HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1994, 1 - MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES J?
MEETING GATE:
"����n��i�►��IIIII�III�aII�III city of San tins OBISPO tat
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N MBEF: /
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 (corner 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
iiliil!NNIIVI����C�f��Ilj`IIIII� City Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Council Agenda Report
Page Two
i 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 maintenance costs would continue to be about the same as they have been in the past
($500 annually).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Maintain existing district boundaries (Exhibit D). Staff can support this option.
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
/'Z
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 8am 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
�-3
Resolution No.
Page two
On Motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ,day of 1994
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J4I
n
Y AItOrn v
0
O
26, �d M
JI
321 791 761 769 241 215
II1/ 274 216 730 206 \
1216
19 Id 171 139 151 C
as ,2 L %
rn '"1
W Ile 9%, to JOY 4Q,1274 4i•
A�
1276 ti �,�! /6
x61
271265 :31
9 i \
•and \
1 ,01
270 1 260 1 230 220 �Lp`I� :� \
0
139 \
A3TN 125 117 \
169 ILL 619 ILL S19 609 6U 791
1373 1376 311 3NVl M31AONOl
Iwo 306 304 300 261 201 2m230 206205 1405
n
1452 777 772 ;N •1629
233 4e 212 1441
369 343 213 i
260 216 1453 1
3N� X03 2115 :1930 D
366 ?!� 7— 220 1475
1313 In b „ 723 CO
3oj 290 vv m 226 1497
mO 1526 l3j '�I 216 1503 I
_1 1574 �JIt "441325 ;m
•C 0
.Z
ls90 a"� 1511 I 1 A Z x m
rn 3e5
3" 325 303 M 293 261 3l 1 N N v Z
3n1aa
�p>c3tn
354 36z 296 .54 27e X66
I373 � �m� Z O
1616 16x1 1391 Z Z-<y Z m.Z7
INI m 1632 1631 •1 �m m , (O/)
1633 1646 1647 H I A x F�Z � Cov
1"1 1e66 1661 1 -O 0 �. O
1676 1667 2t I Z CZ,' .� Z
1693 m
�c3o� v�
1701 I (7m7^�o m m m�
1706 I -i m� m
0 1710 I Z
mZm m (q
1739 1740 C I m N i
1760 mm�n r
my
1760 � � j Z�Zv D
411 395 ]S] 323 311
2 �
GRAND AVE. mv Z
11111 TT ISI TT -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
ITO R 'Y
l—�
o
O II mZ®
9��O 1�dpN o
281
321 291 IBI 269 241 213 \
214 1 246 230 tae Ln
°°� \z jT•{ '� C
CP
m
9r's/y U
-01
G
]—
•aG
1 1721 164 148 t .D
RI 2
Nool,
1TrT
17I 165 231
•3/x'9' e \\ Z
'o
739 \
A31TV 125 117 \
JLC 64L 7ZL S7L 6oL ISO [91 —
1373 1376 3113NVI M31ADNO1
I+oo 306 304 300 284 �, X250 206
n 203 206
tut 23rj X13
f`b 248 21s 212 I
30
369 345 J?J 2 260 218 I
3N'� Jp3 20 z,e
3� 366 D 17� > 220 14
1515 „ 22s m
290 tea• f71 226
v1528 'J' ~ 2•,6
1374 J`tJ 244 I O D�
C;�
x 1590 tibg 1 ;aZxm
(p 385 3n 325 30.1 293 261 �S1 I UI N O Z Eq 0
3AING ti'p I ;p c�v7 (- 0-0
384 278 I C—;o
c;0 Z (A
�1618 _ 00 ZZ�V)Z
n N j 0m
1x73 1646 rr I z F N Z 0 k
1661 '� PI Cho O� �.
1676 7 �I Zo1� vrn W
1791 s I m o m rn ��
,7081740 I r i m m m
o I mZmm NZ
n39 1740c m D
1769 I m N (7 r
1769
I ZmZO
41, 395 353 323 311 265 r D
GRAND AVE. m
Z
O
EXHIBIT A /4
��►►�►►���►���ii�iili1111111111111�1°'°""'►i II
cityof sAn tuts oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
July 5, 1994
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Council Member Allen K. Settle
SUBJECT: Item No. 1 on 7/7194 Council Agenda
Because Henry Case and Tom Kaye will be out of town on Thursday, as well as myself, I
would like to ask that Agenda Item No. 1, modification of the existing preferential parking
district near Cal Poly, be continued to the Tuesday, July 19th agenda.
AKS:klc
c: John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Jeff Jorgensen
Mike McCluskey
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
COUNCIL ❑ CDDDIR - MEETING AGENDA I
V 03 jeplleN )ATE �- ' ffW#
C� P� IEF
RNEY P
El
CHF RECEIVED June 28, 1994
LICE
❑ MWTEAM ❑ RECDIR JUN 'L 9 1994
Honorable Mayor ° I s
of
MIRci
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO&CA
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 we 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 applique 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
theyetitionin:?: niehttime 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;
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 everything 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 will not approve our plan, then we ask that the Council grant us two requests:
■ That Orange Drive and Longview 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 understand the nighttime regulations. After one year, this situation can be reviewed
easily.
l=oci/sl I1 131ad.
■ The conunittee requests that Slack StreetFand 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,
Henry a. Case Tom K y Dominic Pere Ilo ' '
Other committee members:
Phil De'ak Bev Green Perry Irwin Mike.Lee John Milton
Don Parce Joe Somsel Marlin Vix Barron Wiley
t � W
u > 0 4 yay a DO A
My .. o ... V ' $ .0
0 $ 04 a C °o_ E
_ ,7C. C _
C a•, •V .D O• N
0 " ..
o E r 5 0 0 u
U NZ w W c4 a� � °o z vs �v
. � � u •' a .-Tr N V h d 7
C C N
a cc
U U
T T E A
z .Z° 2 0 Z A C� ° U Luh Z z U S° U
N w F
OU v v
a ril ell
U
y.
> a a ai a a a a
Ie7
P. •C
C .> O O. G
y ° e C y Q G y ate, JC P
\ w fsWlFEv+ " 3 �! Avnoob ° U� ww
T��v M.
.�°. c �. Jt
atoq aem E ° Er
EaE � TF =;�.
Hou 2 0 . ° ° w � c � -- � h
r 5 �° Q c a � 0 �: '". w m cn � Ov► Naw ens
,4 a
V E.., uC"• v E d
J w v a T V
t Q W U vr- .a 04
fY H >
uh Ems ,, oU e
:3'a $ u n •E o lu
o o a
N �H O N !CA .�C.
ka wo0 $ „ Ex m.. T3 eEg vra � 9m � o °.'j
tC
�j O H E [� a C ?' 0. L a S N i .8 .1 Z r y P El
x 04 a u x u �; F; 0 E c 'e -x .% y '0 3u ,o.33 '—p °.
_ 4
IgE oix x5 o `y° � gz8-Mg y4y 9 9
.�.' Io ... e` W NQ N 3
C-4
W a\ l`.0.i aGtl u N 3 0. roQvla
'^ 3
O y
p .c
U O ; Ow
IN
� a
`� Ha 3F aio°4 wa ai � v, r� N � aria �
1 kD�
N
vj U y g 9j[ a v3 C co 3
F V J x� • O V V •Ni co
\ N •q p T C d
. •$ 7 rm 7 U O 1°�i C y y Ly A
_ ED 'Cpp O 00 6 Ld
a > to=MU w
O N ;� � S �° � � S E N
U
on
g $o c
a a'� .040 3 c.cn 3!
• .1 1 y
x r o 0 0 '� a o C o °� .. G cc
ate. > • 'a > ` 4 g as > as 5� U `� ca°
ti > a > a
F. 17.1 FI �-. RI d �. !. zo 17.1 L7 L7 r4 0 Z,
tel,
• u
'O
.. 3
OU - c u w U a
C W '7 'O 'O a OD
W Ez u >*
M E'' iX
H a4 lZ. ca ci:'C a a a: cx lz. a:
W4 WR /Js 4 4
12
r0 .-cnao A $ a
'5 0 .. d n-2 .-S '5 E
y 3 u 3 03 Vas c 3aV cis 3`0
A E � a 3
1 W U 0 U •O U 5
° '' E c� E c>i ' S �S A ,� `r' 'E43
u
o� alp n = 8N cM N au 9 •� .
O o f D o w cn vi V� 5 V%V9 D w 4 cn t v� cn Vn V9 ]vi
O =1 4 N C a�
acv V 3o
g ^ � E yo E�N ? g in >p .
°oI
9
o s Eyu > e=D0 u xuad
Ea4A �T �
ca81U >. c% E.
L C c•S > "� E aLi y >
ac NA o o. � u 83 0 0 o c•• o
O cn :60 Q .. Z -cA a� a w E z 3 3a. C4 6%IM
T >+ T
N
At ] _ v
� � E.S' o s' ��� eD A = •5 � $1 � eD •o S. E a � SI
x Erx x Ea E Ems ` 3 Ex '^ ,� Ea
ap va, :coCd. c:ca ooty " aa w 5a - oor xa E
P. cc cc u ca u m rou yo yo i� y y0 y. 0 dry( = 1 A yw
0000a .. 00 ac 00 00 Nz {� vP, Nz P. \0 W WCV OI
o a �
03 Ud W ca v N
qQ19
a aw �
p: p
p
a> DD G w > 'G C Z
Uti .-1 wv, f'� vi .� � .'� mu OF aid g
MEET AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
............ .......
4aj
L
..... ............ .
t
op,
NCIL 0 CDD DIR
E3 RN DIR
ISAMU--0.FIRE CHIEF
CDD DR
RN—DI RD
CHIEF
FIRE _HIEF
Ww*MRNEY awwmm
C
SWOMPYKIM131— 13 POUCE CHF
C I RECEI%fr.— Dr—--------
0 MGMTTEAM 0 REC DIR
U L I�
11 UTIL DIR Jul
JR 0 P tS Dip
13 PERS DIR– ------ —-----
'Crry COUNCIL
SAN