1.79 1.66 Figure 1-5 Share of Vehicles Parking 3+ Hours, Main Street
Time Thursday Saturday Combined
1 PM 18% 10% 14% 2 PM 17% 8% 13% 3 PM 11% 5% 8% 4 PM 12% 5% 9%
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-4 Page 111 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS Parking Management Goals and Objectives Historically, a city wishing to “solve its parking problem” has almost always sought an increase in supply and more enforcement. Unfortunately, simply increasing parking supply often encourages more auto use, as people are incentivized to drive to places that offer plenty of “free parking.” Furthermore, simply increasing supply or enforcing inefficient regulations will never address the core problem of concentrated demand, in which popular on-street spaces are consistently oversubscribed while nearby off-street spaces remain underutilized. The goal of parking demand management is to “manage” curb spaces to ensure availability while also optimizing utilization of existing off-street supply to meet a variety of parking needs. Managing parking has been shown to be one of the single most effective tools for alleviating congestion and improving operation of the street network, even when densities are relatively low and major investments in other modes have not been made. The experience of other cities (of all sizes and contexts) has shown that more effective parking management results in positive economic impacts for local businesses, as employees, residents, and visitors can all better utilize the parking supply to shop, dine, or recreate. In recognition of these considerations, the following goals and objectives informed the development of parking management recommendations for Uptown: . Uptown should strive to become a “park once” district, where the parking supply is a public resource that is convenient and easily accessible for all user groups. . Public and private parking should be managed as part of an integrated, district- wide system. . Parking management strategies should focus on making the most efficient use of existing parking facilities before increasing supply. . Enforcement is a key tool to improve parking conditions, but enforcement is a relatively expensive strategy that cannot compensate for inefficient parking policies. . Parking regulations should be “visitor friendly” to encourage visitors and residents to come to and stay in Uptown. Most studies suggest that the majority of visitors would rather pay a small fee to be able to quickly and conveniently find a parking space. It is clear that the current parking situation in Uptown, in which a motorist arriving on Main Street sees not a single available on-street parking space, a proliferation of “no parking” signs in privately-owned off-street lots that often have empty spaces, and few signs pointing to where parking can be found, is not visitor friendly. . Parking policies should support the ability of local employees to get to work, but also discourage employees from parking in “prime” on-street spaces all day long or “game the system” by moving their cars from space to space to avoid time limits. . Parking spillover impacts should be minimized for Uptown-adjacent residential neighborhoods. . Time limits have their place in low-demand areas, but in high demand areas, parking pricing is the most effective tool to correct supply and demand imbalances and generate the appropriate turnover for short-term curb parking spaces that is so critical to the success of local businesses.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-5 Page 112 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. New parking meter revenue should be reinvested back into Uptown to fund improvements that merchants and property owners support and enhance the business environment and visitor experience. . Embrace new parking technologies to maximize customer satisfaction, as well as to foster enhanced parking data management and analysis. . Provide flexibility to decision makers and City staff to adapt parking policies to seasonal and long-term changes in parking demand and travel patterns, as well as make adjustments to parking policies to improve system performance. . The City should continue to be proactive in community engagement to ensure that local businesses, residents, and visitors understand any new parking policies and programs, and how those policies will improve parking in Uptown. . Any proposed parking management strategy for Uptown should be evaluated based on how well it will likely help achieve these goals. Any parking management strategy that is implemented in Uptown should be monitored to ensure that it is achieving these goals.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-6 Page 113 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Summary of Parking Recommendations The recommendations summarized in the table below (and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of this report) are based on the key findings and parking management goals discussed above. The recommendations are phased according to an implementation timeframe of immediate (6-12 months), short-term (1-3 years), or mid-term (3-5 years). Figure 1-6 2012 Uptown Parking Recommendations
Implementation No. Recommendation Timeframe Continue with implementation of a more active parking enforcement program with the understanding that the fundamental parking challenge in Uptown is 1 NOT related to violation of the current 3-hour limits. Conduct a study to monitor the effects of enhanced enforcement on parking turnover and availability.
Improve awareness of, and access to, the underutilized off-street public 2 parking facilities in Uptown through additional wayfinding improvements.
Improve the motorist experience and perceived safety of using off-street Immediate (within 3 parking through enhanced lighting and pedestrian improvements to and from 6-12 months) existing off-street facilities. Expand the public parking supply in a cost-effective manner and improve the 4 visitor experience by opening up privately-owned off-street lots to public parking through legally binding, public parking agreements.
5 Lease a specific off-street lot and designate the lot for tour bus parking.
Reevaluate a circulator shuttle to connect the greater Uptown area, Hillsdale 6 area, and off-street parking facilities. Coordinate with NAIPTA on upcoming transportation study and possible shuttle service. Designate a specific off-street facility for employee parking and implement an 7 employee permit program. Install “smart” parking meters and use pricing to make parking more 8 convenient and easier to find. Designate meter revenue specifically for improvements in Uptown that merchants and business owners want. Evaluate a parking validation program as a means to reward drivers who shop 9 in Uptown. Short-term If needed to reduce parking spillover impacts in Uptown-adjacent (within 1-3 years) 10 neighborhoods, implement a residential parking program. Designate a part-time/seasonal “Uptown Parking and Transportation Manager” to serve as single point of contact for parking and transportation issues during peak season. The manager’s first task would be to establish an 11 ongoing data collection, monitoring, and evaluation process of the City’s parking management program and regularly report back to community stakeholders and decision makers so adjustments can be made as needed. Identify additional opportunities to expand the public parking supply, either Mid-term (within through a public-private partnership to create a mixed-use parking garage 12 3-5 years) project in the Uptown District or the development of additional remote parking facilities connected by a shuttle circulator.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1-7 Page 114 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
2 INTRODUCTION Project Background In 2005 the City of Sedona completed the Sedona Parking Management Study with the help of Parking Research & Solutions. This study was a comprehensive parking analysis that evaluated parking demand and behavior in the Uptown and Highway 179 corridors areas of Sedona. The 2005 study included original data collection for parking occupancy and turnover in Uptown, Highway 89A, and Highway 179A corridors. The 2005 study also involved extensive stakeholder outreach, including meetings and a survey. The 2005 study found that existing parking management in Sedona was non-existent and the existing regulatory framework was exacerbating the City’s parking challenges. The 2005 study states: “The City of Sedona has no current tools to manage its parking resources, other than requirements for new developers to provide adequate off-street parking. There is a general understanding that the on-street, public parking spaces in Uptown are for visitors and patrons of Uptown businesses. Similarly, most of the close-in parking at Hillside and Tlaquepaque is saved for patrons. Most private businesses have designated employee parking areas and discourage employees from parking in prime visitor parking spaces in front of businesses. Private property owners are allowed to manage their own parking without specific requirement or limitations from the City. However, in the absence of a comprehensive parking management plan, visitors to Sedona are limited to obvious public parking options, which are quite limited during peak times.” The 2005 study ultimately concluded that parking management in Sedona, especially in the Uptown area, should undergo a comprehensive overhaul. The study includes a series of nine recommendations forming a new Parking Management Plan (see Appendix B), as outlined below. 1. Creation and management of a public parking supply through public parking agreements. 2. Designated employee parking. 3. Promotion of public parking options. 4. Comprehensive parking management, including: time restricted parking and paid parking and new meters for Main Street. 5. Development of new parking sites after implementation of parking management plan. 6. Establish residential permit parking (if needed). 7. Reorganize parking management oversight within the City of Sedona. 8. Utilize an automated ticket management system. 9. Evaluate additional funding sources.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2-1 Page 115 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Scope of the 2012 Update to the 2005 Plan Since 2005, much has changed in the City of Sedona as it adjusts to a new regional and national economic context. In August of 2012, Nelson\Nygaard2 was contracted by the City to provide an update to the 2005 Study and its recommendations. Unlike the larger scope of the 2005 study, the primary focus in 2012 was on just the Uptown area. In short, the City asked Nelson\Nygaard to assess parking in Uptown and do a “reality check” on the 2005 recommendations to see if they were still the best option for Uptown. More specifically, Nelson\Nygaard was scoped for the following tasks: 1. Review 2005 parking data and key findings; 2. Conduct a new parking study and occupancy count for the spaces along Main Street, in the Municipal Lot, and in the Sinagua Plaza lot; 3. Conduct outreach to Uptown stakeholders, including four meetings; and 4. Update the Uptown parking management recommendations and develop a draft update to the 2005 Parking Management Plan.
2 The Nelson\Nygaard team included Tim Ware, the primary author of the 2005 study.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2-2 Page 116 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
3 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH INTRODUCTION As part of the 2012 Uptown Parking Study, the City asked the Nelson\Nygaard consulting team to meet with Uptown merchants, property owners, and other stakeholders. These four sessions took place on August 22nd. At the beginning of each session, Nelson\Nygaard staff provided an overview of the project and the goal of these initial meetings: . This effort is an update to 2005 study. . The study will collect new data since the 2005 data is outdated. . No decisions have been made regarding recommendations. . The goal of these initial meetings is to get input and feedback from stakeholders who know the parking issues in Uptown the best. After this introduction, NN staff facilitated a discussion around these questions: 1. What do you think are the biggest parking issues facing your neighbors, tenants, employees, or customers? 2. Referencing a map of Uptown: a. Where do people (visitors, employees, residents, etc.) park? On-street? Off-street? b. Where are the biggest parking challenges? c. Are there any opportunities for shared off-street parking? Where? 3. What are your ideas for managing parking in Sedona? 4. How would you define a successful outcome for this project? 5. What would constitute a failure for this project? SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES Included below is a brief summary of the major themes from the stakeholder outreach. These findings were utilized to inform the recommendations outlined in Chapter 5. A complete summary of the stakeholder meetings are included in Appendix A. . Common perception that parking in Uptown is not easy Most would say is a capacity issue, but due to high visitation numbers this is a “structural deficit” that no amount of additional parking supply will solve completely. Some felt that parking was often available, but too hard to find or access . Municipal lot is not used for a variety of reasons (lighting, distance, topography, difficulty in locating). . Universal agreement that wayfinding needs improvement so that people can easily find off- street parking.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3-1 Page 117 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. At this time, there is strong opposition among many merchants and property owners to paid parking on-street – the general consensus is that that this would harm the business environment. . Others felt that paid parking could help the parking situation and would be supportive so long as it didn’t make the customer/visitor parking experience more negative than it currently is and didn’t hurt economic activity. . Enforcement is needed to ensure employees are not parking all day. . Project failure would be just “another study” and no action. . Additional education and outreach is needed around parking and traffic issues and potential solutions. More stakeholders need to be involved, including employees of Uptown businesses and residents of Uptown-adjacent neighborhoods. There is a general lack of understanding about how new parking payment and enforcement technology can make it easier for motorists to find parking and reduce “ticket anxiety” (such as pay-by-cell to add more time on the meter, etc.)
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3-2 Page 118 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
4 UPDATED PARKING ANALYSIS To better understand current parking demand and behaviors, Nelson\Nygaard conducted original data collection in Sedona. Unlike the 2005 study, this assessment focused specifically on parking conditions in the Uptown area. This chapter provides an overview of the 2012 parking study and highlights the key findings related to parking demand and behavior. METHODOLOGY As shown in Figure 4-1, the study area included the on-street parking spaces along Main Street (Highway 89A) from Forest Road north to the end of Uptown, the on-street spaces along Forest Road from 89A west to the end of Forest Road, and the off-street spaces in the Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza. Parking inventory and regulations were determined through field observations by Nelson\Nygaard staff members, who walked the study area, counted parking spaces, and noted regulations on each block face and in each off-street facility. Nelson\Nygaard staff also conducted an occupancy study using trained data collection surveyors. The count days and times were: . Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 from 8 AM – 6 PM, every hour . Saturday, August 25th, 2012 from 8 AM – 6 PM, every hour Counts were conducted on these days in order to provide as wide a range of parking conditions as possible, as parking demand tends to fluctuate a great deal by day of week and time of day. The count periods specifically captured parking activity during a typical weekday and weekend. Each block face and off-street lot (Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza) was counted every hour at approximately the same time of each counting period. In addition to analyzing parking utilization, parking duration data (for on-street spaces along Main Street only) was also collected from 10 AM to 4 PM to gauge how often each on-street space experiences “turnover.” This data was collected on the same days as the utilization data and involved surveyors noting the last four digits of each license plate, which can be used to identify vehicles without collecting any personal information.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-1 Page 119 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 4-1 2012 Uptown Parking Study Area
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-2 Page 120 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
PARKING INVENTORY AND REGULATIONS Inventory Figure 4-2 provides a summary of the number and type of parking spaces that were counted as part of the 2012 parking study. In brief, the majority of the parking in the Uptown area is located in off-street facilities. In fact, only two off-street facilities were analyzed as part of this study (the Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza) and they have by themselves almost three times the number of spaces that exist along Highway 89A. The 2012 study did not assess any of the numerous private off-street lots within Uptown. However, the 2005 study observed that there are several hundred other private off-street spaces within the Uptown area. Of the 114 spaces on Highway 89A, roughly 84% of them are available for public parking. The remaining spaces are available for motorcycles, disabled, and loading. Figure 4-2 Inventory of Uptown Parking (2012 Study Area)
Facility Public Motorcycle Disabled Reserved Loading TOTAL On- 96 84% 2 2% 6 5% 0 0% 10 9% 114 27% street Off- 255 85% 0 0% 11 4% 35 12% 0 0% 301 73% street TOTAL 351 85% 2 0.5% 17 4% 35 8% 10 2% 415 100%
Regulations Parking within the Uptown area is heavily regulated. Most private off-street parking lots restrict parking for customer use or employee use through the use of “ad hoc” signage. As a result, there is a wide variety of regulatory signage throughout Uptown. Figure 4-3 includes a sample of some of this signage. The Municipal Lot offers free parking from 7 AM – 10 PM (last entry by 7 PM). There is no time limit for vehicle parking in the Municipal Lot. Parking in Sinagua Plaza includes a mix of both public and reserved parking. Public parking is free, but restricted to a 3-hour time limit. All on- street parking in Uptown is free. Public parking along Highway 89A is restricted to three hours. Parking along Forest Road is not time-restricted. City staff members have acknowledged that the three-hour parking restriction has not been enforced in the past. As discussed in Chapter 5, the City is working to hire dedicated enforcement staff and begin enforcement of the three-hour limit.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-3 Page 121 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 4-3 Existing Parking Signage
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-4 Page 122 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
PARKING OCCUPANCY On-Street The 2012 study found that on-street parking in Uptown is in very high demand for a vast majority of the day. Figure 4-4 shows that beginning at 10 AM and continuing until past 6 PM, public on- street spaces (non-loading spaces) are utilized at or above capacity – there are repeated instances of vehicles double-parking to load or wait for parking availability. As a result, it is likely that a vehicle driving through Uptown Sedona after 10 AM on a weekday or weekend will not be able to readily find an on-street parking space and will be forced to “cruise” throughout Uptown in search of an open space. Figure 4-5 shows that when loading spaces are included in the count, parking availability increases slightly, but those spaces are reserved for bus loading, jeep tour parking, or deliveries. Parking availability on Forest Road is much higher than along Highway 89A, but some of these spaces are restricted to short-term parking or are not located in the immediate vicinity of the Uptown area. Figure 4-4 Main Street – Public Vehicle Spaces (No Loading, No Motorcycles)
Thursday Saturday
110% 102% 101% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-5 Page 123 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 4-5 Main Street – All Spaces
Thursday Saturday
100% 92% 92% 90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% % of of spaces % occupied
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Figure 4-6 Forest Road
Thursday Saturday
100%
90% 80% 80%
70%
60% 50% 50%
40%
30% % of of spaces % occupied
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-6 Page 124 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Off-Street
Unlike the on-street parking, there are a large number of available off-street3 spaces at all times throughout the day on both weekdays and weekends. In fact, the Municipal Lot peaked at 64% at 2 PM on Saturday, which meant that there were no less than 51 parking spaces available in the Municipal Lot at any time during the 2012 parking study. Parking occupancy was higher in Sinagua Plaza on Saturday, yet there were still close to two dozen available spaces during the peak period. Figure 4-7 Municipal Lot
Thursday Saturday
100%
90%
80%
70% 64%
60%
50%
40% 35%
30% % of of spaces % occupied
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
3 The 2012 study only counted the Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza, and does not include data for the numerous private off-street lots in Uptown.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-7 Page 125 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 4-8 Sinagua Plaza (Upper + Lower)
Thursday Saturday
100% 89% 90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 47%
40%
30% % of of spaces % occupied
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Figure 4-9 All Public Off-street (No Employee Parking)
Thursday Saturday
100%
90%
80% 76%
70%
60%
50% 38% 40%
30% % of of spaces % occupied
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-8 Page 126 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
On- and Off-street Figures 4-10 and 4-11 summarize the combined on- and off-street parking availability for Uptown. Once again, the key finding is that the on-street parking is heavily utilized, while much of the off- street parking sits empty. For example, on Thursday at 2 PM the on-street spaces showed occupancies of more than 100%, while parking occupancies in the nearby Municipal Lot were less than 40%. In brief, there is ample parking supply in Uptown. However, the existing parking supply is not managed in a way to effectively utilize existing resources so that some of the on-street parking demand in Uptown is redistributed to the nearby off-street facilities. Figure 4-12 summarizes the availability of public parking in Uptown. Figure 4-10 On- and Off-street Public Spaces, Thursday
Main Street - Public Vehicle Spaces Off-Street Public Spaces
110% 101% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 38% 40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-9 Page 127 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 4-11 On- and Off-Street Saturday
Main Street - Public Vehicle Spaces Off-Street Public Spaces
110% 102% 100%
90%
80% 76%
70%
60%
50%
40%
% of of spaces % occupied 30%
20%
10%
0% 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM
Figure 4-12 Summary of Public Parking Spaces
Main Street - Public Vehicle Spaces Off-Street Public Spaces
Time Thursday Saturday Thursday Saturday # % Open # % Open # % Open # % Open 8 AM 11 11% 91 34 33% 68 19 7% 247 13 5% 253 9 AM 28 27% 74 66 65% 36 37 14% 229 20 8% 246 10 AM 69 68% 33 98 96% 4 57 21% 209 42 16% 224 11 AM 98 96% 4 103 101% -1 69 26% 197 86 32% 180 12 PM 101 99% 1 97 95% 5 85 32% 181 147 55% 119 1 PM 101 99% 1 104 102% -2 102 38% 164 189 71% 77 2 PM 103 101% -1 98 96% 4 99 37% 167 202 76% 64 3 PM 99 97% 3 100 98% 2 79 30% 187 193 73% 73 4 PM 99 97% 3 98 96% 4 79 30% 187 160 60% 106 5 PM 95 93% 7 100 98% 2 60 23% 206 152 57% 114 6 PM 98 96% 4 102 100% 0 42 16% 224 149 56% 117
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-10 Page 128 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
PARKING TURNOVER In addition to parking occupancy data, parking “turnover” was also assessed for the public spaces along Main Street. The data collected allows for an evaluation of the average duration parked, as well as the share of vehicles parking longer than the posted three-hour time limit. This data was obtained by recording the last four digits of each license plate every hour from 10 AM – 4 PM. Average Parking Duration Figure 4-13 shows the average length of stay (in hours) for a vehicle on both Thursday and Sunday. The data indicates that the average vehicle is staying for less than two hours and far less than the posted three-hour time limit. Surveyors noted several vehicles that stayed for more than five hours, but, on average, most vehicles parked for shorter periods of time. Figure 4-13 Parking Turnover, Main Street
Average Parking Block ID Duration (Hours) Thursday Saturday 1 1.91 1.38 2 1.92 1.62 3 1.56 1.59 4 1.82 1.91 7 1.70 1.72 8 1.82 1.72 ALL 1.79 1.66 3-hour Time Limit Figure 4-14 provides another view of parking turnover along Main Street. The figure shows the share of vehicles parking more than three hours beginning at 1 PM4 and through 4 PM. In all, less than one of every six vehicles is parking for more than three hours, resulting in a relatively high amount of parking turnover along Main Street. While parking enforcement can be improved to address the number of “long-term” parkers, it does not appear to be a major contributor to the lack of parking availability along Main Street. Figure 4-14 Share of Vehicles Parking 3+ Hours, Main Street
Time Thursday Saturday Combined
1 PM 18% 10% 14% 2 PM 17% 8% 13% 3 PM 11% 5% 8% 4 PM 12% 5% 9%
4 Parking turnover data was collected starting at 10 AM so the 1 PM slot represents the first 3-hour “window.”
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-11 Page 129 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
SUMMARY OF 2012 KEY FINDINGS 1. Demand for on-street parking is very high, which impacts parking availability and traffic flow. The publicly available vehicle parking spaces (i.e. not including loading or motorcycle parking) on Main Street were consistently at or near 100% occupancy beginning at 11 AM until the end of the count period (6 PM) for both Thursday and Saturday. Furthermore, peak occupancy along Main Street was 101% on Thursday at 2 PM and 102% on Saturday at 1 PM. This means that all legal parking spaces are occupied and some vehicles are parking illegally. As a result of these high occupancies, the average motorist driving down Main Street will be unable to find an on-street parking space. The cumulative effect of multiple vehicles “cruising” down Main Street searching for parking is no doubt contributing to traffic congestion issues and back-ups. Fully occupied on-street parking in Uptown. 2. Demand for off-street spaces in the Municipal Lot and Sinagua Plaza is much lower. In the Municipal Lot, peak occupancies for Thursday and Saturday were 35% and 64%, respectively. In Sinagua Plaza, peak occupancies for Thursday and Saturday were 47% and 89%, respectively. When only including public parking in this facility (i.e. no employee spaces), peak occupancies for public parking were even lower on both Thursday (38%) and Saturday (76%). 3. There is a geographical imbalance between parking supply and demand. During the on-street peak period on Thursday (101% at 2 PM), there were 98 available spaces in the Municipal Lot and 69 public spaces available in Sinagua Plaza. During the Underutilized Municipal Lot on-street peak period on Saturday (102% at 1 PM), there were 73 available spaces in the Municipal Lot and 4 public spaces available in Sinagua Plaza.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-12 Page 130 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
4. While some vehicles exceed the 3-hour parking limit, parking turnover does not appear to be a major issue. On Thursday, the average length of stay for a vehicle was 1.8 hours. Block #2 (east side of 89A from Forest Road to Jordan Road) had the longest average length of stay at 1.9 hours. On Saturday, the average length of stay for a vehicle was 1.7 hours. Block #4 (east side of 89A from Jordan Road to the loading zone) had the longest average length of stay at 1.9 hours. In addition, only a small percentage of vehicles parked in the on-street parking spaces stay three or more hours. Relationship to the 2005 Parking Study
As part of the 2012 analysis, Nelson\Nygaard reviewed the parking data from the 2005 study5 to confirm data findings and assess how parking trends may have changed over the past seven-plus years. By reviewing an additional data point, any limitations with the 2012 study (time of year, two count days, and ongoing effects from the economic recession) could be evaluated and cross- checked. It is clear that a number of findings are consistent across the two time periods. These are summarized below. 1. On-street parking is at capacity, while off-street parking sits empty. As is the case in 2012, the most popular spaces in Uptown in 2005 were the on-street spaces and these were often occupied near or at capacity. Figure 4-15 shows the occupancy data from 2005, which underscores the fact that overall on-street parking trends have not been affected a great deal by the economic recession or other changes in Uptown between 2005 and 2012. Figure 4-15 Main Street Parking Occupancies, 2005
The 2005 data also reinforces the findings in 2012 that many of the off-street lots are underutilized. Figure 4-16 shows that the Municipal Lot in 2005 was also rarely above 40%
5 Included parking counts across consecutive days in February, March, April, and May.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-13 Page 131 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
occupied. Furthermore, the 2005 study also found that there is ample parking availability in many of the private off-street street facilities. Figure 4-17 indicates that on average there were approximately 800 available parking spaces in Uptown and the Highway 179 area. Figure 4-16 Municipal Lot Parking Occupancies, 2005
Figure 4-17 Potential Public Parking, 2005
2. As in 2012, parking turnover was quite high in 2005 and few vehicles parked more than three hours. Figure 4-18 includes a summary of the parking turnover data from the 2005 data. This data is consistent with the recent 2012 numbers, which found that most vehicles are parking less than three hours at a time. Once again, this data reinforces the
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-14 Page 132 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
finding that the lack of parking availability on Main Street is not primarily caused by long- term parkers. Figure 4-18 Parking Turnover, 2005
3. Off-street parking is heavily restricted and parking signage remains inconsistent and confusing. The 2005 study found that “…the placement, low frequency and inconsistency of the parking signs in Sedona results in confusion to visitors.” While some improvements to signage and wayfinding have been made in Uptown since 2005, the general condition remains one of inconsistency and confusion to the driver. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, the vast majority of off-street parking lots in 2005 were restricted for customer or employee use, thereby restricting the public supply of parking. Attempts were made to establish shared parking arrangements with private property owners, but many of these arrangements have since been dissolved.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4-15 Page 133 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
5 RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter provides a summary of the recommended parking management strategies for the Uptown District in Sedona. Because many of the same parking challenges exist in Uptown today as in 2005, there is overlap between some of the recommendations between the two studies. Unfortunately, because the primary issue of high parking demand on-street and inefficient use of off-street facilities persists, much of this overlap is unavoidable. In short, several of the 2005 strategies remain best practices in parking management, and, ultimately, offer the City of Sedona the best course for solving its parking problem. The recommendations are organized in a manner to facilitate actionable steps for the City and are presented in a phased implementation plan. Immediate actions items are those that should take place within the next 6-12 months and can result in tangible improvements to parking conditions in Uptown. Short-term strategies will likely take additional planning, but should be implemented within 1-3 years to achieve City parking goals. Long-term strategies will require significant additional planning and/or are contingent on processes not necessarily within the City’s control. It is important to emphasize that the recommendations included below are designed to work together to meet Uptown’s parking management goals. While these recommendations could theoretically be implemented as individual pieces, their effectiveness can only be ensured if they are implemented together. It is important that to the greatest extent possible the recommendations be implemented as a cohesive “package” of reforms.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-1 Page 134 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 5-1 Summary of Parking Management Plan
Implementation No. Recommendation Timeframe Continue with implementation of a more active parking enforcement program with the understanding that the fundamental parking challenge in Uptown is 1 NOT related to violation of the current 3-hour limits. Conduct a study to monitor the effects of enhanced enforcement on parking turnover and availability. Improve awareness of, and access to, the underutilized off-street public 2 parking facilities in Uptown through additional wayfinding improvements. Improve the motorist experience and perceived safety of using off-street Immediate (within 3 parking through enhanced lighting and pedestrian improvements to and from 6-12 months) existing off-street facilities. Expand the public parking supply in a cost-effective manner and improve the 4 visitor experience by opening up privately-owned off-street lots to public parking through legally binding, public parking agreements.
5 Lease a specific off-street lot and designate the lot for tour bus parking. Reevaluate a circulator shuttle to connect the greater Uptown area, Hillsdale 6 area, and off-street parking facilities. Coordinate with NAIPTA on upcoming transportation study and possible shuttle service. Designate a specific off-street facility for employee parking and implement an 7 employee permit program. Install “smart” parking meters and use pricing to make parking more 8 convenient and easier to find. Designate meter revenue specifically for improvements in Uptown that merchants and business owners want. Evaluate a parking validation program as a means to reward drivers who shop 9 in Uptown. Short-term If needed to reduce parking spillover impacts in Uptown-adjacent (within 1-3 years) 10 neighborhoods, implement a residential parking program. Designate a part-time/seasonal “Uptown Parking and Transportation Manager” to serve as single point of contact for parking and transportation issues during peak season. The manager’s first task would be to establish an 11 ongoing data collection, monitoring, and evaluation process of the City’s parking management program and regularly report back to community stakeholders and decision makers so adjustments can be made as needed. Identify additional opportunities to expand the public parking supply, either Mid-term (within through a public-private partnership to create a mixed-use parking garage 12 3-5 years) project in the Uptown District or the development of additional remote parking facilities connected by a shuttle circulator.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-2 Page 135 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Immediate (within 6-12 months)
#1. Continue with implementation of a more active parking enforcement program with the understanding that the fundamental parking challenge in Uptown is NOT related to violation of the current 3-hour limits. Conduct a study to monitor the effects of enhanced enforcement on parking turnover and availability. 2005 Recommendation: . Establish a parking enforcement division separate from the Sedona Police Department. . Hire dedicated enforcement staff. . Implement an automated ticket management system.
2005 Status: . “Courtesy” notices issued at one time, but never fully implemented. . Additional enforcement staff recently hired by Sedona PD.
2012 Recommendation: Both of the parking studies found that there are a portion of vehicles parking on Main Street that park for longer than three hours. In addition, stakeholders clearly stated that enforcement was needed along Main Street to ensure that vehicles do not park for more than three hours and thereby prevent additional visitors parking on Main Street. The City has recently moved forward with hiring new enforcement staff to implement the three-hour parking limit. It is likely that the enforcement would begin with “courtesy” notices. Nelson\Nygaard supports the City’s recent efforts to begin enforcement on Main Street and recommends that the City actively enforce the time limit along Main Street. After an initial transition period, it is highly recommended that the City move beyond the issuance of “courtesy” notices to actually issuing citations. Furthermore, enforcement should be consistent and should not seek to distinguish between visitors and employees. Businesses with visitors who need to park Three-hour time limit in Uptown longer than the time limit (i.e. tour companies) should direct their customers to park in the Municipal Lot or other unrestricted off- street facilities.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-3 Page 136 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
As was discussed in the 2005 study, it is strongly recommended that the City utilize an automated ticket management system that allows for easy downloads of citations into a database, immediate notification of repeat offenders, revenue and enforcement reports, delinquent ticket collections, and streamlined operations. The citation process should also allow for written disputes (via a web-based interface) to account for the transient nature of the visitors to Sedona. Nelson\Nygaard would strongly emphasize, however, that any enforcement efforts should be done with the understanding that the parking data shows that enforcement alone will not solve Uptown’s fundamental parking problems. Both the 2005 and 2012 data demonstrate that the average parking duration is less than two hours and that only a small share of vehicles are parking for longer than three hours. In other words, no amount of enforcement will change the fact that drivers will continue to seek out the limited number of convenient on-street spaces and to underutilize the off-street supply under the current regulatory framework. #2. Improve awareness of, and access to, the underutilized off-street public parking facilities in Uptown through additional wayfinding improvements. 2005 Recommendation: . Develop a consistent and user-friendly wayfinding program. . Detailed recommendations and guidelines were made regarding on-street signage, privately-owned parking lots, directional signage, and quantity of signs.
2005 Status: . Partially implemented
2012 Recommendation: Parking signage remains a key issue in Uptown. While efforts have been made since 2005 to improve signage the lack of consistent, user- friendly, and intuitive signage makes it difficult for drivers and visitors to easily find parking, especially the off-street parking facilities. Furthermore, the large number of signs in private off-street facilities that announce parking restrictions and threaten vehicle towing have the effect of actively discouraging visitors. By contrast, an effective wayfinding signage helps orient visitors, shoppers, and residents alike, pointing them to area parking facilities, retail establishments, pedestrian and bicycle access routes, and other important destinations. A wayfinding program can be tailored to specific groups depending on contextual factors and desired outcomes; however, these tools are most relevant and important for those unfamiliar with an area. Wayfinding informs people of the best way to access an area, depending on their mode of travel. Parking
Existing wayfinding in Uptown
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-4 Page 137 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
wayfinding signs can also display real-time availability data, pointing motorists to facilities with available spaces. Parking signs can direct motorists to underutilized off-street facilities, freeing up the most convenient “front-door” curbside spaces, and maximizing the efficiency of a parking system. Improved wayfinding in the form of new signs helps maximize the use of off-street parking facilities, representing another way to help eliminate traffic caused by cars cruising for on-street parking. Wayfinding helps dispel perceived (but not actual) shortages in parking. However, much like parking enforcement, a wayfinding program by itself is not enough to solve a district’s parking problems if there are basic issues related to parking supply and demand. Specific wayfinding recommendations for Uptown include: . Reduce the amount of unnecessary parking signage in Uptown, especially existing restrictive signage in private off-street facilities that discourages visitors from parking. As private parking is transitioned to public parking (see Recommendation #4), install signage indicating public parking supply. . For those private off-street lots that remain restricted, develop a single type of sign that must be used by all property owners. . Continue to utilize the green wayfinding (with blue “P” symbol) design and scheme. Phase out use of blue signage with white letter and all other signage types. . Sign type should increase in size relative to the speed in which cars are expected to be traveling. Cars going faster (~30 miles an hour) need larger and simpler signs. Explore the development of larger and more conspicuous signs for major intersections. . Directions to parking must be repeated often, especially after turns, to direct drivers to parking that is in off-street lots. Without such signage, drivers will likely try to only use on-street parking. . Off-street parking signage should be supplemented with detailed maps, promotional materials (window posters or customer brochures), and graphics. Pedestrian signage indicating location of parking will ensure that people parking at the site will easily find their car when they return to it. . Provide signage for delivery vehicles directing them to appropriate locations for loading and unloading. . Explore the use of real-time parking signage. Recent advances in sign technology means that parking wayfinding signs can be enhanced by electronic signs, occupancy tracking systems, and user interface devices to provide real-time pricing and occupancy data to motorists. This information can be conveyed to motorists once they are at their parking destination (via pole signs, wall signs, or on parking meters/facilities), when motorists are on their way to the parking destination (via cell phone), or even before the motorist has left the house (via the Internet). . Specific locations for new or additional signage include: Highway 179 and 89 approaches into Uptown. Parking signage should be made available to drivers at least 1/4th of a mile before they need to make a decision about where to park. At key intersections and along key routes to parking facilities:
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-5 Page 138 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
o The “Y” at Highway 179 and Highway 89A and at each round-about, signs should indicate the direction, distance and availability of public parking o Highway 89A and Forest Road o Highway 89A and Jordan Road o Highway 89A and Apple Ave o Jordan Road, Van Deren Street, and Schnebly Road corridors Signage for northbound drivers (at stoplight) to indicate that there is no turnaround or parking beyond Arroyo Roble Road. Entrances to each off-street parking facility indicating public parking. . Reform Article 11 of the Sedona Land Development Code to institutionalize wayfinding changes and provide a regulatory means by which the City can enforce parking signage. #3. Improve the motorist experience and perceived safety of using off-street parking through enhanced lighting and pedestrian improvements to and from existing off-street facilities. 2005 Recommendation: . Not specifically recommended.
2005 Status: . Not applicable.
2012 Recommendation: One of the primary pieces of feedback from stakeholders is that people do not use the Municipal Lot or other nearby off-street lots because the lighting is poor, there are safety concerns, and the pedestrian environment can be uninviting. This recommendation seeks to make targeted improvements to pedestrian conditions as a means to not only improve the overall experience in Uptown, but also help shift parking demand from Main Street to the underutilized off- street lots. Lighting Street lighting is crucial to a positive pedestrian experience and is critical for both traffic safety and pedestrian safety and security. In short, lighting should be designed not just for vehicles, but also specifically oriented to the pedestrian. Key lighting elements include: Existing pedestrian conditions to Municipal Lot
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-6 Page 139 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. Place pedestrian-scale lighting in areas with high pedestrian volumes. Potential locations in Uptown include: Schnebly Road Van Deren Street Jordan Road Common pedestrian paths to/from Municipal lot, such as the path behind the church and along Mountain View Dr. . Pedestrian-scale lighting should be approximately 12-15 feet above the roadway. Such lighting should share poles with existing street lights when possible to reduce streetscape clutter. . Place lighting at points on the street where there is a high potential for conflict, such as driveways and intersections. Particular attention should be paid to the underground level in Sinagua Plaza. . Orient lighting to maximize lighting efficiency and eliminate blind spots or dead zones. . Avoid lighting that is too bright or out of character with the rest of an area, as it can undermine natural surveillance through excess glare. . Glare should be mitigated by selecting the proper lamp wattage and mounting fixtures at the appropriate height. . Use energy efficient lamps that aim for a measureable efficiency of 70-115 lumens/watt. . Select light fixtures that are appropriate for the local context and neighborhood. Safety and Security A person must feel safe and secure in the public realm before walking can become an attractive transportation option. Good design can help to enhance safety and security through the principles of natural surveillance and territorial reinforcement. This type of design is often referred to as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Key elements include: . Encourage natural surveillance or “eyes on the street” to enable active spaces, where people are able and willing to watch public activity, to create a safer and more secure public realm. . Orient buildings and windows toward streets, plazas, parking lots, and other public spaces and maximize the use of ground floor retail to bring activity to street level. . Maintain adequate sightlines with transparent materials in key design features, such as fences. . Maximize visibility between the street, sidewalk and buildings by encouraging windows on the ground floor of street-facing buildings. . Use signage to communicate ownership and indicate the rules of use. . Ensure basic upkeep of buildings, landscaping, lighting, and other streetscape amenities to demonstrate to users that a space is being maintained. #4. Expand the public parking supply in a cost-effective manner and improve the visitor experience by opening up privately-owned off-street lots to public parking through legally binding, public parking agreements. 2005 Recommendation:
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-7 Page 140 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. Establish public parking agreements (PPAs) with private property owners for the establishment of a pool of public parking locations. . For consistency, City will provide all signs, or specify the size, color, location, and text for all signs. . City will provide enforcement of public parking.
2005 Status: . Several property owners initially agreed to a PPA shortly after the 2005 study was completed. However, many of these PPAs have since dissolved.
2012 Recommendation: In accordance with the 2005 study, Nelson\Nygaard strongly recommends that the city of Sedona pursue PPAs with property owners in Sedona as a means to increase the share of public parking supply in a cost-effective manner. Shared parking is one of the most effective tools in parking management. Because different land uses have different periods of parking demand, those uses can easily share a common parking facility, thereby limiting the need to provide additional parking. Shared parking policies do not treat the parking supply as individual units specific to particular businesses or uses, but rather emphasize the efficient use of the parking supply by including as many spaces as possible in a common pool of shared, publicly available spaces. Overall, the benefits of fully implementing a “shared” parking strategy include: . Reduces vehicle trips and required parking spaces because existing spaces can be efficiently shared between uses. . Creates a more welcoming environment for customers and visitors because they do not have to worry about getting towed for parking at one business while visiting another.
Underutilized private lots off of Apple Avenue . Allows for fewer but more strategically placed lots, resulting in better urban design and greater redevelopment opportunities. . By transforming motorists into pedestrians, who walk instead of drive to different destinations, shared parking can immediately activate public life on the streets and generate additional patrons of street-friendly retail businesses. . It is substantially cheaper than building additional parking supply. For example, leasing of spaces can cost anywhere from $50-500 per space annually. By contrast, a space in a
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-8 Page 141 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
new parking garage can cost between $1,000-2,500 per space annually (including debt service, operations, maintenance, etc.). While some progress was made in regards to shared parking after 2005, all of the agreements were voluntary in nature. Many of these agreements quickly dissolved when parking challenges continued to persist in Uptown. As a result, many of the “public” spaces were quickly made private again and restrictive parking policies are once again standard. Moving forward, it is recommended that the City enter into a leasing agreement with property owners to ensure a legally binding agreement and that parking spaces would remain publicly available for a guaranteed length of time. Some property owners may be willing to enter into such an agreement with the City, in which case the City could lease their spaces for a nominal cost ($1 per space per year). Other property owners may require additional financial incentives, in which case the City would need to negotiate a per-space leasing cost. At a minimum, any shared lot should have 10 or more contiguous parking spaces. A sample public parking agreement has not been developed as part of this study. However, any PPA should include the following key elements: . List the names and ownership interest of all parties to the agreement and contain the signatures of those parties . Assure the continued availability of the spaces for joint use and provide assurance that all spaces will be usable without charge to all participating uses . Days and hours of operation . Signage requirements . Enforcement provisions . Any design or access improvements . Maintenance provisions . Liability and insurance requirements . Language noting that failure to comply with the shared parking provisions shall constitute a violation of the agreement and can be cause for a fine #5. Lease a specific off-street lot and designate it for tour bus parking. 2005 Recommendation: . Not specifically recommended
2005 Status: . Not applicable.
2012 Recommendation: The amount of tour bus parking is limited in the Uptown area, especially during peak tourist season. Tour bus parking is currently located in the Hyatt lot and in the lot on the west side of Main Street just north of the crosswalk at Jordan Road. Stakeholders in Uptown often referenced feedback from tour bus operators who stated that the lack of bus parking is a deterrent and sometimes prevents them from dropping off passengers in Uptown.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-9 Page 142 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
It is recommended that the City work with private property owners to develop additional parking for tour buses in Uptown. As discussed on Recommendation #4, the City may need to lease these spaces and provide a financial incentive for property owners to participate in such a program. The primary recommended location would be the existing dirt lot off of Art Barn Road. This underutilized site offers ample parking room for buses and adequate maneuverability. Unused lot off of Art Barn Road
#6. Reevaluate a circulator shuttle to connect the greater Uptown area, Hillsdale area, and off-street parking facilities. Coordinate with NAIPTA on upcoming transportation study and possible shuttle service. 2005 Recommendation: . Evaluate impacts of a free circulator shuttle on parking demand. . Proposed shuttle did not serve Municipal Lot.
2005 Status: . Road Runner Circulator shuttle service was implemented, but discontinued in 2011.
2012 Recommendation: Subsequent to the 2005 parking study, the Road Runner Circulator shuttle was implemented. The Roadrunner shuttle served a 1.3 mile corridor from Uptown to Hillside along Highway 179. The service offered 15-minute headways from 10 AM – 6 PM every day. In 2011 the shuttle was discontinued. It is recommended that the City reevaluate the role of a circulator shuttle within Uptown. The Road Runner service was not well-received by many in the Sedona community. However, some Uptown stakeholders have recently expressed their renewed support for expanded transit service to and from Uptown. Moving forward, a transit service that offered connections to the Municipal Lot would strongly support the other parking recommendations in this plan and help to redistribute parking demand to the off-street lots. One option for the City of Sedona would be to work with Cottonwood Area Transit (CAT) and explore expanded Verde Lynx service to Sedona and Uptown. It is also important to note that the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) is about to initiate an Alternative Transportation System (ATS) Road Runner Shuttle (Flickr User – gillfoto) Implementation Plan within the Sedona
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-10 Page 143 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Red Rock Ranger District area of the Coconino National Forest. It is a strong possibility that the outcome of this project would be a new shuttle service for the great Red Rock and Coconino National Forest. It is highly recommended that the City of Sedona work closely with NAIPTA on this project to ensure that any future transportation plans support the City’s parking and transportation goals.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-11 Page 144 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Short-term (within 1-3 years)
#7. Designate a specific off-street facility for employee parking and implement an employee permit program. 2005 Recommendation: . Establish designated lots for use by employees in Uptown. . Issue permits to ensure compliance.
2005 Status: . Not completed.
2012 Recommendation: Much like in 2005, employee parking is an issue in Uptown as employees for various businesses will seek to park their vehicles and go to work. Some employees will park in off-street lots designated to their place of employment. However, many businesses do not have designated employee parking and will instead park on residential streets such as Van Deren Street, Wilson Road, Forest Road, or Smith Road, or in limited cases, along Main Street. In many instances, employee vehicles, especially since they are parked for longer periods of time, can limit the degree to which visitors and customers can park in Uptown. It is recommended again that the City evaluate the use of designated off-street lots for employees. These lots would be available to employees of any businesses in Sedona and a permit would be required to park in each lot. Permits would be issued for free (one per vehicle) and employees would need to submit a pay stub to verify employment in Uptown. Enforcement would be provided by the City and vehicles without valid permits would receive a citation. Time-restricted or fee-based parking in public parking areas will encourage employees to participate in the employee parking program. Potential lots, or portions of the following lots, for employee parking include: . Municipal Lot . Apple Road lots at Jordan Road and Cedar Street . Lot off of Schnebly Road, just west of Jordan Road . Christian Science Reading Room lot . Amara Resort upper lots As discussed on Recommendation #4, the City may need to lease these spaces and provide a financial incentive for property owners to participate in such a program. #8. Install “smart” parking meters and use pricing to make parking more convenient and easier to find. Designate meter revenue specifically for improvements in Uptown that merchants and business owners want. 2005 Recommendation: . Parking fee of $1 per hour for spaces on Main Street . Maintain free off-street parking
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-12 Page 145 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
2005 Status: . Not implemented
2012 Recommendation: Description It is recommended that the City install “smart” parking meters and price on-street parking as a means to make parking more convenient and accessible for visitors and residents. Meter pricing will improve convenience by helping to ensure turnover and parking availability for customers. Meter prices would be based on length of stay and also adjusted to respond to seasonal fluctuations in demand so that when parking demand is higher or lower, prices would increase or decrease accordingly. Rationale for Implementation As described in Chapter 4, the occupancy counts in Uptown reflect a number of trends related to parking demand. Most importantly, the occupancy counts reinforce a common parking trend – free on-street spaces in prime locations are highly utilized while off-street lots (paid and unpaid) sit mostly empty. For example, on Thursday at 2 PM the on- street spaces showed occupancies of more than 100%, while parking occupancies in the nearby Municipal Lot were less than Fully occupied parking near Matterhorn Plaza. 40%. This is reflective of the universal hierarchy of parking demand in which on- street spaces are the most demanded, and is particularly interesting given that counts were conducted in the “off-peak.” Given the existing parking challenges, the primary rationale for parking meters in Uptown is to make parking more convenient and accessible for visitors, employees, and residents. By setting specific availability targets and adjusting prices up or down, demand can be effectively managed so that when a motorist chooses to park, he or she can do so without circling the block or searching aimlessly.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-13 Page 146 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
It is important to understand that demand-based pricing does not need to change the parking behaviors of every motorist. Motorists can be thought of as falling into two primary categories: bargain hunters and convenience seekers. Convenience seekers (such as tourists) are more willing to pay for an available front door spot, and are typically less sensitive to parking charges because they have planned trips long in advance and stay for relatively short periods of time. By contrast, many long-stay parkers, such as employees, find it worthwhile to walk a few blocks to save on eight hours’ worth of parking charges. With proper pricing, the bargain hunters will choose currently underutilized lots, leaving the prime spots free for those convenience seekers who are willing to spend a bit more. In Sedona, the majority of the tourists visiting Uptown, as in all tourist destinations, can be classified as convenience seekers. The ultimate goal, therefore, is to shift the parking behaviors of not all, but just enough motorists to reach target occupancy levels. So, if prices are used to create vacancies and turnover in the prime parking spots, then what is the right price? A well-established, industry standard target occupancy rate for on-street spaces is approximately 85%. At this level of occupancy, at even the busiest hour about one out of every seven or eight spaces will be available, or approximately one empty space on each block face. This provides enough vacancies so that visitors can easily find a spot near their destination when they first arrive. In short, the right price is the price that will achieve this occupancy target. This means that pricing need not be uniform: the most desirable spaces may need higher prices, while less convenient lots are less expensive. Pricing can also be based on length of stay with a higher rate charged the longer one stays. In other words, the goal is not to ticket someone for wanting to stay longer than two hours, but allow them to stay as long as they are willing to pay for the space being used. Benefits Demand-based pricing can result in the following benefits: . Consistent availability and ease in finding a parking space . Convenient payment methods that eliminate the need to “plug the meter” and make it easier to pay for parking and avoid parking tickets . Incentivizes long-term parkers to park in off-street lots . Reduces search time for parking, resulting in less local congestion and vehicle emissions . Reduces illegal parking and improves safety and street operations . A more equitable and efficient way to account for the real costs to a city for providing parking . Improved economic vitality and business environment due to increased visitors and customer convenience . A potential revenue stream for improvements to Uptown Specific recommendations for Uptown Outlined below are the specific project locations and program parameters recommended for demand-based pricing in Uptown. Meter Location: Meters should be installed to regulate all public on-street spaces along Main Street. Existing commercial and passenger loading on Main Street would not be metered and would maintain existing parking restrictions. Disabled parking spaces would not be subject to metering.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-14 Page 147 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Meter Type: Based on the analysis of parking conditions in Uptown and the needs of the area, it is recommended that the City install multi-space, pay-by-space meters (with wireless, pay-by- phone technology) for its on-street spaces (see below for more information). As described above, pay-by-space meters offer aesthetic advantages over single-space meters and benefits motorists because they do not have to return their vehicle for the initial or subsequent payments. For the City, such meters are space-efficient and can reduce enforcement costs. An initial assessment of the on-street facilities indicates that the City would need to install between 10-15 multi-space meters along Main Street to provide convenient coverage for motorists. Time Restriction: It is recommended that the City extend the three-hour time limit to four hours to allow visitors additional flexibility. Pricing would be used to generate turnover, as people who stay longer would pay more for those spaces. Target Occupancy Rate: Target occupancy rates for on-street spaces should be 85%, which would translate into approximately one space per block being available at all times of the day. Initial Hours & Pricing Structure: . 8 AM – 8 PM, 7 days a week . Peak Period (March to November) $1 per hour (0-2 hours) $1.50 (2-4 hours) . Off-peak Period (November to March) $.50 per hour (0-2 hours) $1 per hour (2-4 hours) . Maintain free, unrestricted off-street parking . 4-hour time limit Meter Pricing Adjustments: It is possible that the initial pricing structure proposed above will not achieve the target occupancy rate. Therefore, meter prices should not be static, but periodically adjusted to respond to changes in demand. Rates need not change constantly or abruptly. When revising meter hours or rates, it is safest to increase or decrease rates slowly, with occupancy checks before and after each rate adjustment, in order to avoid overshooting and accidentally driving away customers (see Recommendation #11). Meter Revenue: The City should utilize any net parking revenue generated from newly installed meters at curb spaces for Uptown improvements supported by merchants, property owners, and local businesses. This revenue could be deposited in a new Uptown Reinvestment Fund, and could be spent on projects or programs designed to improve conditions within Uptown. Paying for parking can be unpopular for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons is that when motorists feed the meter, their money seems to “disappear” and they feel they derive little benefit from the transaction. Local businesses often voice similar objections to the pricing of parking, arguing that it “drives customers away” and they don’t see any direct benefit from the parking revenue. This is largely because most cities have traditionally sent their parking revenue into the general fund, and not necessarily to improving parking or enhancing the local transportation system.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-15 Page 148 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
In recent years, some cities have sought to reverse this dynamic by guaranteeing that local parking revenue “stays local.” Experiences from these cities have shown that when local merchants, residents, and property owners are involved in revenue decisions and can clearly see that the monies collected are being spent for the benefit of their blocks they become willing to support market rate pricing. Potential investments for stakeholders to consider include: . Purchase and installation costs of meters (e.g., through revenue bonds or a “build- operate-transfer” financing agreement with a vendor) . Purchase or leasing of private off-street spaces . Wayfinding and signage . Landscaping and streetscape greening . Street cleaning and power-washing of sidewalks . Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and amenities . Additional parking enforcement . Valet parking services during peak periods . Outreach program related to parking reforms . Marketing and promotion of local businesses . Construction of additional parking, if deemed to be necessary
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-16 Page 149 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Meter Technologies Various new meter technologies exist beyond the conventional coin meters used for the better part of the 20th century. These include smart meters, multi-space meters, and wireless / pay-by-phone technology.
Single-space Meters Conventional Coin Meters These meters have been used by municipalities since the 1930s. They only accept change, and do not exhibit illumined displays. Smart Meters Smart meters are very similar to conventional coin meters; however, they allow motorists to pay for parking via credit or debit card. They also have illuminated displays that allow viewing of parking rates, hours, time limits, and other important information. The ease of payment with smart meters Coin meter in Sausalito, CA tends to reduce parking and ticketing anxiety. Source: Flickr user wuestenigel Furthermore, when combined with embedded roadway sensors, smart meters allow for demand- based pricing schemes, as they can send and receive data regarding parking pricing and availability. Some are also pay-by-phone enabled (see section below). A single smart meter can cost around $200- 500.
Pay-by-phone meters in San Francisco, CA Source: SFPark
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-17 Page 150 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Multi-space Meters
Pay-and-Display Meters Pay-and-display meters can be placed on existing light or utility poles and serve roughly 10 to 20 parking spaces each. People must park, walk to the meter where they receive a receipt, and return to their vehicle to display the receipt on their dashboard. Pay-and-display meters cost approximately $10,000 to $12,000. These meters have minimal maintenance costs; operating costs vary depending on the type of power system used. Some pay-by-space meters can use solar power, keeping operational costs very low and requiring no utility work for installation (battery powered meters are also available). Pay-by-Space Meters Multi-space pay-by-space meters require that on- street parking stalls be numbered. They are more convenient to motorists because they are not required to return to their cars. Similar to pay- and-display meters, operational and maintenance costs are minimal, and many new models can Pay-and-display meter in Portland, OR support pay-by-phone technology. Finally, such Source: Flickr user Ian Broyles meters have substantially lower enforcement costs, as enforcement staff do not have to inspect each vehicle, and can instead utilize handheld devices. Although such meters require each space to be numbered, this can be done in an inexpensive and conspicuous manner, typically with stencils on the curb. Pay-by-space meters cost between $7,000 and $10,000 per unit. Wireless / Pay-by-Phone Pay-by-phone technology allows a driver to pay a parking fare via cell phone, mobile phone application, or computer. Motorists can receive a reminder text when their time is almost up, and can add time without returning to their vehicle or parking meter. Receipts are available via email. Typically these programs require pre-registration. Pay-phone technology reduces maintenance and operational costs associated with meters, fare collection, and ticketing. These meters typically require wireless technology, which can increase setup and maintenance costs, but also offer the potential benefit of creating a free, publicly available wireless network for the area in which the meters are installed.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-18 Page 151 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
#9. Evaluate a parking validation program as a means to reward drivers who shop in Uptown. 2005 Recommendation: . Not specifically recommended
2005 Status: . Not applicable.
2012 Recommendation: If on-street paid parking is implemented, the City should also evaluate implementation of a parking validation program as a means to continue to offer visitors the benefit of some free parking while encouraging them to shop locally. In a validation program, visitors who spend over a certain amount at Uptown business can have their parking fee refunded to them by participating merchants (who are then reimbursed by the City). Another option would be for the City to refund visitors’ parking fees directly at a centrally-located kiosk or a storefont window. A maximum of two hours free parking should be allowed as part of the validation program. Visitors who stay longer would be required to pay the incremental parking fees. #10. If needed to reduce parking spillover impacts in Uptown-adjacent neighborhoods, implement a residential parking program. 2005 Recommendation: . If needed, implement an RPP on residential streets
2005 Status: . Not implemented.
2012 Recommendation: If the City moves forward with pricing of on-street spaces in Uptown, it is possible that parking demand will spill over into nearby residential districts. The City should monitor parking on the residential streets and if spillover parking becomes a major impediment to residents, the City should establish an RPP. A RPP operates by exempting permitted vehicles from the parking restrictions and time limits for non-metered, on-street parking spaces within a geographic area. The primary goal of an RPP is to manage parking spillover into residential neighborhoods. By managing spillover, RPPs can ensure that residential neighborhoods are not overwhelmed by commuters, employees, or visitors, thereby enabling local residents to park their vehicles on-street. RPPs are especially important in neighborhoods where residents have limited off-street parking. A typical RPP is one that allows those without a permit to park for a limited time frame (i.e. one or two hours) during a specified time frame, such as 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday to Sunday. Permit holders (i.e. residents) are exempt from these regulations and able to essentially store their vehicle on-street. Ownership of a permit, however, does not guarantee the availability of a parking space.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-19 Page 152 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
#11. Designate a part-time/seasonal “Uptown Parking and Transportation Manager” to serve as single point of contact for parking and transportation issues during peak season. The manager’s first task would be to establish an ongoing data collection, monitoring, and evaluation process of the City’s parking management program and regularly report back to community stakeholders and decision makers so adjustments can be made as needed. 2005 Recommendation: . Not specifically recommended
2005 Status: . Not applicable
2012 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City designate an “Uptown Parking and Transportation Manager” to serve as the primary contact for all parking related issues in Uptown. This position would be instrumental in managing Uptown’s parking programs and addressing parking issues as they arise, especially during the peak season and on holiday weekends. In parking, you can only manage what you measure. Based on this maxim, it is recommended that one of the Manager’s first tasks would be to establish an annual parking occupancy data count for both on- and off-street parking facilities. This data is essential for evaluating whether the demand-based pricing policies recommended are achieving their goals. Demand-based pricing policies are based on the goal of meeting target occupancy levels to ensure that there are always an adequate number of parking spaces available, that “cruising” for a parking space is limited to greatest degree possible, and that parking demand is evenly distributed. As part of Recommendation #8, this Plan recommends an initial pricing structure to help the City achieve 85% and 90% target occupancy levels for on-street and off-street spaces, respectively. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that these pricing levels will be higher or lower than needed and will have to be adjusted accordingly. Without adequate occupancy data, however, it will very difficult to determine whether the pricing and regulatory structures are having their desired effect. By developing a formal data collection process, the City will be able to better understand its parking supply and quickly make adjustments to its pricing and regulatory structure to respond to changes in parking demand. Furthermore, ongoing data collection can improve transparency in decision-making and public understanding of parking behavior. The City should collect occupancy data for Main Street and selected off-street parking facilities. Above all, consistency is the most important part of any data collection effort, as it allows for easy comparisons over time. The baseline data collected as part of this study should serve as a foundation for future data collection efforts. There are a number of potential methods by which the City could collect the necessary data, including: . Manual counts conducted by trained surveyors (such as the Park Rangers). . Automatic data provided by parking meters. Automatic collection of such data would depend on the type of meter installed for on-street facilities.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-20 Page 153 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. At a minimum, data should be collected and analyzed on an annual basis. For example, if manual counts are utilized, they should be done during the peak period of demand. It is recommended that both an hourly Thursday and Saturday count be conducted during a non-holiday week between March and October. . If feasible, another count during the off-peak period should also be conducted to evaluate off-peak pricing and regulatory structures. Once again, consistency is most important and subsequent counts should take place at the same time each year. . Depending on use of parking meters, however, it is also possible that occupancy data could be collected and analyzed much more frequently.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-21 Page 154 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Long-term (within 3-5 years)
#12. Identify additional opportunities to expand the public parking supply, either through a public-private partnership to create a mixed-use parking garage project in the Uptown District or the development of additional remote parking facilities connected by a shuttle circulator. 2005 Recommendation: . Three potential sites identified, but parking management recommended prior to construction of new facilities
2005 Status: . Not applicable
2012 Recommendation: At this time Uptown does not need additional parking supply. The parking counts from 2005 and 2012 conclusively show that while on-street supply is constrained, there are hundreds of available parking spaces in off-street lots at almost all times. The parking management strategies outlined above are designed to enable the City to better utilize the existing supply in the immediate and short-term. In short, a new parking structure or the construction of new supply is not recommended at this time. However, as new development occurs, the economy continues to recover, and parking demand increases in Uptown, the City should evaluate the construction of an additional parking lot or a parking structure. Given the costs associated with building new parking facilities, as described in greater detail below, it is recommended that the City explore public-private partnerships as a means to finance such a costly investment. Furthermore, the City should explore alternative development scenarios to simply a parking lot or structure, and seek to prioritize mixed-use development which includes a retail or commercial component. No matter its size, location, or other uses, a parking facility is going to require substantial public investment. When evaluating development of a parking structure, it is important that the City comprehensively assess all of the costs associated with parking structures. These include: Capital Costs . Construction costs: Construction costs represent the actual cost to build and are often referred to as “hard” costs. It is important to emphasize that construction costs are highly dependent on local and project context. The size, type, physical design, location, shape of parcel, soil condition, water table depth, and topography can all affect construction costs. In recent years, the median construction costs for parking structures across the country were estimated at $16,323 - $18,300 per space.6 . “Soft” costs: Capital costs should also include “soft” costs, which typically include project planning and design, architect/consultant fees, legal fees, construction management services, etc. Soft costs are generally estimated as a 25-40% mark up of per
6 Rowland, Joey D. "Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2011." 2011. www.carlwalker.com/press/newsletters; RS Means (2009). “Building Construction Cost Data, 2009.” (Kingston, MA: Construction Publishers & Consultants, 2008).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-22 Page 155 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
space construction costs. Soft costs are also largely dependent on the local context and may also take into account any project contingencies, typically another 10-15%. Operating Costs . Debt service: The construction of a parking structure will require long-term financing. As a result, there will be annual, ongoing costs to pay off the debt obligation. The level of this annual payment will depend on the initial capital budget and financing rate. . Operation and Maintenance: Parking structures require ongoing investments to ensure their efficient operation and upkeep, including: enforcement, insurance, labor, administration, security, and various maintenance needs (cleaning, lighting, repaving, landscaping, structural upgrades, etc.). These costs are also highly variable, but, on average, it costs $450-1,000 per space per year to operate and maintain a parking structure.7 Environmental Costs The development of new parking facilities has impacts on the environment. Parking facilities increase the area of impervious surfaces, contribute to heat island effects, and can impact stormwater runoff.8 While parking structures can mitigate these effects more effectively than surface parking lots, the externalities still exist. The actual construction of parking facilities consumes large amounts of energy and materials, and also results in additional greenhouse gas emissions.9 Finally, parking structures do generate vehicle trips and can create localized congestion, which may impact nearby businesses or residents. Land Costs As with all development, the cost of land is a key consideration. One square foot of land in a CBD or near a popular commercial corridor will have higher costs than one square foot of land in a suburban or undeveloped area. The issue of land costs underscores the fact that there are definitive tradeoffs in choosing to construct a parking structure – land devoted to parking prevents that land from being used for housing, commercial, or office uses. The higher the land costs the greater the potential opportunity costs and tradeoffs. Figure 5-210 provides an illustration of how the various costs described above translate to various parking facility and land use scenarios.11 In short, on an annualized basis, a new parking facility can cost between $700 and $4,400 per space per year. Potential sites . Municipal Lot . Tlaquepaque overflow lot and employee lot . Between Jordan Road and Van Deren Street at Mesquite Avenue
7 Litman, Todd. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II - Parking Costs. VTPI, 2012. www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf 8 Litman, Todd. Pavement Busters Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities. VTPI, 2011.www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf 9 Shoup, Donald. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005. 10 Analysis adapted from VTPI’s “Parking Cost, Pricing and Revenue Calculator.” www.vtpi.org/parking.xls 11 Assumptions include: 5% interest rate over 30 years; Soft cost markup: 25% (suburban), 30% (urban), and 35% (CBD); Spaces per acre: suburban (110/acre), urban (120/acre), and CBD (125/acre); Underground parking is assumed to have no incremental land cost; Does not include any property taxes on facilities.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-23 Page 156 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Figure 5-2 Example Parking Facility Costs, by Location and Type
Total Per Land Costs Construction Costs Per Space Total Annual Space Capital O&M Type of Facility Costs Costs Per Costs Per Per Space Space Per Acre Annualized Hard Soft Total Annualized Annual Space Suburban, Surface, Free Land $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $1,250 $6,250 $407 $6,250 $300 $707 Suburban, Surface $250,000 $2,273 $148 $5,000 $1,250 $6,250 $407 $8,523 $300 $854 Suburban, 2-Level Structure $250,000 $1,136 $74 $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 $1,626 $26,136 $500 $2,200 Urban, Surface $1,000,000 $8,333 $542 $5,000 $1,500 $6,500 $423 $14,833 $400 $1,365 Urban, 3-Level Structure $1,000,000 $2,778 $181 $20,000 $6,000 $26,000 $1,691 $28,778 $650 $2,522 Urban, Underground $1,000,000 $0 $0 $35,000 $10,500 $45,500 $2,960 $45,500 $650 $3,610 CBD, Surface $5,000,000 $40,000 $2,602 $6,000 $2,100 $8,100 $527 $48,100 $550 $3,679 CBD, 4-Level Structure $5,000,000 $10,000 $651 $30,000 $10,500 $40,500 $2,635 $50,500 $850 $4,135 CBD, Underground $5,000,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $14,000 $54,000 $3,513 $54,000 $850 $4,363
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5-24 Page 157 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
6 APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW NOTES Interview #1: Sedona Main Street Program Present: Jeremy Nelson, Phil Olmstead, Tim Ware (Nelson\Nygaard); Karen Daines (City of Sedona); Ray Cota (Chief of Police); Holly Epright (Main St. Program); Anne Di Battista; John Di Battista, Nancy Scagnelli (Esteban’s); Becky O’Banion (Zonies Galleria); David Tracy (Sedona resident); Lonnie Lillie (Best Western); Kyle Larson; Janeen Trevillyan; Sherry Weathers Date & Time: August 22nd 2012, 8-9 AM Location: Wayside Chapel Summary of Stakeholder Feedback and Discussion
What do you think are the biggest parking issues facing your neighbors, tenants, employees, or customers? . Need additional parking and to increase parking capacity – parking structure would be ideal . There is a perception about lack of parking – it is available but people just can’t find it New signage is helpful, but still not enough . Municipal lot is underutilized – hard to find, poor signage, no lighting, up the hill, farther away, no bathrooms. Circulator was discontinued in June 2011 due to concerns about ridership. “People find the Municipal lot by accident.” . Distribution of parking is not equal – more parking to the south than to the north Parking is dispersed, which leads people to search for parking . Employee parking can be an issue – employees don’t want to park in Municipal lot (poor lighting, farther away, etc.), so many will park on Main St., as well as Van Deren Street or Wilson Street between Forest Rd. and Apple Ave. . No enforcement on Main Street – attempts were made a few years ago, but never truly enforced the 3-hr limit [Note: the City is initiating enforcement of the existing time limits in the immediate future] . RV parking can also be an issue There are only a few spaces on Forest Rd. (poorly signed) and RVs are not allowed to park in the Municipal lot RVs will occasionally park on Main Street . Tour buses
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-1 Page 158 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
Signage for tour buses is also poor – not well marked when coming from north or south Buses load easily on Main Street, but issue is where they stage Buses will park on Jordan Rd., Hyatt lot, or behind business on Main Street (but only if they patronize those businesses) Number of buses varies by season, but usually 3-4 loads of day trippers per day Bus operators have stated that they are not coming through Sedona anymore because they cannot find anywhere to park . Some business owners are opposed to paid parking because currently there are no good alternatives – a free off-street alternative is crucial, and Municipal lot is not working well enough . One goal of Main St. Program is to improve relationships with nearby residents – parking is a major issue Van Deren and other streets are being used by employees Residents have strong concerns about adding more parking or building a structure o Additional traffic o Impacts on views o Construction impacts o Could hurt the small town “character” of Sedona
What are your ideas for managing parking in Sedona? . Potential opportunities for additional shared parking West end of Forest Road Hyatt lot, especially for more bus parking Property owner has stated that open to using lower dirt lot by Arts Center for additional bus parking (off of Art Barn Rd.) Additional lots on Van Deren that could be utilized Red Rock News has availability, especially on weekends Fire Department lot off of Forest Rd. Lot next to Coldwell Banker Lots along Jordan Rd. (between Schnebly Rd. and Apple Ave) 2 small lots off of Apple Ave. . Enforcement is absolutely essential, would solve most of the problems . Need to encourage an environment where people can park once and leave their car to walk around Circulator was needed and unfortunate that it was cut
How would you define a successful outcome for this project? . Develop a long-term vision for parking that seeks to remove politics from parking decisions – “We need to know we are going someplace.” . Well-signed, ample parking . Locals and visitors can find an available space
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-2 Page 159 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. Parking plan that works without sacrificing the nature, aesthetics of Sedona – “A parking plan that is for us, not another town.” . Traffic congestion and parking hassles should not be part of the Sedona experience Remote parking at the edges of Uptown: “You don’t park the cars inside the football stadium.” . Not just parking, but get people moving . More time shopping, less time parking . Need strong investment from the City
What would constitute a failure for this project? . Just another study that doesn’t actually do anything . Solving parking shouldn’t make traffic worse . Only listening to a few property owners and not the needs of businesses, residents, or visitors . A plan that is only “put on the backs of Uptown businesses”
Other Input . Late August is not necessarily the “high” season. October is most crowded, but late August would probably be an “average” week for activity. [Note: this input contradicts the input on timing from Group #2] . We would like to see some case studies (appropriate to Sedona) that are “small town” and/or rural in nature How do we define ourselves? How do we define our peers? Stakeholder Interview #2 Present: Jeremy Nelson, Phil Olmstead, Tim Ware (Nelson\Nygaard); Karen Daines (City of Sedona); Ray Cota (Chief of Police); Jennifer Wesselhoff (Chamber of Commerce); Nicole Davis (Cheers); John Davis (Cheers); Rob Arbogast (Cheers); Mike Cahill (Cahill Leather Company); Ralph Woellmer Date & Time: August 22nd 2012, 9-10 AM Location: Wayside Chapel Summary of Stakeholder Feedback and Discussion
What do you think are the biggest parking issues facing your neighbors, tenants, employees, or customers? . Parking capacity is the biggest issue in Uptown Locals no longer come because they can’t find parking . Poor visibility of Municipal lot is a major issue – people cannot find the public lot . Municipal lot is inconvenient ½ mile too far for employees (especially at night) Pedestrian wayfinding is poor Poor entrances and exits
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-3 Page 160 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. Employee parking is a major issue Park on Main Street and in neighborhoods for entire day Ongoing and daily battle with employees to get them to park off-street Why no follow through from the 2005 study on this issue? Karen: City will be hiring additional part-time staff to assist with enforcement Chief Cota: City had allocated funding years ago, but positions were cut with recession o Looking to hire 4 staff (about 100 hours per week) o Will be a pilot project o Initial courtesy notice o Hard to educate a community that is constantly changing – need more education and marketing . 3-hr limit is not enforced at all Can we enforce 3-hr limit on employees, but not on visitors? . 3 hours is too short – people can’t shop, have lunch, go on a jeep tour, etc.; people need more time to visit stores NN: 2005 study found that people spent about 2 hrs on average . Traffic is perhaps a bigger issue – there is no comprehensive traffic management plan Congestion can be “grinding” People circle and circle looking for parking Shuttle went away last year o Was supported by businesses, but residents thought it was not performing well enough We need a plan that covers all parking, traffic, and transit issues o NN: clarify that this is a study defined to update 2005 data and recommendations o Pedestrians significantly slow down traffic at roundabouts and at traffic signal on Main Street – during busy times, backups can be 3-5 miles
What are your ideas for managing parking in Sedona? . City needs to acquire land and build more parking Any kind of parking plan has to include additional supply Build a 2-level garage behind visitor center and make it paid parking . Potential opportunities for additional shared parking Red Rock News has availability, especially on weekends Pink Jeep lot off of Jordan Rd. . 7-10 property owners control 140+ businesses They control the agenda, not the businesses We need additional education for the whole community How do we reach out and speak to the entire community? Need more opportunities for people to be engaged on this issue
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-4 Page 161 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
There are 1,000+ employees and approximately 40-45 residents in the area. Residents don’t understand what the Uptown area brings to Sedona – we need more education . Need additional parking . Find additional, dedicated parking for employees . Jordan Rd. offers the best option for expanding supply and/or building new lot . Need to add supply not just for today, but future growth . NN: Can we ever build enough supply for the busiest weekends? Group: No, but we want enough to handle most weekends
How would you define a successful outcome for this project? . No paid parking . More capacity . Whatever allows people to park easily and stay longer . A cohesive agreement by the entire Sedona community – bring the residents on board
What would constitute a failure for this project? . No action . Discussing the same issues again in 5 years
Other Input . Late August is the wrong time to count because not as busy [Note: this input contradicts the input on timing from Group #1] NN can potentially work with City to supplement data with additional counts using volunteers Will also review 2005 data for comparisons, possibly make reasonable adjustments / projections of 2012 demand data based on 2005 variability across months . There is a strong concern among many merchants of the effect of paid parking Don’t want it to be tourist unfriendly Don’t want it to drive people out of Uptown “We are struggling to survive as it is.” Stakeholder Interview #3 Present: Jeremy Nelson, Phil Olmstead, Tim Ware (Nelson\Nygaard); Karen Daines (City of Sedona); Ray Cota (Chief of Police); Tom Gilomen (Cowboy Club) Date & Time: August 22nd 2012, 10-11 AM Location: Wayside Chapel Summary of Stakeholder Feedback and Discussion
What do you think are the biggest parking issues facing your neighbors, tenants, employees, or customers? . Enforcement is key problem
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-5 Page 162 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
. We have lost 25 on-street spaces since 2005 . Average check in his restaurant has dropped 20% since 2007
What are your ideas for managing parking in Sedona? . Willing to work together on this issue, but City is the biggest problem City won’t support a new parking facility because they want to spend money on more “visible” improvements . Uptown vs. West Side of Sedona Old vs. new businesses . Willing to pay for his employees to park elsewhere other than Main Street . Willing to help . NN: What do you recommend for parking management? Form a committee of 5-6 property owners to make decisions about parking in Uptown o Form a parking district Would agree that additional parking is needed – added 44 spaces for his employees
Other Input . Provided letter from some Sedona businesses expressing opposition to paid parking in Uptown . 100% against paid parking – no reason to put it in No one he has talked to is in support of paid parking Paid parking is all about politics and additional revenue for the City There is no paid parking in most AZ communities. Why here? Sedona would be the only one . LA community of San Pedro took out parking meters Stakeholder Interview #4 Present: Jeremy Nelson, Phil Olmstead, Tim Ware (Nelson\Nygaard); Karen Daines (City of Sedona); Ray Cota (Chief of Police); Vikki Schlee (Owner, Kid’s Corner and Tickle Your Funnybone) Date & Time: August 22nd 2012, 11 AM - 12 PM Location: Wayside Chapel Summary of Stakeholder Feedback and Discussion
What do you think are the biggest parking issues facing your neighbors, tenants, employees, or customers? . Lack of parking and finding parking are the biggest issues . Not enough signage and wayfinding Parking signs are too small Real-time signage is a great idea – had no idea existed
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-6 Page 163 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
What are your ideas for managing parking in Sedona? . New parking garage is a great idea . Get employees off of Main St. and designate employee parking . Make it 4-hr limit and enforce – only ones obeying 3-hr limit are first-time visitors . Enforce first and then reevaluate . Trolley was good idea, why not just run it from March to October and reduce the number of buses running
How would you define a successful outcome for this project? . Parking program that makes it more convenient to find parking
What would constitute a failure for this project? . People come in complaining about parking that puts them in a negative frame of mind
Other Input . Economy has really impacted sales - North vs. South end of Uptown . Even if parking revenue were invested in Uptown, likely would not support paid parking . Had no idea about meter technology, pay-by-cell, etc; this would definitely make it more convenient
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6-7 Page 164 UPTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2012 UPDATE | ADMIN DRAFT City of Sedona
7 APPENDIX B – 2005 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
See separate attachment for 2005 Parking Management Plan
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7-1 Page 165
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 166 Exhibit D – Case Studies
Example 1: Sarasota, FL
Sarasota, Florida has a population of 53,000 and sits on Florida’s Gulf Coast. A business owner who attended one of the Sedona’s public outreach meetings offered Sarasota as an example of a community where paid parking was unsuccessful. However, the very article presented by this business owner explained why it was unsuccessful, primarily that Sarasota used parking meters as a revenue generator instead of as a way to re-allocate excess parking demand.
In March 2012, Sarasota City Council voted to remove the paid parking in the area after protests from local merchants had been going on for weeks, claiming that the paid parking was killing their sales. But, these meters were not planned or installed with the goal of a more efficient use of public space. Downtown merchants were originally in favor of the paid parking, because a large amount of their employees were taking up the valuable on-street parking, and the City’s general fund did not have enough money to pay for enforcement of existing time limits. The local paper explained the situation this way, “The city[‘s] hemorrhaging parking fund sparked the call for paid parking several years ago,” with the idea that meters would be less maintenance and hopefully more revenue to use pay for enforcement and meter upkeep. It was also reported that demand for parking in this area was significantly less than, “what experts say is needed for a successful paid parking program.”
Example 2: Telluride, CO
The City of Telluride has a population of 2,300 and is nestled in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. It was chosen for comparison to Sedona because it shares several important similarities. First, its economy is also based largely on tourism. Secondly, as shown in the map below, it has a similar geographic imbalance between demand and supply of parking spaces on Main Street, To address this, the City proposed paid parking on the bulk of the main street (Colorado Ave), free time-restricted parking for the streets just off of Colorado Ave, and then permit-only parking on the residential streets just outside of that area in order to prevent diverted drivers from parking in close by neighborhoods and private lots.
There was also a significant investment into signage, leading motorists who prefer not to pay for parking to a “free parking all day” parking structure that the City built. This was implemented not just as a parking management plan but also a larger effort by the City to “Go Green”. The plans for these improvements cited articles used in Sedona’s Nelson/Nygaard study, citing that the management of public streets and parking areas shouldn’t simply re-direct traffic flows (though that is a great start) but also work to dis-incentivize private car use generally, by encouraging the use of public transportation also, and investing in those types of improvements almost simultaneously.
The City of Sedona’s similarities in its interests in efficiency while also striving to accommodate visitors, show that the Sedona may have much to gain from using paid on street parking not as an end-point of Uptown parking management, but as a starting point. And though during our public outreach meetings merchants and other concerned Uptown community members consistently disapproved of the idea of paid parking, there was quite a bit of interest from them in other, related public transportation investments and ideas around possibly investing revenue gained from parking meters back into other solutions of this type. http://www.telluride-co.gov/index.aspx?NID=159
Page 167 the heart of the City’s business/retail district.
Example 3: San Pedro, CA
The removal of San Pedro’s paid parking was announced in the L.A. Times in August 2012 with these telling opening sentences: “City Hall has been squeezing every penny out of Los Angeles motorists in recent years, approving hundreds of new parking meters and repeatedly jacking up parking fines. But one corner of Los Angeles has managed to buck the tide...” The article goes on to explain that the push to have the parking meters removed first began 3 years prior in 2009, after L.A. officials quadrupled the price of parking in the entire district (645 parking spaces) in an “urgent effort to make some cash ... in the middle of a recession.”
San Pedro is included as an example of project failure because one of the citizens who participated in the 2012 Sedona study had brought it to the City’s attention. At the time the study was being done, San Pedro had just removed their parking meters. San Pedro is another example of a city that chose to implement and consistently raise the price of its paid parking without laying the type of groundwork that Sedona has and implementing for the wrong reasons.
Page 168 According to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the population of San Pedro, CA is about 89,000. Their Community Development Plan has only been updated twice in the City’s history, the most recent being in 1999. That plan specifically talks about the area’s already struggling retail district citing one of their main issues being, “poor physical condition of older commercial areas and proliferation of unsightly facades,” and “[A] lack of a unifying design theme that supports the idea of San Pedro as a destination.” This community’s business district was already struggling to attract visitors and, according to a Community Impact Statement sent to the City of L.A. in protest of meter rate hikes, “[Our] downtown retailers are primarily small businesses that serve low-income families. Even in a good economy there is a higher than normal turnover and a number of vacant stores.”
These conditions are in stark contrast to Sedona’s Uptown area. While given the conditions in San Pedro, it was poised to suffer from higher priced parking, while Sedona is poised to benefit from some pricing, due to its strong demand for parking. Because San Pedro already had its parking spaces priced at rates that could not be supported, raising those rates was detrimental. Uptown Sedona however, has excess demand for its on street parking, while its off-street lots continue to go underutilized. It is with this, “demand based pricing,” (so named in the 2005 and 2012 Nelson/Nygaard studies) that we see emphasized all that Sedona has to gain by redistributing just enough motorists to make better use of our free public lots and make prime parking spots more available for those who are willing to pay for them.
L.A. officials were not at all shy about the decision to raise prices on parking in San Pedro being made in the interest of generating revenue for the city. The City of L.A. also added all of the parking revenue into the City’s general fund, leaving those locals without anything to gain. As was mentioned in the public outreach meetings on this topic in November, the revenue generated by Sedona paid parking kiosks will be reinvested into Uptown. Because the City of Sedona seeks to use this as a parking management tool, not a revenue generator, the City has the freedom to adjust this demand based pricing as much is as needed in order to accomplish the outlined target occupancy rates. This makes “failure” quite improbable as it ensures the city’s ability to adjust parking rates to accommodate any changes to traffic flows, amounts of visitors, slow/busy seasons and the like.
Example 4: Park City, UT
In the discussion of San Pedro, and in that of Telluride, it was mentioned that the revenue generated by paid parking kiosks in Sedona could be re-invested to create further parking and traffic management improvements in Uptown in the future. One instance of this concept at work can be seen in Park City, Utah. Other reasons for comparing Sedona to Park City include their populations/general size, business district geographic layouts, and their heavy economic reliance on tourism, all being incredibly alike.
Park City decided to implement paid parking in the mid 1990’s for almost identical reasons to Sedona. That was considered a bold move for the city at that time. An article in their local paper actually referred to the new meters as “state of the art”, hinting that their sophistication may even feel daunting to visitors because the meters were some of the first in the nation to take credit cards instead of just coins.
Many of the business owners on Main Street expressed frustration as they felt caught torn wanting better parking management but did not want to risk driving business away. Though a single business owner from Park City did feel that the meters cost them some local business in
Page 169 the first few years, by and large the meters are now accepted and considered an integral part of their parking management.
All of the other negative comments received from individual business owners in the area, along with official statements from their equivalent of a main street program, were either not yet applicable to Sedona, or completely predictable by all of the research and assertions already presented in this exhibit. They were either about old meters that needed better maintenance and replacing, or about people feeling that there was insufficient free parking options for those motorists who preferred not to pay and simply to walk further to Main Street.
These problems were addressed by reinvesting revenue generated by those meters into a parking structure, which gave the redistributed motorists someplace to go. This was also implemented with a large investment into better public transportation especially to and from the new parking structure (which would also be an option for the funds generated by on-street paid parking in Uptown).
Page 170