HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1999, 1 - MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT ��•
council
j acenaa nepoRt �uwhw
C I T Y OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: Modification of Residential Parking Permit District
CAO RECONE%IENDATION
1) Adopt a resolution establishing a revised residential parking permit district in the Monterey
Heights area as shown on (Attachment 1) with restricted parking between the hours of tam and
lOpm, Monday-Friday. 2) By motion, appropriate $2,000 from the unappropriated parking fund
balance for sign and pole installation and purchase of materials to implement the proposed
parking district. 3) Rescind Resolution No. 8670 (1997 Series) .
DISCUSSION
Staff has received another petition from residents living in the Monterey Heights area seeking to
establish a residential parking permit district in accordance with the provisions of Municipal
Code—Section 10.36.170 (Designation of residential parking permit areas), which requires the
support of a majority of residents living in the affected area in order to create a residential
parking permit district. The petition is requesting that parking be restricted between the hours of
2am and lOpm, Monday-Friday. This request is actually an expansion of the current Monterey
Heights parking permit district (Exhibit A). Furthermore, all of the residents within the
proposed expansion area were surveyed when the original Monterey Heights district was
established in 1997. However, at that time there was no strong support to expand the district
beyond what was being proposed.
The new petitioners (95 out of 107 or 89%) feel that in order to reduce noise, air pollution and
street litter, as well as relieve the burden on persons residing in the area in gaining access to their
homes and to prevent erosion of the quality of life in their neighborhood, establishing a
residential parking permit district is the means to meet these goals. Considering the concerns
expressed in the petition, staff conducted field surveys of the proposed district between 11-2-98
and 11-6-98 and again between 11-30-98 and 12-4-98 in order to ascertain the level of the
problem. The results (Exhibits B and B-1) of the field observations did support the petitioners'
concerns along some of the streets within the proposed parking district. The streets closest to the
campus (100-300 Grand and 1800 block of McCollum) were heavily impacted, with the
remaining streets experiencing a moderate to very low impact as you moved further into the
neighborhood.
Since there is a potential for the parking problem to spillover into the neighborhood if the district
was expanded, staff contacted the two adjoining blocks of Buena Vista Street to inform them of
the pending district expansion. There were no major concerns or interest to join the expansion
from these residential streets. Furthermore, since the proposed expansion ends at the freeway
1-1
Council Agenda Report—Residential permit district
Page 2
and Grand Ave. separates this district from the Alta Vista district, no additional neighborhoods
were contacted regarding the expanded parking restrictions. However, staff is recommending a
modification of the proposed district boundaries. Given the low usage along Lommis Street, and
the fact that there are only three homes along the freeway side of the street, staff recommends
that the nonresidential portion of Loomis Street not be included in the proposed district. This
recommendation provides the desired parking protection, while at the same time allows open
parking to help diffuse any spillover into other residential streets. Therefore, staff would
recommend that the district be expanded to the boundaries set forth in the petition except for
Loomis Street (Exhibit Q.
Implementation
Assuming passage of this District is approved, additional permits would need to be acquired and
signs and poles would have to be ordered and installed. Necessary paperwork for first-time
districts would be mailed to residents/owners during late February with enforcement ready to
begin in early April of 1999.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed hours of tam-lOpm, M-F for restricted parking fall within the responsibility of
both parking enforcement and the police. As with other after hours parking enforcement, the
Police Department would not be able to readily enforce the district other than in the early
morning hours, and only when appropriate staff was available. Also, the proposed district is
subject to patrol only when staff is available and/or on a complaint basis during the daytime
hours as well. The proximity to the current Alta Vista and Monterey Heights parking districts
could assist with enforcement during the daytime when enforcement staff are in the area, but this
is unknown for after hours enforcement by the Police Department. Furthermore, the Police
Department is also concerned that expanding parking permit districts without corresponding staff
unrealistically creates the expectation of routine patrol.
FISCAL IMPACT
Creation of the parking permit district would have some direct costs to the City. Sign and pole
installation would cost approximately $1,500. Additional permits and materials and processing
would cost approximately $500. Since there is no formal budget for creation of this particular
parking district, if approved, the monies would have to come from the unappropriated parking
fund balance. Conversely, there is a potential for producing parking fine revenues of
approximately $4,000-$6,000 annually depending upon the level of enforcement and the number
of citations issued. However, it should be noted that the priority for parking enforcement is the
downtown area, and the more time spent in the residential district translates to lost revenue from
unpaid parking meters and reduced parking citations, which could far outweigh the money
generated from the parking district citations.
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Residential permit district
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
Given the strong support (89%) and the proximity of the proposed parking district to the Cal
Poly campus, creating a residential permit area is the most effective means of meeting the wishes
of the majority of residents living in the impacted area. Thus, staff would recommend
establishing the residential parking permit district to help improve the quality of life for the
neighborhood.
Alternatives to the staff recommendation could come in many forms, e.g., no parking district;
larger parking district; changes in hours or days of enforcement; etc. Staff feels each of the
alternatives would not best meet the wishes of the neighborhood.
Attachments Proposed Resolution to Modify District
Exhibit A—Proposed District Map
Exhibit B—Field Survey Map and Car Counts
Exhibit C—Final District Map
Council Reading File:
—Petition from residents
I:councilagendreports/carmontereryheightsexpansion
1-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING THE MONTEREY HEIGHTS AREA OF THE CITY AS A
RESIDENTAIL PARKING PERMIT AREA AND ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS
OF OPERATION OF SAID AREA AND TIME OF REMOVAL FOR A PARKING PERMIT
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8670(1997 Series)
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has received a petition from a
majority of the residents living in the Monterey.Heights area as 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 non-residents using the
neighborhood streets for excess parking and;
WHEREAS, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the
restriction of non-resident parked vehicles on the 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 Obispo has held a public hearing to
consider the establishment of a residential parking permit district and has determined the parking
permit district will improve the quality 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. 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 2. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a
residential parking permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the drivers side of the vehicle
may park on any street within the district boundaries between the hours of 2am and IOpm, Mon-
Friday.
SECTION 3. The Director of Public Works 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 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Parking permits shall be
issued for a year effective September 15.
1-4
Resolution No:
Page Two
Upon motion of ________ ,,seconded by
And on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted.this ___ day of 1999
Mayor Allen.Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
< L
G. rg _. -ty Attorney --
1-5
MO"TEREY HEIGHTS PARKING "nISTRICT
- - P
130 -t 131 00
140 ml 141 150 145 0l o e oI
159 144 N N NI NI
166 165
v v v 161 166
cu cul
tn
m f7 P P O m O
mm m ml n m °. 190 0'l cl of of
HAYS - - - - Ni N N N
Lo
210 cl m aI m ml m N
--� m d - p m
m N N N I N
I49 240 241 1
---2 I 246
254 268 I
P p Y
N 1� P n p O p
m m m ul N m < o
m 276 P O N N 1011 N NI N0. N
MCCOLLUM `A
m ml m 310 m N N
NN 10N I o 2099
40 N n
300
d
343347 N N 21
m o 0
378 357 344
363
i
O O O
N 351
OPE
0 N ,u y N
0. r
� 3B3
N' P 1 r
� 411 � 410 N N Nr N
n
0
430 m m m ` N 405
- 411 > 428 435 430 1
ccq 423
476 48 449 Z 460 Z
460 47174 I 455 W
w cumm LU
m P m m m = 490 1m v I N D
o
• N N N I N
LOOMIS
520 I m I m
ABBOTT Z
� 0 1
>
�
� a I Q,� 1
cc z
W O� NOT M SCALE l
�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII city Or PREFERENTIAL PARKING
u IUI lul �J j' DISTRICT BOUNDARY
san Luis OBispO STREETS WITHIN BOUNDARY HAVE RESTRIA PARKING
BETWEEN 2AM—IOPM, MON. — FRI.
ATTACHMENT 1
ICI
Ij
LJ U
.01 < Q 1 > Iro I I
ZIw
Z. 1. j 0 I
V)
J�,1• YS ST. X w
a _ o HAY_ S ST.
10 • S ! I =II wl �I f Z
7M. ly U 7. "• .T1� � I RI �I \
Aj
- ffA BUEN i
I S
MO00LLUM ST. jig
MCCOLLUM S
I,o Q
_ 1
771 -
HOPE ST. <
Q Q .11 O � o� Q
41 N _. 473
LLJ
x i SA
cr u i .
C7
W Q
lit .1 �LOOMI
SST, LOOMIS m a'
MONTEREY HEIGHTS PARKING DISTRICT
AREA 1
AREA 2 — PROPOSED
EX$ZIT A
PARKING SURVEY
-CK
1,0 _) 0
130
.I 4
L160139
161
��.
r r r
0 0 o e w w w c 190 0 o e N 1 0^^JV
HAYS I CT
10
`r Y
O O_
�3 ..gq
24
4
V O
268 I N c
jil
f b P A N P o O O
O O O O 76
o o e v 2099
310 :' � N N N
o w 3
300 340 343 34 o N a
a w 337 44 a
a
378Fi
36
e
INN 41111
r N o N
a 376 w w Y n n .ee
'I00000
e J J e N
A
n S a w n 411 4 0 n -+ -{ I 403 '
r .+.
4 0 c 411. 20 w 433 X53 e a e
430
48 44 460
4
460 m a$ 47 4L n SI cN.
4 c c c w ''^ 0 490 �' N ^� 5
49
n n
n n
70
S O O
Utilization
HIGH 76-100%
MEDIUM 50-75%
LOW j 0-49%
r�� EXHIBIT B
Monterey Heights Parking Survey II
Car Count
11/2/98 11/3/98 11/5/98 11/6/98 11/30/98 12/1/98 12/2/98 12/3/98 12/4/98
Grand Ave.
100 BIR
*; 4 - t _•'ka n t � � y+rtt"� i'y.. �•I�'�fa.�" ``7„{'�'lc '�: �,iL.d' " `��:�} 'ra:Y�
200 BIk ,yr,"�-a..'..b'.•� g P � ,• a"o'�p�''4'' s�'°�6" w�a iv`$<" %t a'i� rl�'F a+7$a'/�'E�A r y Y�'G
t r• Y i rF.Z Si '}O�...��� w !' - R"t w �,� H q� .!a`�$1.�q t 't'S
300 Blk
400 B& 7 4 3 2 6 x 5 6 6 7
500 Blk 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
McCollum St.
1800 Bh `k a!
A44 1116 . . ,. _ ,.. :
1900 Bk 8
8 6 7 8 10 Q 8 Q
20010 Nt 10 10 14 9 8 9 11 10 6
Hope St.
1800 Blk 7 4 5 6 7 6 7 7 7
1900 B& 4 4 4 6 3 5 3 3 4
2000 Bk 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 9
Graves Ave.
300 Blk 7 4 7 3 4 4 6 5 3
400 Blk 3 3 3 2 4 6 4 5 4
Henderson Ave.
300 Blk 10 5 7 7 8 6 9 8 9
400 Blk 6 6 6 7 7 9 6 7 10
Loomis St.
1800 Blk 8 6 8 4 5 6 5 6 4
1900 Blk 2 7 5 6 6 5 6 5 5
2000 Blk 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 6 7
Buena Vista Ave.
300 BIk 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2
400 B& I I 1 1 4 2 2 3 3
Street Utilization
Shaded=76-100%
Underlined=50-75% p
Italicized=0-49% Eb&IT B-1
MO'"'EREY HEIGHTS PARKING "TSTRICT
20 130 1 110
131 00
vi N 1� N
140mI 141 150 145 N N N o.
.. I 159 144 N'
166 165
c e c. 6l 166 II1
No m P
HAYS
P' m m P vi
190 I NI npi. NI NI
-
210 !- m to m PI PI mI a a N1 p o
4 240 241 0 I
i246 \
254 I 268 1
� O
n ma P
N �
,lfli7 o1 00 0
w c g�QY/O L L U N N N 1 N
� NI
_ NI N
m m m 310 =�{I m o 0 0 2099
340 I - N I N N N
N
300 343 347 N d 21
N
78
378 ml 357 344
� 363
YI N N N m N
m m 76 °�` °: z Ne m l o p 351
N N
HOPE O O < N N c
p p
N
383
411 {`V 410I N N NI nl
o 10LU m 405
430 m m m 411 > 428 435 W 430 N
423
476 4 48 449 Z 4
460 z
V cc 60 471 ICwt,Is 74 I 455 W I
470 ml ml m m m m m a 490 I n n' m
N0
N npl N
LOOMIS �
520 m I m REQUESTED BOUNDARY
ABBOTT Z
N II O
W
cc Z
0 W O� \ NOT TO SCALE`
�IIIII ullllllll IIIIIIIIII IIIII�I���IIIIIIIIIIII (�1t / O f PREFERENTIAL PARKING
u IIII lul �+ �y DISTRICT BOUND1ARYsan 1 n
j Of
OBIO mi
STREETS WITHIN BOUNDARY HAVE RESTRICTED PARKING
BETWEEN 2AM-IOPM. MON. - FRI.
EXHIBIT C
CHARLES J. ARNI
MEE , AGENDA
DATE 2 a-G 1 ITEM
772 Johnson Ave.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401-2850
Phone 805-5448865
29 January 1998
EYCOUNCIL G CM)DA
City Yof San Luis Ob'
G CAO p FIN MR
990 Palm St 4 WPMOp E CHIEF
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 UCE CHF
Mr. John Dunn p T p REC MR
Mr Mayor Allen Settle � DPW R
Mr. Michael Mc Cluskey
Mr Kieth Opalewski
RE;Restricted Parking for neighborhoods.
Parking in some neighborhoods, (especially parts of old town),becomes nonexistent during the
week. Week day parking is mostly taken up by business, county and Cal Poly. This parking
situation is a large factor that degrades the quality of life for the residents.
I am well aquatinted with the city ordinances pertaining to neighborhood parking districts. To
provide parking relief the city requires a person or committee to circulate a petition asking
residents to sign for establishment of a parking district. This parking district will some times
include parking that is not required for residences and thus wastes parking. This occurs in a
parking district where there is a extra wide lot or when there are many parking spaces and few
residences in a block. An example of this is the south end of the 700 block of Johnson Ave. where
there are only three houses facing the block. To comply with the letter of the ordinance, it
requires the city to spend a lot of money to study current parking utilization, office administration
cost, estimating enforcement and implementation cost and determining the impact on
neighborhoods and businesses the change in parking may produce. Public hearings are required
for each district application and a vote by the city council is required. The citizens of the district
are deeply disappointed if their parking district is rejected and they have to continue with a
deteriorated quality of life.
I have a request/proposal for the city to implement an ordnance that would eliminate most of the
expense the present ordinance causes the city and at the same time allows each resident an
opportunity to implement parking for their residence if they want it. Allow a resident on a call in
basis, to request the city to paint the curb beige(suggested color) delineating one parking space
in front of their residential address for residential use only. Install a sign hood high, indicating
what this curb space stands for. (Limit parking to one hour enforced with a fine and tow for
violators). Do not patrol these spaces except on demand by the resident. Assess the resident
$25.00, one time, for the city cost to implement on the property. The city could use casual
RECEIVED
FEB - 2 1999
AO CITY COUNCIL
employees that are paid i J per hour with no city benefit to do tl.._.ign planting and the curb
painting to hold down costs. The parking fine should pay for administrative costs.
Some of the reasoning behind this is, in the case of business people, they tend to park in the same
spot week in and week out. I believe most people that park in our neighborhood are considerate
and reasonable and if our wishes are communicated to them(via curb paint and sign),they will
cooperate. Me, as a 70 year property owner(same property) become a little defensive when
friends come to visit and they have to park a block away. Effective street sweeping by the city has
all but been eliminated because the sweeper can't get close to the curb. Poor old John(86 years
young)drives to Frank's Hot Dogs in the morning to visit friends and have a cup of coffee. When
he gets home there in no place for him to park his car near his home. This quality of life in our San
Luis neighborhood is fragile and must be preserved. It takes a little from all of us to accomplish
this preservation. If we wanted total parking congestion we would live in San Francisco, wouldn't
we!
The intention of this proposal is to start a seed of thought. I believe it to be much cheaper for the
city to implement and maintain and perhaps a lot more equitable for the residents because each
resident has a choice. The present parking district requirements may work well for some situations
but hardly serves at all in other circumstances. Please let the city parking experts comment on this.
I would be happy to present this proposal at a City Council meeting if it is deemed to have merit.
Thank Iyou,
(2
Charles J. Sto
'a1NG AGENDA
DATE a= ITEM _=T
January 30, 1999
1214 Vista Del Lago
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
LFEB
ECEIVED
Mr. Mike McCluskey
1 - 1999
Director of Public Works . CITY CLERK
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Modification of Residential Parking Permit District
Low impact area-Monterey Heights
Dear Mr. McCluskey:
After reading the modification of the parking permit proposal,
it tells me that the proposal 'I s all but approved. As a
homeowner (landlord) . I would have appreciated being informed
about this survey when it was first submitted to the city.
I feel that when some of the students were approached and they
signed the the petition, they could have been swayed by the
contact person. I do not know the ratio of student occupancy
versus family occupancy in the area. I can only relate to
Henderson street between 'Loomis & Hope, which is six to two.
The expansion area, where my property is .located and several
blocks surrounding, indicates on the parking survey that it
is a very low impact area with 3 exceptions. Could this
constitute some leniency?
The following is my proposal for consideration for low impact
area only:
1. Since it has been established that there will be only 2
permits to a household, I would like for the council con-
sider the possibility of issuing 3 permits to those who
have 4 occupants in the home located in the low impact
area. Especially those near the freeway.
2. During summer months permit parking be lifted. There again
near the freeway.
3. Consideration in anyway be given to the area closed to
the freeway.
BW� Oa coo DIR
'PIN DIR
QACA0 E CHIEF
MT TTORNEY O�W DIR
BCCERVORIG O POLICE CHF
O R T O REC DIR
fa O UTIL DIR
� O PERS DI /�
Page 2 Monterey ,, ghts parking permit propo-_1
Questions:
1: When will permit parking begin-April ("enforcement ready
to begin early April" ) or September ("parking permits
shall be issued for a year effective September 15") ?
2. If a home is on a corner lot what about the spaces around
the corner? . Who will get a permit for those extra spaces?
3. Where will guests park?
4. Since I do not have a permit, will my trips to the property
be classified as service?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
761zZe
Betty Rohde
CC: City Council
"9TE 2-2-22 ITEM #
I10MEY NUGM N81100011008 ASSOCIATION
January 29, 1999
EJ'COUNCIL O CDD DIR
d�AO 0 RN DIR
ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
fTTORNEY Grit DIR
Re: MONTEREY HEIGHTS PARKING DISTRICT EXPANSION H CLERKIORIG D POLICE CHF
O M M TEAM O REC DIR
p- IeV�SKO UTIL DIR
ra-tsunke� O PERS DIR it
Dear Mayor Settle,
On February 2, 1999, the City Council will hear a petition from the Monterey Heights
Neighborhood Association to expand the existing'Area 1° parking district.
The current parking district was formed in 1997, because the neighborhood had become a
free parking lot for students and staff attending Cal Poly. The amount of traffic, and lack of
available panting for the residents had become unbearable. This parking district has been very
successful in providing relief for its residents: however,their problems have since moved south
onto the streets that are the subject of this request.
In the early fall of 1998, 1 began circulating a petition to expand the current parking district to
include 'Area 2'. 1 personally visited each of the one hundred nine (109) residences in this
area and obtained ninet^e( 95) signatures in favor of and fourteen (14) negative responses
to the petition. These figures are summarized as follows:
Number of.-
Rentals
f:Rentals properties : 62 (57%) - In favor: 53 (85%) - Opposed: 9 (15%)
Owner Occupied properties : 47 (43%) - In favor: 42 (97%) - Opposed: 5 (3%)
We are all aware that Cal Poly enrollment is increasing at an alarming rate and issues
resulting from that growth will continue to stress neighborhoods,especially ones that are close
to the campus.
On behalf of all of my neighbors,students and owners alike,who have supported this petition. I
urge the council to adopt a resolution adding Area 2,as submitted, into the Monterey Heights
Parking District.
Sincerely yours,
G
bert C Cooper
543-2614 RECEIVED
.16 IN 9 9 1999
ISLO CITY COUNCIL
2076 HAYS STREET.SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA.93405
nnTE ITEM #!
Robert L. and Barbara L. Halon
2092 McCollum, (805) 544-3036
San Luis Obispo, California 93405 FAX 544-5872
January 26, 1999
Lee Price, CMC
City Clerk,
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: Monterey Heights Parking District Expansion
Dear Ms. Price:
Please consider this letter to be our formally stated very strong
objection to the expansion of the Monterey Heights Parking
District to include our neighborhood. We are completely satisfied
the way it is, and have stated that satisfaction on two separate
occasions when asked about it by persons doing canvassing
concerning the creation of the district.
We have lived in our home here on McCollum since 1981 and have
NEVER experienced any problem whatever with parking on the entire
block, both sides. Parking is NOT a problem in our immediate
neighborhood. Xt is our position that, quite the contrary, a
problem would be created by including our neighborhood in a
district where parking is controlled, in which there is the need
for parking permits, time limits, decals, etc. We have yet to
see, or be informed about, anyone on our block, both sides of the
street, having been even moderately inconvenienced by our
neighborhood not being included in a controlled parking district.
Respectfully lsubmitted,
�- CJI
Bar ar� TTa on Robert Leon Halon
O'COUNCIL O CDD DIR
C3CAO 0 FIN DIR
r!rACAO 0 FJJRRE CHIEF
O"ATTORNEY MIPW DIR
�CLERKORIG 0 POLICE CHF RECEIVED
❑ MGMT 1AY 0 AEC DIR
i O UTIL DIR
0 PERS D]IR JAN 1 0 'IM
SLO CITY CLERK
AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
council memoizanoum
January 29, 1999
TO: City Council � (
FROM: Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative OfEcerM
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2, 1999 COUNCIL MEETING: ADDED INFORMATION,
PUBLIC HEARING#1, PARKING DISTRICT FORMATION
Council Member Romero has pointed out that while the agenda report indicates the that district will
be established in April, 1999, Section 4 of the Resolution suggests that it will be effective in
September. The attached revised first page of the Resolution should replace page 1-4 in your
agenda packet. This new page 1-4 provides revised language in Section 4 to make it more clear
that this provision relates to the annual renewal of parking permits, and not the establishment of the
district itself.
Council Member Romero has also asked that staff provide information on the estimated
administrative costs of parking district establishment and management. In response, Public Works
staff is providing sample cost estimates which were prepared for the Old Town and Johnson/Peach
street proposed districts.
RECEIVED
JAN 2 91999
SLO CITY CLERK
13=om
MACAO O0 WFDI DIR
(ATTORNEY 0 CHIEF
0 k�?I0 O CNF
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING THE MONTEREY HEIGHTS 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. 8670 (1997 Series).
WHEREAS,the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has received a petition from a
majority of the residents living in the Monterey Heights area as 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 non-residents using the
neighborhood streets for excessive parking and;
WHEREAS,the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the
restriction of non-resident parked vehicles on the 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 Obispo has held a public hearing to
consider the establishment of a residential parking permit district and has determined the parking
permit district will improve the quality 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. 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 2. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a
residential parking permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the drivers side of the vehicle
may park on any street within the district boundaries between the hours of 2am and l Opm,
Monday through Friday.
SECTION 3. The Public Works Director 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 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code following approval of
Residential District by the City Council and shall be renewed annually effective September 15.
1-4
Replacement
ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS
TOTAL PER
EXISTING ONGOING COSTS COST RESIDENCE
1) Parking Office incurred costs
a) Staff time associated with managing labor, $12600 $4.47
identifying/procuring materials.
b) Annual processing of permits. $35580 $10.00
2) Yard incurred costs
a) Maintenance associated with poles/signs. $3,576 $9.99
3) Enforcement incurred costs
a) Labor time/cost associated with enforcement. $7,040 $19.66
b) Cost of processing residential parking district $15053 $2.94
citations.
Total Existing Ongoing Costs. $169849 $47.06
Existing Annual Estimated Revenue. Total Per
Cost Residence
1) Revenue
a) Income from citations originating from $245580
residential parking districts
b) Income from parking permits from residential $0
districts
Total Existing Annual Estimated Revenue $249580 $68.66
Note: The $7,731 net income does not represent the loss of revenue from parking
meter payments and citations in the downtown area. Estimated loss is $23,000
which represents a net loss of in excess of$15,000.
Sample Cost Estimates
TOTAL PER
START-UP COSTS COST RESIDENCE
1) Parking Office Costs (Labor& Material)
a) Receipt of a petition, review/study, $89000 $36.87
preparation of recommendation to Council,
Council hearing(s). (200 hours @ $40/hr)
b) If approved, letters and permits to affected $29771 $12.77
individuals. (Letterhead, postage, copies, labels,
survey postcards, etc. for five mailings)
c). Sign and post installation. (62 signs @ $119656 $53.72
$188)
Above figures based upon processing of proposed
"Old Town District" of 171 residences, and
"Johnson &Peach" 46 residences 217 total.
PER RESIDENCE AVERAGESTART-UP COST $229427 $103035
Sample Cost Estimates
ftntti Ift AUtNUR
TE A-Z-22 ITEM #
MOM BEY NBGM NSGEODNOOD ASSOCIATION
January 24, 1999 $COUNCIL DD DIR
.f TAO O FIN DIR
-1211ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
ArATTORNEY COPW DIR
B'CLERKIORIG O POLICE CHF
Re: MONTEREY HEIGHTS PARKING DISTRICT EXPANSION O fdT O REC.DIR
E O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR 3
Dear Mayor Settle,
On February 2. 1999,the City Council will hear a request from the Monterey Heights Neighbor
hood Association to expand the existing'Area 1'parking district.
This parking district has been in force for approximately two years and has made a dramatic
difference to the quality of life in the neighborhood. Notable, has been its unexpected
effectiveness as a traffic-calming device. However, as predicted the problems that have been
eliminated in Area 1 have now moved onto the adjacent streets(Area 2)of the neighborhood.
During the course of the last several months, AI Cooper, who resides at 300 Grand Avenue,
has personally petitioned the 109 residents of Area 2 and obtained 95 signatures (87%) in
support of the proposed expansion.
We believe that adding Area 2 into the parking district will not only alleviate the current
problems faced by the residents, but will address previous concerns that the council has
voiced re.gardinq.the estah1ki- —*-4--rking districts in neighborhoods:
• Becat 3f the parking district is a self-contained grid, it would
elimin 3 and the confusion caused by the irregular boundary
lines t
1
• Becal I 3f the parking district has natural boundaries, ( Hwy
101 t Nest:, Cal Poly to the north, and a natural geographic
bound no opportunity for problems to move into any other
neight_... ..,
We, therefore, urge the council to adopt a resolution including Area 2, as proposed, into the
Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association Parking District.
Sincerely yours,
041a4kl 64
Cydney Holcomb RECEIVED Carol Winger
544-8594 543-8839
is
SA A( . ? 7 14gq
LO CITY COUNCIL
2076 HAYS STREET.SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA.93405
council W64D'
j acEnaa Report I° N L
2
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P O
0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CITY ACCEPTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES AND
ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT FOR THE DEVAUL RANCH
ANNEXATION (11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax
increment that is required as a prerequisite to any jurisdictional change by the Revenue and Tax
Code Section 99.
DISCUSSION
On December 15, 1998 the City Council took a series of actions related to the annexation of
property at 11855 Los Osos Valley Road. The Council certified the project EIR, adopted an
ordinance that prezoned the 222-acre property R-1, R-2, R-3, PF, and C/OS-160 and adopted a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the annexation.
On January 5, 1999 the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors initiated a 60-day period (January
5 to March 5, 1999) for negotiation of exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax
increment for the DeVaul Ranch annexation. Prior to final LAFCo action on the annexation,
both the City Council and Board of Supervisors need to adopt similar resolutions acknowledging
the negotiated agreements between the City and the County related to property tax revenues and
annual tax increment. A proposed resolution for City Council adoption is attached.
The terms of the proposed tax exchange are as follows:
a. No base property tax revenue shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the
City of San Luis Obispo.
b. Annual tax increment shall be transferred from the County to the City in an amount to
determined by the County Auditor, based upon the following percentage agreed to by the
negotiating parties: 12.54287% of the County's net, before the Education Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF). This is consistent with the 2/3-1/3 split for residential uses.
The tax increment shall be transferred from the County to the City in the fiscal year
immediately following City notification to the County that it has approved the final map for
the annexed properties and taken ownership of all open space areas. This is because in
2-1
Council Agenda Report—DeVaul Ranch Property Tax Exchange
Page 2
annexations with a mix of residential uses and other uses (eg. commercial, industrial,
agricultural), the residential pass-through is based only on the proportion of residential to
other "non pass-through" uses. Because the future open space area will still be in private
ownership and considered "agricultural" at the time of annexation, including the 184 acres in
the tax allocation computation will severely reduce the City's share. City and County staff
have agreed that the best approach is to base the split only on the residential acreage, but not
implement the actual sharing until such time as the "agricultural land" becomes public open
space. This avoids the need to recalculate the allocation at some point after annexation, and
has very minor fiscal impact on the City since the property will remain undeveloped until the
open space is dedicated.
c. After the City portion is transferred, all annual tax increment for the County Road Fund shall
be transferred to the County General Fund.
FISCAL EMPACT
The property tax exchange will provide revenue from the newly-annexed area that will help pay
for expected service (police and fire, and after development, sewer and water).
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff.
The Council may direct staff to negotiate further with the County over desired terms of the
property tax revenue distribution associated with the annexation.
Attachments
Draft Resolution
2-2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND
ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE DEVAUL RANCH ANNEXATION
(LAFCo Application#54)
(City File No.ANNX 102-96)
WHEREAS,in the case of a jurisdictional change other than a city incorporation or
district formation which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency,Revenue
and Taxation Code Section 99(a)(1)requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be
exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected
local agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and
WHEREAS,when a city is involved,the negotiations are conducted between the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors of the County;and
WHEREAS, when a special district is involved,the negotiations are conducted by the
Board of Supervisors of the County on behalf of the district or districts,unless otherwise requested
by said district or districts pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(5);and
WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(6)requires that each local
agency, upon completion of negotiations,adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to
accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any,and annual tax increment and
requires that each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive Officer
of the Local Agency Formation Commission;and
WHEREAS,no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the
jurisdictional change is recorded with the County Recorder,the Executive Officer shall notify the
County Auditor of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy of said
resolution to the County Auditor,and the County Auditor shall thereafter make the appropriate
adjustments as required by law;and
WHEREAS,the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San
Luis Obispo pursuant to Section 99(a)(1)for the jurisdictional change designated as Annexation
No. 54 to the City of San Luis Obispo(DeVaul Ranch Annexation); and
WHEREAS,the negotiating parties,to wit: Lee Williams,Deputy County Administrator,
County of San Luis Obispo, and Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer,have
negotiated the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between such entities
as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS,it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax
revenues and annual tax increment be consummated.
2-3
Resolution No. (1' ` Series)
Page 2
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. That the recitals set forth above are true,correct,and valid.
2. That the City of San Luis Obispo agrees to accept the following negotiated
exchange of base property tax revenues and annual tax increment:
(a) No base property tax revenue shall be transferred from the County of San
Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo.
(b) Annual tax increment shall be transferred from the County to the City in an
amount to determined by the County Auditor, based upon the following percentage agreed to by
the negotiating parties: 12.54287% of the County's net, before the Education Revenue
Augmentation Fund(ERAF). The tax increment shall be transferred from the County to the City
in the fiscal year immediately following City notification to the County that it has approved the
final map for the annexed properties and taken ownership of all open space areas.
(c) After the City portion is transferred,all annual tax increment for the
County Road Fund shall be transferred to the County General Fund.
3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the recorded
certificate of completion,the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustments to property
tax revenues and annual tax increments as set forth above.
4. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the
resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation
Commission,who shall then distribute copies in the manner prescribed by law.
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 1999.
2-4
Resolution No. (' Series)
Page 3
1VMaygr Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee:Ttice,City Clerk
APPROVED:
Jeffrey G.Jorgensen, City Attorney
2=5
council agenba
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, February 2,1999
ADDENDUM:
7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEE'hN.G .Gquncil Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
ADDED BUSINESS ITEM:
3. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING FOR 1999-01
(ONLY IF NEEDED).
RECOMMENDATION: If needed, continue consideration of goals for 1999-01
from the January 30, 1999 budget workshop.
council M`°,D° ;2-.2- 9
j ac En 6a REpoRt
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance d--
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF
COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING FOR 1999-01 (ONLY IF NEEDED)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
If needed, continue consideration of goals for 1999-01 from the January 30 budget workshop.
DISCUSSION
Council consideration and prioritization of goals for 1999-01 has been scheduled for an all-day
budget workshop on Saturday,January 30.
While we hope that this step in the 1999-01 Financial Plan process will be completed at the
January 30 budget workshop, this item has been conditionally scheduled in the event that
additional time is required to complete this process.
G:1999-01 Financial Plan/Council Goat-Setting/Council Agenda Reports/Continued Goals Consideration
3-1
yv MEETING AGENDA
DATE�ITEM
We build strong kids, strong families, _
strong communities.
FReZATTORNEY
O�(1��D� DIR
CBFIR DIR
January 27, 1999 O FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
O CHFThe Mayor and City Council 21W DMMRCity of San Luis Obispo p011LOM BOARD OF
990 Palm Street O PBIB I DIRECTORS
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Matt Beecher
Fred Bond
Jeff Brinley
Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Lauren Brown
Barrie Cleveland
On behalf of the Mayor's Youth Task Force and the young people of our Matt Fortier
city,I urge you to adopt the Major City Goal that was recommended to the Lisa Gonzalez
City Council by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Kevin Gridiron
Ken Hampian
Kim Heath
The Parks and Recreation Element Implementation plan includes an Vicki Janssen
emphasis on youth and lists intervention and teen programs as a major unmet Rory Livingston
recreational need in the city. That Goal includes a call for"being responsive Glenn Martin
to the need for new recreation programs",which we believe can be designed Mitch Massey
to meet some,if not all of those pressing unmet needs. Steve McCarty
Craig McCollum
Tom Murray
The Mayor's Youth Task Force is a community collaboration of Mike W.Rader
organizations and individuals that are committed to helping provide Ted Rich
opportunities for our young people to enrich their lives,build positive life John Rosetti
long skills,connect with their community and support healthy life choices. Edna Ryzebol
Paul Thorvaldsen
We believe that it is incumbent upon the City Council to support the youth of Bob Tillman
the city by adopting this Major Goal and by considering the Mayor's Youth Karen Kris Yetter ng
ter
Task Force's proposal presented to the Council as one of the implementation
strategies for this goal. STAFF
Karen Aydelott
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. General Director
Sinc Sandra Augustin
i Trina Baumsteiger
/� / Lissa Lalonde
n Aydelott Karey Rademacher
Chair,Mayor's Youth Task Force Karen Sisco
RECEIVED
FEB w 2 1999
San Luis Obispo County YMCA SLO CITY COUNCIL
1020 Southwood Drive*San Luis Obispo,CA 93401*(805)543-8235*Fax(805)543-6202
Five Cities Program Office*340 Pomeroy*Pismo Beach,CA 93449*(805)773-4132
I,dG AGENDA
L = ITEM #3_
council memoizanoum
February 2, 1999 DH
y6UNCIL C3t�Cr
TO: City Council �
❑ACAO lam� '- .:
RNEY CSF1Y G:;�
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic 11 oRlc hoc DIRc„r
❑ VT1L DIR
SUBJECT: COUNCIL GOALS ❑ EPERs UIR
Attached for your information is a summary of the results from the Council goal-setting workshop
on January 30, 1999. In addition to providing overall rankings, this summary notes whether the
goal is most likely to affect the operating program or capital improvement plan (CIP) budget, and
the likely fund affected.
As the Council will recall,in the past we have grouped the goals into three priority categories:
■ Major City Goals. These represent the most important, highest priority goals for the City
to accomplish over the next two years, and as such, resources to accomplish them should be
included in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. If the work program approved by the Council for a
major City goal is not included in the Preliminary Financial Plan prepared by the CAO,
compelling reasons and justification must be provided as to why resources could not be
made available to achieve this goal.
■ Other Important Objectives. Goals in this category are important for the City to
accomplish, and resources should be made available in the 1999-01 Financial Plan if at all
possible.
■ Address As Resources Permit. While it is desirable to achieve these goals over the next
two years, doing so is subject to current resource availability.
As reflected above, even though a goal may not fall into the Major City Goal category, this does not
mean that it will not receive serious consideration during the budget process. For example, in 1997-
99, all of the Council goals—including those in the Address As Resources Permit category (such as
updating the Conservation and Energy Elements}—were reflected in the 1997-99 Financial Plan in
some fashion. While there are no guarantees that this will occur again, past history shows that
Council goals in all three categories are seriously considered in preparing the Financial Plan.
obviously with greater emphasis given to major City goals .
The attached summary also reflects the staff's suggestions for goal priority categories: major City
goals (23-15 points); other important objectives (1410 points); and address as resources permit(9-5
points). This would result in 13 major City goals for 1999-01, the same number we had in 1997-99.
Next Steps. After the Council determines goal priorities for 1999-01, we will begin preparing
detailed work programs for each of them. These are scheduled for Council review on April 6, 1999.
Each work program will include background information, discussion of issues we will face in
achieving the goal, action plan, and resource requirements.
G: 1999-01 Financial Plan/Council Goal Setting/Council Goal Priorities—February 2,1999
Council Goals: 1999-01 Financial Plan
operating Or Total
CIP Biid(_'Ct hind Score
ajor City Goals -
■ Hong-Term Water Supply. Obtain supplemental water supplies Operating Water 23
consistent with General Plan growth limits and emergency and CIP
reserves,including water conservation,water re-use,Nacimiento
and preservation of Salinas reservoir water rights; increase public
awareness through periodic reports; and evaluate other alternative
water sources.
■ Open Space Preservation. Continue preserving open space CIP General 21
within and around the City.
• Public Safety. Support on-going public safety services(with an Operating General 19
interest in neighborhoods and the downtown)consistent with
community growth.
■ Parks and Recreation Element. Continue implementing the
Parks and Recreation Element,with a special emphasis on:
• Athletic Fields. Completing property acquisition for athletic Operating General 19
fields,preparing environmental studies and construction and CIP
documents,and starting construction; and negotiating with
other agencies for joint use of their fields.
• Community Center and Therapy Pool. Conducting a needs, Operating General 18
location,and funding study for a new community center and CIP
(senior and multi-use); and evaluating options for a multi-
use/therapy pool.
■ Airport Area Specific Plan. Complete airport area annexation Operating General 17
studies; adopt specific plan and EIR, complete final annexation
steps; and initiate program to fund and install public improvements
needed to serve the area.
■ Downtown Plan. Develop a program to carry out the objectives of CIP General 17
the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City Center with the purpose and
of enhancing retail opportunities,rationalizing parking and Parking
circulation,and strengthening the cultural core.
■ Streets and Sidewalks. Continue street maintenance program and Operating General 16
update sidewalk repair and installation plan to increase pedestrian and CIP
safety and convenience.
■ Community Partnerships for Cultural Resources. Continue the Operating General 16
Community Partnership Program by assisting local groups in
identifying needs and outside funding opportunities in supporting
the development and expansion of our cultural resources such as:
historical museum,art center,adobe restorations,natural history
museum,railroad museum,archeological museum, children's
museum,little theater and demonstration fann/agricultural
history/petting zoo.
w'Note. The goal categories presented in this summary(Major City Goals, Other Important Objectives and Address As
Resources Permit) reflect the staff's suggestions for Council consideration; they do not reflect the categories finally
adopted by the Council.
Council Goals: 1999-01 Financial Plan
Operating or Total
CIP 1311(1(�m Fund Score
■ Cal Poly Relationships. Strengthen relationships with Cal Poly Operating General 16
by obtaining increased understanding and cooperation in solving
problems and exploring opportunities generated by the adjacency
of the university campus with the City,especially expanding on-
campus housing.
■ Long-Term Fiscal Health. Protect the City's long-term fiscal Operating General 16
health by maintaining a balanced budget,an adequate capital
improvement plan and an adequate unreserved fund balance.
■ Downtown Access and Parking Plan. Adopt and begin Operating Parking 15
implementing the Downtown Access and Parking Plan addressing and CIP
a balance between parking supply, management and demand
reduction.
■ Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement. Work Operating General 15
proactively to maintain and enhance the traditional qualities of San and CIP
Luis Obispo neighborhoods through improved street and walk-way
lighting to provide pedestrian safety; and enhanced code
enforcement to reduce neighborhood nuisances.
Other Important Objectives
■ Bikeway and Pedestrian Improvements. Complete Phase lI of CIP General 14
the railroad recreation trail;pursue and implement Phase III and Sewer
(railroad to Marsh Street);review the Bicycle Transportation Plan
to improve linkage between the railroad area to downtown; and
implement bike trail from the Water Reclamation Facility to Los
Osos Valley Road.
■ Social Services. Continue(and increase as available) funding for Operating General 14
existing social service programs including:homeless shelter,Prado and CDBG
Day Center,Housing Authority,affordable housing needs and
HRC grants; and support a community health needs assessment.
■ Economic Development. Pursue economic development Operating General 14
objectives to increase higher paying jobs,retain and expand
existing businesses,and recruit targeted industries.
■ Laguna Lake Master Plan. Continue implementing Laguna Lake CIP General 13
Master plan; complete necessary studies,obtain approvals and
prepare construction documents for Laguna Lake dredging.
■ Transit Service. Continue current transit service levels and look Operating Transit 12
for ways to expand them;keep low cost or zero fare for Cal Poly and CIP
students.
■ Margarita Area Specific Plan. Complete and adopt Margarita Operating General 12
area specific plan and annex the Margarita area.
■ Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable housing availability Operating General 12
by implementing the Housing Element,including but not limited to and CIP and CDBG
evaluating jobs/housing imbalance; grant writing; and partnerships
between the City and non-profit groups.
Council Goals: 1999-01 Financial Plan
MIN
uma awl]
■ Circulation Element. Continue implementing the Circulation CIPGeneral 11
Element to relieve congestion.
■ Flood Protection. Complete Flood Management Plan and develop CIP General 11
funding sources for implementation.
■ Transit Transfer Center. Reinitiate studies to acquire off-street CIP Transit 11
transit transfer center,adopt plan; identify funding sources; and
pursue acquisition of property.
■ Creek Habitat Protection. Explore amending the creek ordinance Operating General 10
to include creek management for habitat protection and creek bank
restoration.
Address As Resources P-erinit
■ Urban Design Quality. Improve the urban design quality and the Operating General 9
visual image of the City.
■ Agricultural Zoning. Evaluate creating an agricultural zone Operating General 9
district and an urban growth boundary.
■ Circulation Element Update. Update the Circulation Element, Operating General 8
including working with Cal Trans on freeway off-ramp closures
and Santa Rosa/Highway 101 interchange; and reviewing methods
to slow traffic along neighborhood thoroughfares to improve
pedestrian safety.
■ South Broad Street Plan. Develop a concept plan for the South Operating General 7
Broad Street area(High to Orcutt).
■ Cal Poly Annexation Study. Continue cost/benefit analysis of Operating General 5
annexing Cal Poly.
MEETING AGENDA
ATE �-a_qq ITEM #
MEMO
February 1, 1999
�UNCIL DDD R
To: Mayor Allen and Council Members John Ewan, 0
Jan Howell d Dave Romero �A C 1 CHIEF
From Ken Schwa P;ti=r PO ICE
LERKIORIG �� [7 POLICE CHF
Copies: John Dunn, c , Jeff Jorgensen Mike McClusley O M MT T M O REC DIR
m-_ a UTIL DIR
O
Re: Street Construction Standards O PERS DI r
Under `Communications' I would like to request that the Council direct the Public Works
Department to prepare the necessary materials and place on the earliest council agenda
an amendment to the existing city policy that deals with street design standards.
I believe that the existing 20 year life design standard should be increased to a 50 year life
design standard for all new streets added to the city's inventory. Public Works
Department suggestions for increasing the 20 year standard for existing streets in our
system would be welcomed. (It would seem that those existing streets requiring complete
rebuilding should be rebuilt to a 50 year life standard.)
I think this matter is deserving of attention so that a longer life standard can be applied to
all new development requests immediately. I don't believe that the city can long tolerate
the significant amounts of funds being expended to repair our street infrastructure.
Thank you for your consideration.
mELIMU MUCKU11 -
�ATE a ITEM # .
0 COUNCIL CDD DIR
WCAO 0 FIN DIR
WACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
to�TTORNEY 0"PW DIR
MEMO WCLERK�ORIG 0 POLICE CHF
O GMT T M 0 REC.DIR
E!r ,n ►' 0 UTIL DIR
February 1, 1999 0 O PERS DIR
To: Mayor Allen S e Council Members John Ewan, Jan Howell Marx
and Dave Romer
From: Ken Schwartz
Copies: John Dunn, ce, eff Jorgensen, Arnold Jonas
Re: Study Session Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission
Staff has advised me that the proper procedure forgiving direction to staff on an agenda
proposal is to introduce the item during the communications segment of a formal agenda
and seek at least two supporting votes. Hence,the following request:
Instruct the staff to establish a date,preferably before the end ofApril,for a joint study
session between the City Council,the Planning Commission,the Architectural Review
Commission and appropriate staff. (The study session to be open to the public, but closed
to public participation in order to focus discussion between the CC,PC, ARC and staff)
I would propose that the study session subject matter be:
Relationships between each of the three bodies; e.g. CC w/PC;PC w/ARC;
CC w/ARC and ARC w/PC-problems, expectations and realities.
PC and ARC- should these commissions be proactive or agenda driven?
Overview of the Planned Development Ordinance- what is it? Can it be made
more effective as a planning/zoning tool?
Time: 2 '/2- 3 hours. Day. 2nd or 4'h Tuesday.
+< Thank you for your consideration.
RECEIVED
FFa - 1 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL