HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1994, 1 - MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES MEETING DATE:
oIH�I�II����I�I���II �IIIIIII city of San tins OBIspo - ' q y
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N MBER:
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Modification of existing preferential parking district boundaries
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a resolution establishing new boundaries for the preferential parking district for the
Alta Vista neighborhood and rescinding Resolution 7008
2) Adopt a resolution establishing the civil parking penalty for Municipal Code section 10.36.233
(parking in yard) at $10 and setting the fees for replacement parking permits at $15 and $25
DISCUSSION:
At the May 24th City Council meeting, a public hearing was held to consider changes to the
boundaries and hours of enforcement and operation of the existing preferential parking district
adjacent to the Cal Poly campus. Council approved an ordinance which changes the methods
for issuing parking permits and findings for establishing parking districts. The ordinance change
also established the enforcement of parking in yard violations as a civil parking citation. The
issue of the existing district boundaries was not acted upon at that time, but rather was intended
to return to council at a later date for final approval. Because the approved ordinance changes
were only supported by a slight majority (53% signed petition in favor of changes), council
directed staff to survey fringe portions of the district that indicated low support (50% or less)
to determine if residents want to be part of the parking district as amended by the changed
ordinance.
Boundaries
Staff surveyed 48 residences, on McCollum, Foothill, Hathaway and Bond Streets, to ascertain
if they wanted to be part of the new district. Sixteen responses were received, with 14
indicating they want to be included in the district, and 2 not in favor of being part of the district
(Exhibit A). As only 33% responded to the latest survey, staff compared these results to the
original petition that was circulated in the neighborhood to change the parking district
requirements. Since some survey blocks did not respond to the latest survey, the original
petition results were used to help determine the final boundaries. The staff proposed district
(Exhibit B) is essentially the same area that was submitted at the May 24th public hearing with
a few adjustments. Thirty-one Hathaway favored being part of the district because of their
unique problem of having red curb in front of their home and being completely surrounded by
the district, so it was placed back in the district. The two "no" responses (comer lot at 296
Albert and the lot at.1693 McCollum) did not wish to be part of the district so they have been
excluded. The two adjoining addresses on McCollum (1677 and 1661) did not respond to the
original petition or recent survey, so they too have been excluded from the district. This results
>>h7►iufVIIIIIIIIIP�►��►i�Il�hl city of san Luis osispo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Council Agenda Report
Page Two
in a known 50% approval for the remaining portion of this block for the new district. Based on
the results of the original petition and recent survey, staff supports the boundaries as they are
now being proposed.
Parking in Yard
In an effort to increase the number of staff that could write citations for parking in yards and
to simplify the processing, the former criminal infraction for this violation was changed to a civil
parking penalty. This action will allow parking enforcement personnel to write parking in yard
citations as part of their routine enforcement. The penalty to be applied when enforcing the new !
parking in yard ordinance needs to be formally adopted under the new civil proceedings for
issuing and processing parking citations. Under current law, issuing agencies now set the
penalties for all parking violations written by city employees. Staff recommends the adoption
of this resolution (Exhibit C) establishing a $10 penalty for parking in yard violations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The direct fiscal impact from establishing new parking district boundaries will be nominal.
Relocating parking district signs and poles would be the primary cost which is estimated at$600.
Ongoing mainienance costs would continue to be about the same as they have been in the past
($500 annually).
ALTERNATIVES:
i
1. Maintain existing district boundaries (Exhibit D). Staff can support this option. i
Exhibit A-Map of Survey Results
Exhibit B-District Boundaries Resolution
Exhibit C-Parking in yard and replacement fee Resolution
Exhibit D-Existing District Boundaries
calresol
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING AN AREA OF THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT AREA
AND ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF SAID AREA AND TIME
OF RENEWAL FOR A PARKING PERMIT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7008
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has received a petition from a
majority of the residents living within the neighborhood shown on Attachment 1 and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the quality
of life for the residents of this area has been adversely affected by residents and visitors using
the neighborhood streets for excessive parking and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the
restriction of resident and visitor parked vehicles on neighborhood streets will improve
pedestrian and vehicular safety and allow residents to gain proper access to their residences and,
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis has held a public hearing to consider
the changes to the parking district and permit distribution requirements and has determined the
changes will improve the qualify of life for the district residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 7008 (1991 Series) is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 10.36.170 et seq. of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code the residential parking permit area is hereby established as shown on Attachment 1.
SECTION 3. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a
permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the drivers side of the vehicle may park on any
street in the designated area between the hours of Sam and 5pm, Monday through Friday, except
for holidays honored by the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 4. The Public Works Department shall be directed to post the area with signs
that clearly indicate these restrictions.
SECTION 4. The Parking Division shall issue residential parking permits on demand as
permitted in Section 10.36.220 of the Municipal Code. Permits shall be issued for a year
effective September 15.
EXHIBIT B 9
�J
i
i
Resolution No.
Page two
On Motion of- -- --_-- — —_-- .. .. ,secondedb.y - ---_-- ,
and on the following roll.call vote:
i
AYES-
NOES-
ABSENT.:
YES-NOES:ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this' -,day of _ _ _- 1994
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
I _ _
City Clerk -
i
I
APPROVED AS TO FORMS:
R
CIly AHOY v
0
- o�,
31
321 791 781 769 241 215 \
\
1x„ n, 741 730 1 :oe \
txla ,y 4`�
1 218
no
191 1711 15911 151
*Na
113172 164 148
1x347
1274 `4
1276
781 771 1 265 731 ` -Y-]•
9 : \
•3Ad \
1201 x70 x60 7.10 x70
'o
1S9 \
1.317 175 117 \
16L ILI PC ILL SIL 69L 6x1 S91
1373 13-76 311 3NVl M31ADNO-1
asm
Joe 301 Sao29, 101 n x0xtos" 1,05
7733 W 211 208 .1129
Z3 rZ 719 212 1111
369 J03 1 713
3A3 `777 z
x87 x80 216 113.1
3N,� •bJ 719
30 J66 ra � 220 1475
ISIS m 707 290 •+sv 3 m 728 1497
Q 1578 1J) "1 276 1507 I
�) 1571 q`V 714 1525 >-<C>A
1500 41`h 1 1511 I 1 m z 7C m
(n 385 377 377 307 299 793 701 J. N mv Z m
3AINa s� +� 1555 1 o{c)In p-p
381 Sax 7047 rot 3747 1573 I CN; u
s9rm Z O
M 16"
1621 1591
00>m— m�
16 -U
1671 m ,632 1631 ,: m m N
1533 16,6 t647 1 >O Z C (D m
y m
Fwz tOv
1661 1660 zx
ta61 1 O�m O'V
16747 ,e67 x z z Z m
1693 IC)oD p-ri
1701 i �I momm ��
1706 n,o m ZI m m
mZmm V)Z
1739 1710 c i
I m
X I760 mm* r
m1A
1780 Z W Z D
411 395 337 323 711 295 r D
_ ;u
GRAND AVE. o
Z
-TITl1 f 1Tlf 111 ���
FTM -s
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS .OBISPO
ESTABLISHING THE ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING IN YARD VIOLATIONS AS A
CIVIL PARKING CITATION AND SETTING THE PENALTY AT $10 AND
ESTABLISHING FEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT
PERMITS AT $15 AND $25
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has approved changes to the
requirements for preferential parking permit districts and,
WHEREAS, the enforcement of parking in yard violations will be conducted as a parking
citation and state law provides that cities establish the amount of parking penalties and,
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No 8202 (1993 Series) establishing fees,
penalties, surcharges and processing of parking citations as required under current law and,
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Municipal Code section 10.36.221 regarding lost, stolen
or defaced permit replacement and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 10.36.233 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
parking in yard violations shall be enforced as a civil parking citation.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 40203.5 cities shall establish
the amount of parking penalties and the City of San Luis Obispo sets the penalty for Municipal
Code Section 10.36.233 at $10.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 10.36.221 the fee for replacement of lost, stolen, or
defaced permits shall be $15 for the first and $25 for the second replacement permit
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EXHIBIT C
/-6
Resolution No.
Page two
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1994.
MAYOR PEG PINARD
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
APPROVED
IR� Y
0
°o
281 �d M
1
321 291 281 269 241 215 \
274 240 230 206
ti�j ` CP R1 ' 7D
U r
191 171 159 151 - r
'80 9L p n
1 172 164 148 9
o "D
fn
271265 231 �
'3A V ' `\ Z
270 260 730 220
0
139 \
A3TIV 125 117 \
lLL 64L ,LL S1L 50L 60 [91
1373 1375 31111 3NVl M31ADNOl
1400 308 304 300 284 201 X250 206
205
123 O 206
1452 23.4 213
24 � 2� 215 212 '
J69 J!5 J1J2 260 216 I
3Nd1 Jpl � 219 D
lea 386 17! r 220 14
1515 M 290 •+mp 22 5 m 228 7
ml I
1578 -I
J�
;U ,574 1� 24 6 I ;1 -<0>--1
X1590 1a� ;ozx r^
N 385 377 325 303 293 26, 1s? [31 m o Z
3N214 '� ;o�c�rn C-
304 270 a� I C —iV
3 �m� ZOO
1616 _ Fz?<, m�-0v
1631m feu 10-4 o to--II m
1633 1646 I m M r��z t v X
1661 1660 ' O 0 0 0 O
1676 7 A� Z0lu{ Zi11
one ioo> a-q J
1701 t; tal momm ��
_ J
1706 L7 17,0 ' r:x, m m
0 mZmm v
1739 1740 c ' m to
D
1760 m N�O r
1760v
I
zas 1 Z Co D
4„ 393 353 323 377
GRAND AVE. mo
Z
O
EXHIBIT A ���
COUNCIL 0 CDD DIR MEETING AGENDAR-K '
. O FlNIMAE CHIEF TE �- - ITEM #
�Ifd'ATT RNEY PW VDI
RK+ORIG O POLICE CHF RECEIVED June 28, 1994
O MG TEAM O REC DIA JUN `L `J 1994
Honorable Mayor C IL of�i��Oki E S DIR CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO&Cts
The Public Works staff issued a report on the Greater Alta Vista Parking District based on
a plan they had previously rejected as being unsuited for San Luis Obispo. This resulted in
incorrect information in the report. We patterned our request on the Pasadena Plan, which
has been successful for 50 years, pays for itself and has made their neighborhoods
enjoyable and safe. At the May 24 hearing a proposal the staff had previously considered
acceptable, and was the basis for our petition, was now declared unacceptable and
unworkable by the staff. This was the first Ave had heard of that and we were not allowed
speaking time to identify the errors and supply the correct information.
The Parking Manager made a cost analysis that is not understandable, but the one thing
that is clear is his assumption that there would be fewer citations and the district would
operate at a loss. This led the Council to conclude that the district would have to be
supported by the downtown and the City. On later questioning, the Public Works Director
stated there was no intention to eliminate the random daytime patrol that produces these
citations. It was just assumed that fewer permits would result in fewer violations. We do
not believe this is a valid assumption.
For 15 years the City has received more than $4000 annually for the citations, a net
positive cash flow. Rather than the district being supported by the City, the district has
helped support the City. There is no reason this should not continue or even increase.
The Council was led to believe that replacing the signs to change the hours would be a
large cost that would never be recovered. Actually the cost of the signs in place has been
recovered multiple times, in 15 years.
The annual maintenance of the signs was apparently based on an average sign life of
about three years. Typically the average life of a sign is about five years. The current signs
have been there 15 years. Further, the signs that are still serviceable can be changed to
reflect different hours with an inexpensive sticky back appliqu6 decal. Residents have
offered labor to secure these to the current signs. There are 96 signs in the district of
which 11 should be replaced.
So, on the basis of incorrect information the Council threw out one of the prime reason for
the petitioning: nighttime control of car parking on the street-from 2 AM to 8 AM. This
turned a good proposal into far less than what some cities that have similar parking
problems have.
The staff showed a map of the district they prepared, instead of the map we had prepared; a,
our map showed homes not contacted. Staff kept quiet when the Council wrongly
assumed all of these houses opposed the petition.
On Bond Street, the council assumed that fewer than half the properties had signed
because the staff map did not show which streets the properties were on. Actually five of
the eight residences had signed. Some residents are very ill. In fact, since the hearing one
has died . Others do not have the capacity to understand or fear retaliation. Some were not
contacted because of time. Staff made no effort to correct their statement.
Slack Street, Hathway Street and Foothill Boulevard residents do not want to be out of the
parking district because they will become a free extension of Cal Poly parking lots . Some
do want different restricted hours because their problem is different from other sections of
the district, and we can see no reason why they should not have them. They have
indicated a need for 24 hour permit parking and felt our proposal would weaken their
future request for such a sub-district.
If our map had been used, the boundary issue would not have gotten out of hand. One
student who may be left out of the district was heard to say "it looks as if we all lost".
Another resident on Foothill wanted different hours than we had proposed and only
became vocal when it appeared he might be left out of the district.
We were astounded to hear the Public Works Director say that it would be difficult to
count the single garages and carports when there only about 33 homes in this category!
With a driver available for safety, a committee member was able to count these in 29
minutes. About 6 would require additional investigation if a permit were to be issued on
the basis of single carports or garages. We again were shocked to hear him say it would
be difficult to determine what a carport is. It might be just a piece of canvas over a car.
Incredible! Is this a third world country? We had hoped we lived in a San Luis Obispo
R-1 zone where all structures meet codes. He obviously is not familiar with the
neighborhood or the city.
The Public Works Department opposed the parking district when it was established 15
years ago and they exhibit the same bias. The best we can say is that they did not oppose
the nighttime hours, but did everything they could to scuttle the whole proposal with a
skewed and biased report.
We presented two excellent plans, either of which would be a credit to the City. We
understand that the staff report was hastily put together and even contained the wrong, but
very good, plan we had proposed earlier. We now have a mediocre ordinance that could
have been put together by the Council last October. It was not favored by the
neighborhood and will not contribute much to the neighborhood wellness desired.
We did evenihing the Council asked us to do and more. As requested by the Council,
members of the neighborhood committee met with the staff to develop a plan they would
not find objectionable. We were responsive to the staff suggestions in developing the final
proposal, we were told that we were in agreement and we.even petitioned a second time.
We were not even notified of the final staff meeting. After the fact we were ask why we
had not attended. No effort was made to reschedule nor were we advised of the subjects
discussed. Apparently it was at this meeting that all of the staff objections were made.
Year after year, the parking district has generated funds to be used for other purposes. We
did not ask for routine nighttime patrol that the downtown district has -- every night! As
taxpayers we pay for that, too.
To summarize:
■ We ask that you reconsider the hours of permit parking and grant us the hours from
2 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday as requested.
If you Nvill not approve our plan, then we ask that the Council grant us two requests:
■ That Orange Drive and LongVlew Lane -- two streets of the inner core that had the most
nighttime parked cars -- be made test streets with hours as requested above. Residents can
readily imderstand the nighttime regulations. After one year, this situation can be reviewed
easily.
r. ��-Nsi 11 �+���•
The committee requests that Slack Streetland Hathway Street from Longview Lane to
Orange Drive have hours changed to restrict parking from 8 AM to 12 midnight, Monday
through Friday (or other hours depending on the wishes of the residents).
These streets as well as parts of Kentucky and Orange are being heavily impacted
by faculty and students with nighttime classes and by those using the new sports
center. This situation has become critical since so much parking has been removed
from the campus and the campus permit hours have been extended to 10 PM.
Respectfully submitted, &
Heiury � Case Tom y Dominic PereIIo
Other committee members:
Phil De'ak Bev Green Perry Irwin Mike Lee John Milton
Don Parce Joe Somsel Marlin Vix Barron Wiley
C4 a cn bn (A yr '-. n
EA rb
�7
I'd "<��.( ` , y l+1 `y< `y>a^ `� "' y b},y/ da (71
y w Q . w O
0 C4 Lm
' o �d a Z rr m c a y
r7 a > C7 '4
a , , [rt con o
b 01 b z N b C' tr9 ',4' N 7 0 00 00 b 00 � ny 00 00
O w " P3 X O Po O co w w �u w M w w b
g orb .bo 3 „d ,d � 3 3 R° �
H 9 , 'd 9 w P'i w P; w b
o• C1w9 x � w x
.b � '� D. a'v 52 .S C% a�via t7 ao w� S b
El
`� pcpt�. •o o c, rn 1
y. ^ h
d 69 64 N b i' 7r ►h R, y Calc� w
110
-1 2n -1 Fun p' rn � O �" tc
`f D' p =r , � 'O h7 n =r o (D
�, s
0 cm
CD
0 r cn
to) yr��. _ LA N H p
�, �po• ^ O� b O 1 �w O x �, i :n �
CD tri
�- z
H
ts► C: 6'! cn W 69 W 67 C, 67 60 C, to 67 w 67 0 0 69 0
w7 Np� LA w �n � .- -nom b C"
A A 00 M P O to OCD CD0
-� � S. � • '' .-. � s. � din. X ~ � � " �°. � f D �,
b CD b ti �. H N N h
p COO
"0 CD Ra CD 0 C111
•nom b w 3. cn
o 'b 'b 7 h7
g ::l y Q F+ " $ ♦a ^ H Q1 QM C5 [r7
CD
0
FF F can K
cvn (� .can cao cao cau w M (7 O
06.
cn
Z Z Z n z f] Z zZ 70 �. � ZZ � ZZ
0 0 � ooh �; y 0 .0 � owe. ., 00 � o • �
x '� X CO (7Qnr C lcny m r, h7 y fD R M r. M yr tri
N. a
CD
CD co po
cd C A N C A CD CDy C A uCD
y C
••1 N ^ � 1 `t N ]••t H
R° w `r7 o VQ .'2. < b S' co En
r .� H
' to 0 rY�n O p N w u� n 8
^� O
1� ti� 'p aa•
0 `� co ..
y
w _
N
> o` cc
p
di v .T 4.r a du a�.a w
F/7DO
.o El
a .n ° ca � °� � o E
k-t > C 7 C oZJ O o
Q °S U E 'S C, any
O >, w .. a� F a. T:: > v y
U OD E 0. ° W :3 o v �U N z A. oG .� Zd e°
o h v w
C.
0 An
0 LA
0 Ln 0 CA
G7 N C •-" C N V O C O N
0 CO
W Cd Cd
ai E U E E >�
W � x .. x ,., � • a� .0 cs. x .o
> x o o w o o Lc,%j o cc x o o c o c
z z o z A U z U w Z Z UZ U
N w
[� O U
C�
Q N 3 3 -.,�
a >" En U �' Y U
E , A C:s U U C:8
e w U
cl Ci
1 Z C a
oo wN a3 oo .a czs a > w a
3 .�
U u
•+D �+ E w >, � �y ca
W .-. H cy
r ' 4° Q .° aN 04; v F, N o. ('M � .DH N �ilo cnc7+ E4A
� a
a
N
4 E" " O .° E w a�
Q w0 C14
U vr- :v yy' .o o
)v cm
yj O �• O O N N N N �d crrd cV y
O O' O 044. 4. O4' O O fL w F. N C
z ..
F. N � � Z O z z .r 69 M 69 N (A z
.. . >1
Cd 0
o � �
a Gra � � � „ �'� EZ ,�, E w ; you a� � •;?
°c 's Aao cE P4 -.3 fav OE q =
Vu E a~i $' C, a a z 8 rn ci
a, zP4 q f, zo
N
a. N A c $ N aq Ri rnG t7 •3 coo A to o.
o vi y Q
Q O U
ax0 ..�.
Q . O
U ,.p � u W
ax o z 10 Z .0
o �
Hx 3H � a ma r4 a H Dov