Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/2003, PH1 - ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT I councilM.wiq D. l acEnaa nEpout DemNum6n CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Manager kb SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider the request for the establishment of a residential parking permit district on Ferrini Road with restricted parking of 12an1 to 5pm, seven days a week and, based on public testimony, determine either: A. that"quality of life"issues from the affected residents is sufficient to form the district; or B. that `-`quality of life" issues do not warrant a district and that staff proposed alternatives should be considered. DISCUSSION Staff has received a petition from residents living on portions of the 200 and 300 blocks of Ferrini Road 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 12am and 5pm, seven days a week. The petitioners are a small group (8 out of 9 residences total) of residents living along Ferrini Road (Attachment 1). According to the petitioners, there are a number of concerns that they feel justifies a new parking district: insufficient residential parking protection from non-residents, heavy traffic congestion and safety issues resulting from nearby elementary school, and a declining quality of life. The petitioners believe the proposed parking measures will have a positive effect on their street. Following standard practice for consideration of new parking districts, staff initiated a mail survey of nearby streets because there is potential for the parking problem to spill over into the adjoining neighborhood if the district is established. Staff independently surveyed nearby blocks to determine if there was interest and support for expanding the district further than what was being proposed. A total of 31 surveys were sent to adjoining blocks. Approximately 50% (16 out of 31) responded to the mail survey. The results were mixed: only six indicated some form of support at varied hours and days of restrictions, while the remaining ten respondents indicated no for any type of district or for expanding the parking restrictions beyond what has been proposed by the petitioners(Attachment 2). Council Agenda Report-Residential Parking District Page 2 In addition to the mail surveys, staff also conducted field surveys in January and early February 2003 in an attempt to ascertain the level of the problem. Staff conducted 19 daily surveys between 8:30am and 3:OOpm, including the peak afternoon pick-up time. The occupancy rate on both the resident side and school side ranged from 30% to 95%; with an overall average occupancy rate of 62% (Attachment 3). Based on these field observations, staff could find no definitive support for the petitioners' claims of all-day impacted parking conditions along the street within the proposed parking district. Although the street was impacted during morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up times at the elementary school, there was still on-street parking available along the school frontage as well as parking on Ferrini between Felton and Cerro Romauldo. At no time was Ferrini 100% impacted during the survey days and times conducted by staff. Additionally, similar findings were also revealed when Transportation Division staff conducted a two-day Teach School parking tumover survey in October 2002, from 8am to 6pm each day (Attachment 4). This study also showed some impacts at the peak school times, which is a city-wide problem where residences are located in close proximity of a neighborhood school. However,it also indicated that some parking spaces were always available along Fenini, including frontage of some of the residences of the petitioners. District Requirements The current Municipal Code (Section 10.36.170) requires certain criteria to be met in order to designate an area as a preferential parking district. A district can now be formed under two options: Option One 1) the area is predominately residential; and 2) streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area; or Option Two 3) limiting parking in the area to bona fide residents is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life of persons residing in the area. Under Option One the entire proposed area is residential and there is some congested parking at peak drop-off and pick-up times for the elementary school on the affected street. However, staff was not able to determine if the sporadic impact was also from nearby residents of apartment complexes or true non-residents. Furthermore, based on the field studies conducted by staff of the proposed area, some level of parking was always available for the residents to park on their particular block. Moreover, all of the residences within the petition area have off-street drive ways and 1 or 2-car garages, which enhance the availability of resident parking. As a result, the required congestion level would appear to be insufficient to warrant establishing a preferential parking district based solely on parking availability. Although this not does mean that at some time during the day there may be more of an impact, staff could not verify the petitioners' claim of non- resident, all day parkers totally impacting the street and denying access to their homes. If a district I -� Council Agenda Report-Residential Parking District Page 3 was established, there is a high probability that the parking issues would only migrate to the adjoining residences and streets due to the small number (eight) of residents in the proposed area. Again, these surveyed streets did not want a district established on their blocks. Although on-street parking impacts could be established based on field observations, the current Municipal Code allows the establishment of a parking district on quality of life issues. Option Two sanctions the limiting of on-street parking to bona fide residents in order to preserve the quality of life for people living in the area. However, there is no definition of quality of life and it is highly subjective. Staff has no means of saying one way or another if this criterion is met. This determination will have to fall to the Council after taking public testimony to decide whether this requirement can be fulfilled before granting final approval solely on the basis of quality of life issues. If Council decides to grant approval of the parking district based on quality of life issues, staff would return with a resolution to formally establish the street as a residential district. Enforcement If the proposed district was established the City would have six districts requiring enforcement at various times and days of the week throughout the City. The proposed hours of 12am to 5pm,daily would mean that the Police Department would have to assume a significant portion of the enforcement duties, along with Public Works staff. Enforcement of this area could be accomplished by utilizing the augmented Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) staff that was approved as part of creating the College Highlands parking district in 2001. SNAP personnel currently patrol the existing College Highlands District which has restricted parking from l0pm-10am, daily. The overnight portion (12am to 8am daily) of the proposed hours could be patrolled by SNAP personnel. The daytime portion (8am-5pm, Monday-Saturday) would fall under the duties of the current Public Work's enforcement staff that patrol the downtown area and other parking permit districts. It should be noted that with more districts to patrol and respond to specific complaints,the less time downtown or other areas of the City can be patrolled. CONCURRENCES The proposed hours of 12am-5pm, daily for restricted parking fall within the responsibility of the Police Department, and more specifically the augmented Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) personnel to patrol during the nighttime and weekend hours. The daytime hours of 8am-5pm, Monday-Saturday would be the responsibility of Public Works staff. However, as with other after hours and daytime parking enforcement, the Police Department and Public Works Department would only be able to dispatch personnel (Police and/or SNAP or Parking Enforcement Officer) when appropriate staff is available to respond to parking issues after other higher priority calls. The Police Department concurs with this assessment of the potential demands for parking enforcement of this proposed new district. I � � Council Agenda Report-Residential Parking District Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT Creation of the parking permit district would have some direct costs to the City.. Sign and pole installation would cost approximately $500: Additional permits and materials and processing would cost approximately $300. Since there is no formal budget for creation of this particular parking district, if approved, the monies would have to come from unappropriated working capital or the current budget for parking operations. Conversely,there is a potential for producing parking .fine revenues of approximately $1,00043,000 annually depending upon the level of enforcement and the number of citations issued. The negative side to more patrols in outlying residential areas is less time devoted to patrolling downtown meters, which translates into lost meter and citation revenue. ALTERNATIVES Given the small size and limited support for the proposed parking district, other alternatives may better serve the needs of the residents. Staff believes that one alternative to district formation exists. Should Council wish staff would create a time limit zone (two or three hours) along this portion of Fen ini to induce more turn over on the street. This would create the potential for increased access for the residents. The down side of time limit areas is that they are very labor intensive and cannot be enforced routinely without cutting patrols in other areas of the city. Attachments Attachment 1-Proposed District Map Attachment 2 Mail Survey Results Map Attachment 3-Field Survey Results Attachment 4-Teach School Parking Turnover Study Council Reading File Petition from Residents l:council agenda reports/2003 reports/ferrini residential district Q ATTACHMENT 1 ..... ::. ....... ................ .:::::::::::............ . • 3 • 3 i O � � a o z . ....... ...... .... b-t �...... ........ ....... .......: F. o ' v� U ATTACHMENT 2 w ' ` ................ `. >> '' . ..... ....... ..... .....: t .. ATTACHMENT 3 Femni Parking Survey Roughly 20 spaces on both sides of street Date: Time: Residential side School side Open spaces— Cars parked Cars parked both sides 1. 1/13/03 11:05 am 13 /65% n1a _ n/a 2. 1/14/03 3:10 pm 10/50% n/a n/a 3. 1/15/03 10:30 am 8 /40% _ a n/a 4. 1/15/03 3:15 pin 11 /55% u/a n/a 5. 1/16/03 930 am 10150% n(a -n/a 6. 1/17/03 11:46 am 11 /55% n/a - n/a-- - - -- . 7. 1/27/03 2:25 m 14/70% 17 / 85% 9/23% 8. 1/28/03 2:29 pm 12/60% 14/70% 14/35% 9. 1/29/03 2:25 pin 16/ 80 % 17/ 85% 7/ 18% 10. 1/30/03 2:40 pin 12/60% 13 /65% 15 /38% 11. 2/7/03 8:45 am 15 /75% 20/ 100% 5/ 13% 12.-2)7/05 10:40 am 15 /75% 17/85% 8 /20% 13. 2/7/03 1:00 pin 19/95% 17/85% - - 4/_10%a 14. 2/10/03 .9:30 am 6/300k 6/30% 28/70% S600l holiday 15. 2/11/03 10:30 am 17/ 85% 16/ 80% _ 7/ 18% 16. 2/11/03 1:05 prii 11 /55% 11 /55% 12/30% 17. 2/12/03 10:40 am 12/60% 14/70% 12J 30% 18. 2/12/03 2:50 pin 11 /55% 11 /55% 18/45% 19. 2/13/03 9:25 am 13/65% 15 /75% 11 /28% n/a—Indicates school side and total open spaces not surveyed during first six days. G:Parking(Ferrini Survey f - �l - ATTACHMENT 4 N N (0 o � o O m o- O O Q O U-) 0 U 0 0 ® Ferrini � 000 ®®_®---®--N---- 0 0, O 0 O o -p-- ®o o--p ---- -- ®Ao ® ®® ®0®®©.000 0 0 ® o 009 -ea0 0® -o®o®eo0oo ®o®® ,� ®®®®� 00® ® N o 0o 00 (Y o ® 00 O ® 00 00 00 06 00 O ® bo � � 00 O p U o (� O (n o N O o © U o - O ®®® O ZLI j® O o® O U >' LL ® o N U � ® 00 C cu U Q- ® © o N U o0 Q 00 o ® o i 00 O ®® o ' 00 � ® 00 o ® -®oo' oo®®®O-1.-18.0OO.00eo-o-O000 -, --oeo• --0800.0-00_00-000.0.0. -000_ Cuesta ► -g �• ATTACHMENT 4 Teach School Parking Turnover Study Ferrini Total Spaces aces 65 Wed 10/2/2002 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM_ 12hr Avera e Empty Spaces 26_(40%0) 1130 (46%) 129 (45%) 123 (35%) 135 (54%) 142 (65%) 131 (48%) Occupied Spaces 39 (60%) 135 54%) 136 (55%) 142 65% 30 46% 23 35% 34 52%) Thur 10/32002 1 8:00 AMI 10:00 AMI 12:00 PMJ 2:00 PM 4:00 PMJ 6:00 PM 12hr Average Empty Spaces 141 (63%) 41 (63%) 140.(62%) 122 (34%) 134 (53%) 137 (57%) 134 (52%) Occupied Spaces 124 (37%) 124 (37%) 125 (38%) 143 (66%) 131 (47%) 128 (43%) 31 (48%) Cerro Romauldo Total Spaces 69 Wed 102/2002 8:00 AMI 10:00 AMI 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM112hrAve—ra-g7e 0 - Spaces 161 (88%) 160 (87%) 158 (84%) 163 (91%) 51 (74%) 162"(89%) 159 85%) cupied Spaces 18 (12%) 19 (13%) Ill (16%) 16 (9%) 118 (26%) 17 (11%) 10 (15%) Thur 10/32002 8:00 AMI 10:00 AMI 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Average Empty Spaces 59 85% 61 88%)_ 162 (89%) 60 87% 35(51%) 158 (84%) 56 81% Occupied Spaces 10 (15%) 18 12%) 7.(11%) 9-(13%) 34 (49%) I11 (16% 13(19%) Cuesta Total Spaces 42 Wed 1022002 1 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Avera e Em -S bees 134 (81%) 136 (86%) 137 (98%) 135 (83%) 34 81% - 32(68%) 1135 (83%) Oeeu ied Spaces 18 19% 6 14% 15 (12%) 7 17%) 18 19% 10(32%) 17(17% Thur 10/3/2002 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Average Empty Spaces 34 81%0 33 79% 30 (71% ._ 131,(74%) .34. 81% 30 71% 32 68% Occu pied Spaces 8 (19%) 19 (21%) 112(29%) Ill 26% 8 190/. 12 29% 10 32%) Felton Total Spaces 1 44 Wed 1022002 8:00 AMT 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:OOPM112hrAver—aq7 Empty Spaces 20 (45%) 119 (43%) 124 55% 13 30% 19 43% 22 50% 20 45% Occu ied Spaces 24 55% 25 (57%) 120 (45%) 131 (70%) 125 (57%) 122 (50%) 124 55% Thur 10/3/2002 1 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM . 2:66-04-- 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Avera e Em Spaces 115 34% 18 (41%) 14 32%0) 14 (32%) 116 (37%) 121 (48%) 116 36% Occupied Spaces 129(66%) 126 (59%) 30 (68%) 130 (68%) 128 (63%) 123 (52%) 128 64% ATTACHMENT 4 Parking Lots Total Spaces 59 Wed 10/2/2002 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Avera e Empty Spaces 20 (34%) 119 (32%) 121 (36%) 16 27% _ 130 (51%) 55 93% _ 27 46% Occu pied Spaces 39 (66%0)_ 140 (68%) 138 64%). 43,(73%) 129-(49%0) 14 (7%) 32,(54%)_ Thur 10/3/2002 1 8:00 AM_ 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Average Empty Spaces 129 (49%) 125 (42%) 1,33 (56%) 124 (41%) 137 (630./0 154 (92%) 134-(58%) Occupied Saces_ 130 (51%)_ 134 58%) 26.(44%0 35 (59%) -122-(37%) _. 5._(8%) 25_(420M Entire Study Area Total-Spaces 279 Wed 10/212002 __ 8:00 AM 10:00 AMI 12:00 PMJ 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 12hr Average Emp—Spaces 161 (58% 164(59%) 1169-(61%) 150 (54%)1169 61% 172 (62%)1164 (59%) Occu ied Spaces 118 (42%) 1115 41%) 1110 (39% 1.129 (46%)1110 (39%)1107 (38%)11115 41% Thur 10/3/2002_. 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM -2:00-PMI 4:00 PM 6:00-PM 12hr Average Ernoty Space"s 178(64%) I178 64% 179(64%) 1151 (54% 156 (56%)1200-(72%)1174 62%) Occu ied Spaces 1101 (36%) 1101 (36%) 1100 36%) 1128 (46%)1123 (44%)179 (28%) 1105 38% MEMORANDUM February 24, 2003 To: City Council Members Dave Romero,Mayor;Christine Mulholland;John Ewan;Allen Settle;Ken Schwartz From: Odile Ayral-Clause,300 Ferrini Rd., San Luis Obispo. 6�0' AIAA&'_ Subject: Request for a Residential Parking District on Ferrini Road. My name is Odile Ayral-Clause. I am a Cal Poly professor. I have been a resident of Ferrini Road for 23 years. My neighbor down the street has lived here for 49 years. My neighbor up the street has lived here for 15 years. Our homes are modest but attractive and well-maintained, and facing what used to be Teach School and is now called Pacheco School. Until last year,the neighborhood had been fairly stable,and my neighbors and I were planning to stay in our homes for many more years. Unfortunately,the situation suddenly deteriorated to the point of being intolerable. Several factors contributed to this deterioration. Fust,when the Pacheco Elementary School program was moved to Teach School,it brought an additional 300 to 400 students,as well as their teachers,parents and cars to the neighborhood. Many of these people park on Ferrini instead of using the school parking lot—the School Principal does not have the legal authority to keep cars off the street The consequences are particularly severe at drop off time,when vehicles parked on the street and on the school drop off lane block the flow of traffic,creating chaos and dangerously affecting the safety of the children and of our family members. Secondly,the proximity of Ferrini Road to Cal Poly and to the bus stop makes it attractive to university students from other neighborhoods. They park their cars on Ferrini Road and then ride their bicycles or take the bus to reach Cal Poly. Thirdly,since the establishment,last year,of a residential parking district on Highland,students who come to visit friends on Highland,park on Ferrini and disturb the residents,especially at night For me, the situation became so unbearable that I was forced to move from my master bedroom and to resettle into the guest room. It has been pointed out to us that the field surveys have regularly shown between two and six spaces open on the street These results are misleading,considering that virtually all the open spaces are on the down side of the street(the end furthest away from the school and from the bus stop.) The photographs I took on three different days--between Saturday February 8 and Friday February 14—prove that the upper side of our neighborhood is usually 100%%impacted. The Ferrini Road neighborhood has greatly suffered from the changes that took place during the last year. Many of us feel as if we were living in an occupied land. Because of this, two of my neighbors are moving out and more will certainly follow. I am sure you will agree that we should not be placed in the situation of having to sell our homes in order to enjoy a decent quality of life. Like other residents of San Luis Obispo,we ought to be able to park in front of our homes,especially when holding bags of groceries. We ought to be able to provide near-by parking to our aged or handicapped visitors. We ought to be able to sleep at night without being awaken by loud people returning to their cars. These are basic rights that any home owner ought to expect and receive in a small city like San Luis Obispo. I therefore urge the City Council Members to support our request for a residential parking district. The pictures referenced in this memorandum are available in the Council Reading File for the 3/4/03 Council meeting. RECEIVED February 18,20013 FEB 2 4 2003 SLO CITY CLERK To: City Council, SLD via Dr. Odile Ayral-Clause From: Dr. Gloria L. Velasquei<W**� 980 San Adrian Ct. San Luis Obispo Though I do not reside in the Ferrini neighborhood area,this has been a part of my daily commute to the Cal Poly campus for the past eighteen years. Since the past year, I have seen a sudden hazardous change in the Ferrini area, thus prompting my letter of concern. While driving through Ferrini St. was relatively safe in the past, now it has become quite hazardous given the fact that the new school has been placed there and traffic is now very congested. Also, visibility is poor due to the high number of cars that are either double- parked or blocking the way for traffic to pass through. On several occasions, I have almost.had a head on collision with cars coming in my direction since we did not have ample room to pass each other given the high number of parked cars. Thus, I urge the City Council to support the local neighborhood 'request for a residential parking district and for improvements on this street to prevent hazardous conditions as well as any future accidents. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. COUNC L $ CDD DIR BACAC CAOO AO d'PIN DIR RED FILE P ATTORNEY 8 FW DIRHIEF MNNIGAGENDA CLERKORI(3 l� POLICE CHFDEPT EAD 2f REC DIRDA4 ITEM # � 2 UTIL DIR .2 HR DIR RECEIVED March 4, 2003 - - MAR 0 '? 2003 SLO CITY CLERK Richard and Laurel Waddell 550 Felton Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear San Luis Obispo City Council, In regards to the proposed Ferrini Street parking restrictions, we have some comments to make for the record. We are not opposed to the idea of parking restrictions to benefit the local residents. The purpose of the restrictions was stated as to minimize the impact of business and school parking in front of local residents. The restrictions appear to go beyond that. Parking restrictions should apply onlythe curb parking directly in front of the residences. They should not apply curb parking on the side of Pacheco School and Throop Park in front of those facilities. Hours of enforcement should be limited to school/business hours, Monday thru Friday lam to 6pm. The block surrounding the school includes Throop Park, and a church. These are community wide resources that have been here for years. Weekend and night limitations could severely impact the use of these facilities or simply push the parking to areas that do not have restrictions. Lets keep the restrictions limited to the problem they are intended to solve—Monday thru Friday daytime use. Sincerely, r W RED FILE Richard and Laurel Waddell MEETING AGENDA DATEff ITEM #TSF I d. ZCOUN6L ,TZCDD DIR A'CAO Z FIN DIR P-ACAO FIRECHIEF 'ATTORNEY PW DIR e"CLERK'ORIG QQ'POLICE CHF 013EPT�r- REC DIR UTIL DIR �1d HR DIR /� b(u,cl �4ST acct c��l�S MEETING7tAGENDA PETITION FOR A RESIDENTIAL] DAA ITEM # ` i I I We, the undersigned residents living on the 226, Remauldo and Felton Streets,wish to establish a i this portion of the street has been heavily impac residing in the area. Two different problems are\sing 1) Cal Poly and Cuesta students from other areas of the city park their.- walk to the bus stop. Since the establishment of a residential parking district on Highland; students who come to visit friends on Highland, park on the northern half of Ferrini and disturb the residents,especially at night. At the same time, residents are sometimes forced to park their own cars a long distance away from their homes because the street is lined with cars that do not belong to the neighborhood. 2) The second problem was created when the Pacheco School program was moved to Teach School. Although there is a 46 space parking lot on the school grounds,many of these spaces are not used,visitors and teachers alike choosing to park on the street instead. The resulting congestion blocks the flow of traffic at the time of drop off and pick up of the school children,creating total chaos and dangerously affecting the safety of the children. The compounding of the above problems has created a crisis dramatically affecting the quality of life of.the residents. We have to struggle to gain access to our residences,and are denied parking for our guests and service people. We are awakened at night by people returning to their cars and leaving the area. We even have to clean our portion of the street because the city cleaner cannot access it anymore. We make this request for the safety of our families, the safety of the school children, and to preserve our quality of life. We propose that parking permits be required from 12 am. to 5 p.m. daily. By signing this petition, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the"Residential Parking Permit District Guidelines" and the"City Ordinance regarding Residential Parking Districts Established Within the City of San Luis Obispo". a�iLE 1��1�1�L- ecA-cry 3�n F>�RR�•N�` �5� 3 -� 3�5� Print Name Print Address Phone Number esident O e //Resident Tenant .9- 3-O.2 Si at atus (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support YES Oppose—NO (circle one) --- PrInt Name Print Address Phone Number 1-AJA Resident Own r//Resident Tenant 'Z72 gnature St (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort_ YES Oppose—NO (circle one) Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner/ esident Ten t �l 2 ^bZ Signature ��— Status (cir a Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES Oppos6Dircle one) yM q� R �z Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owne //Resident Tenant i / 3 St/o Signature circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support JYM Oppose—NO (circle one) cct IX Irl - tf Z Fe- h Print Name Print Address Phone Number _ sident Owne H Resident Tenant Signature _ s(circle one) Curfent Date PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort— OQppose—NO (circle one) • I r By signing-this petition, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the"Residential Parking Permit District Guidelines" and the"City Ordinance regarding Residential Parking Districts Established Within the City of San Luis Obispo". 2- 2-k r-err iY\ Print Name Print Address Phone Number R�e�(5 ��� Resident Owner /Resident Tenant ��� ��^d� Signature cle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort 4 YES Oppose—NO (circle one) .5yZ-5113 Print N e U 1 rint Address Phone Number Resident Owner// esident Ten Signatde Status (circle one Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort S Oppose—NO (circle one) 1466 +- -�a,r I'V,16 X;!7VW_L1M Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner /Resident Tenant 11 ZA4 061, Signatur - circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort Oppose—NO (circle one) —�yorvlg51JnyJ VuC� 3(0671t1_ N 20 Print arae Print Address Phone Number Resident O r//Resident Tenant I l Z F, D Signature (circle one) CtiTentbate PETITION RESPONSE: Su ort ) Oppose—NO (circle one) --------------------------------------------- Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner//Resident Tenant Signature - Status(circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES Oppose—NO (circle one) d _ S �55 3 J -4 'tf +�� no/Y.: i./ ov. j It J fr, 34' �. )i'-r'•1 �• �}� �' _ 3 t ! r• r ji t. t AA "Almimplx J, l{�I111' �� \{R-�>.: ��il � ,: !C ':7'�'S'f�I" j •,� - '.,,.1 ..___� ..� i Fs- f ^� may,.►•I} �.ff 1R`` j 1 ; -:'+fN•'s n' r :a�^�'�re.' xT :'T a c> aJ...J,y"�X.:� (v .. •- '1 «,. 1 I:4Aw' � G•r�.�1�Y< L c F'��r e 5 ; .. 'x1.,ti^w *l : fi.yr �' >tf�� r "�.•�,t+-'r't�^ ;•a >v car � a��-ti'r.\ +t'�4 h '' a Y`�ti.�`J �}>` �r � .t4, T'fi��