The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/03/2003, PH1 - EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT COUnat N ftD�3-os j ac En as Rep= C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Wor Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Managera SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt a resolution expanding the Alta Vista residential parking permit district to include new properties as shown on (Attachment 1) with restricted parking from 2 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. 2) Rescind Resolution No. 9283 (2002 Series). DISCUSSION Staff received a petition from residents living on 1500-1700 Fredericks Drive and 1700 McCollum Street seeking to establish a new 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 60% majority of residents living in the affected area in order to create a residential parking permit district. The petition requested that parking be restricted between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. Since the area is adjacent to the existing Alta Vista parking district (Attachment 2) and the requested time restriction is identical to Alta Vista's, staff is considering this request as an expansion of the Alta Vista District. According to the petitioners 84% (16 out of 19) their streets have become congested with non- resident vehicles creating a burden for them to readily access their properties, which has created safety issues and an impact to their quality of life. As a result, the residents felt a parking district the best means available to improve resident parking and their quality of life. It should be noted that the petition does include a request from the Lutheran Church to be part of the proposed expansion area. However, the current ordinance governing the establishment of residential parking districts only applies to residential units and as such, the church cannot be included in the recommended boundary changes. Considering the concerns expressed in the petition, staff conducted field surveys to ascertain the level of the problem. Field surveys were conducted between February 21 and March 19 during the daytime hours. The results of the field observations support the petitioners' concerns of impacted parking along portions of the proposed street restrictions (Attachment 3). McCollum was,heavily parked and portions of Fredericks ranged from high to medium impact from parked vehicles. t ' Council Agenda Report—Residential Parking Permit District Page 2 Following standard procedure for processing requests for residential districts, staff also conducted a mail survey of adjoining residents to determine if there was support for becoming part of the proposed expansion area. Five surveys were sent to additional homes on Fredericks, McCollum and two comer residences on Grand. The smaller number of surveys was driven by the proximity of Fredericks to the freeway and higher density housing toward Kentucky. The two residences on Grand were included because they have dual frontage on McCollum and Fredericks and no parking on Grand due to the bike lane. The surveys (Attachment 4) indicated support from the corer house at 395 Grand, which currently has no Grand Avenue frontage parking due to restricted parking for travel and bike lanes. Including this residence in the proposed district would restrict parking on the Fredericks portion of their property but allow parking permits. There was no response from the corer house at 311 Grand, so it will not be included in the expanded area.Two homes on 1400 Fredericks were surveyed but only one of the two houses supported becoming part of the expansion area. Since it was the house furthest from the expansion area and the adjoining house did not support becoming part of the expansion area, these two homes are not recommended for inclusion at this time. On McCollum Street the current district boundary ends just prior to 1693 McCollum. This end residence did not wish to part of the district when it was fust established back in the mid-90's. Given it was at the end of the block at that tire, it was not included in the final boundaries. Over the years there has been much development on McCollum. The four residences across the street (included in the current petition)did not exist until last year. Additionally, six new houses are under construction on Leroy, a new cul-de-sac street off of McCollum and adjacent to 1693. A provision of the use pemmit for this development eliminated on-street parking in order to meet Fire Department access requirements. Thus 1693 would become an island of parking if not added to the district. However, the representatives for 1693 did respond positively to the survey to be included in the new boundaries. As such, the recommendation is that the boundary be modified to include this residence in the revised district boundaries. 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 be formed under two options: Option One 1) the area is predominately residential; and 2) streets in the area are congested with vehicles parking 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 proposed area is predominately residential and there is congested parking on McCollum and Fredericks. Based on field observations McCollum was heavily impacted each time "d Council Agenda Report—Residential Parking Permit District Page 3 the area was surveyed. Fredericks too had parking congestion, but only on portions and not every time a survey was conducted. The congestion on the street ranged from medium to heavy with parked cars during the survey times,but staff was unable to determine whether they were resident or non-resident vehicles. Considering the location of the.proposed expansion area and the level of congested street parking, staff would support the approval of the petitioners' request under Option One. However,impacts to quality of life were also addressed in the resident petition, and as with all parking districts, the quality of life requirements must be decided by Council after considering factors relating to noise, air quality,pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety, and the overall burden on persons gaining access to their residences. The Council has never denied a quality of life argument in the past when considering a parking district request. In order to expand the Alta Vista Residential Parking District, the Council must rescind Resolution 9283 (2002), which authorized the first expansion of the District. The provided Resolution (Attachment 1) provides all language needed to define the reformed District after this second expansion takes place. Enforcement The proposed hours of 2 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday matches the current hours in a portion of the existing Alta Vista District. As with the existing parking district, the expanded area would be enforced by Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) personnel from the Police Department for nighttime portion. The daytime component would fall under the duties of Public Work's enforcement staff that patrol the downtown area and other parking permit districts. It should be noted that even though this is an expansion of the Alta Vista District, the more time spent patrolling this and other districts,the less time downtown or other areas of the City can be patrolled. CONCURRENCES As mentioned, enforcement duties will be jointly handled by the Police Department and Public Works Department for the nighttime and daytime hours of restricted parking. However, as with other residential parking districts, the Police and Public Works would only be able to dispatch personnel 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 in the expanded parking district. The proposed district expansion was also presented to the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) at their May 15, 2003 meeting. The details of the proposed boundaries and hours of parking restrictions were discussed with the committee, but no formal recommendation was received from the committee. FISCAL IMPACT Since the proposed district is actually an expansion of the existing Alta Vista District, the direct costs to the City will be minimal. Currently, the Streets Division has a small inventory of signs with matching hours, so only a few extra signs will be needed. This additional cost (approximately $250)can be covered by the existing sign budget in Parking Operations. Additional permits will not � - 3 J Council Agenda Report—Residential Parking Permit District Page 4 have to be ordered because there is sufficient inventory from the current district to cover the permit requirement for the expanded area. In addition, although there is a potential to produce more parking citation revenue from the expanded area, the more the area is patrolled, there is a corresponding reduction of time devoted to patrolling downtown meters, which translates into lost meter and citation revenue. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives could range from a larger to smaller or no parking expansion. Based on the strong support to be included in the current parking permit district, the recommended approval for the expansion area would appear to best meet the desires of the residents. Attachments—Attachment 1--Resolution modifying parking district Attachment 2---Current District Map Attachment 3---Field Survey Results Attachment 4--Mail Survey Results Council Reading File—Resident Petition 1:\Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\AltaVista district expansion 5-2003.DOC l r \ J i Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING THE GREATER ALTA VISTA AREA OF THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATIONS OF SAID DISTRICT AND TIME OF RENEWAL FOR A PARKING PERMIT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9283 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo established the Greater Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo determined that the quality of life for the residents of this district had been adversely affected by nonresidents using the neighborhood streets for excessive parking; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the restriction of nonresident 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 majority of the residents living on the 1500 - 1700 block of Fredericks and the 1700 block of McCollum .have petitioned to be included in the Greater Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has held a public hearing to consider the changes to the parking district and permit distribution and has determined limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons residing in the area is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life as defined in resident petition and approved by a sixty percent majority of persons residing in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 9283 (2002 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 district boundaries and hours are hereby established as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION 3. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the.Greater Alta Vista District or having a permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the driver's side of the vehicle shall park on any street within the hashed area from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and the remaining district boundaries (shown in the shaded area) shall restrict parking from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. SECTION 4. The Public Works Department shall be directed to post the district with signs 1 ^S Attachment 1 that clearly indicate these restrictions. SECTION 5. 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`h of each year. Upon motion of and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of__2003. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. Lowell, City Attorney rW Exhibit A , ....... ........ ..... ..... Em A Y .::•:•iii;;; :: ::;:'•{:}�.J;::: f A f y �7 { {> :•s:::.:... log .. u� N �� >:.•� ::`fir:'.:::"'. > : E.,, EY e ti'l�•• J .y�� •� ti:.vi• v:.^• 1 0I w a '•,�t'�r''•. .. �i w .a f 0 H N ' y <> N 1 f I I r Attarhment 2 La—L, Lj L—LL:J : LL-t::j LLLLU ; I ....... ....... .......... . ..... ...... At -I.. ........ ....... if ET I u u ................ %....... ....... ...... ll s .............. . .. . .. . .............. . .............. .......... %: x%x xl:x V".., XX. z x x F. x % cc PmI cc 6"d........... .. ... ..... ....................................... . .............. . . ............. .............. .. . .. .......... o'd ............ X X i Al MM PO po cc . ....... ..... X hop Attachment 3 Fredericks Parking Survey 2003 Approximately 40 parking spaces on each side of Fredericks Date:. Time: Grand to Albert Chaplin Albert to Total % Albert East to Chaplin to Albert Grand of side East side West side West side . parking spaces occupied 2/21/03 1030 12 8 7 8 43.75% Friday 2/25/03 12.30 11 5 n/a n/a Tuesday 2/26/03 10:19 14 16 9 11 62.5% Wed. 2/27/03 11:10 11 11 3 12 46.25% Thurs. 2/28/03 12:05 12 2 8 16 47.5% Friday 3/7/03 12:26 11 4 8 11 42.5% Friday 3/11/03 2:21 13 9 10 19 63.75% Tuesday 3/19/03 11:15 11 0 4 10 31.25% Wed. Average 42.19% � —q Attachment 4 LL ...... ...... . ....... ........ ........ ....... ...... ...... .. ....... ....... ........ ..........% .......... ... ....... ........... ............ I............... rg ........ ...... IIXX . ............ 0 z con Cn ...... .... 0 < z . > z > ....... ........ Ma . ....... ... V [0 Dave Romero-Alta Vista Residential Pa,"ng Permit District-_City Council Meeting 6'` Page 1 i. RECEIVED From: "Hayley Townley"<hayleytownley@charter.net> To: _ <dromero@slocity.org> JUN 042 2001 Date: Sun, Jun 1, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District-City Council Meetini I 68LO CITY CLERK Hayley&Tim Townley 1574 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 t. 805.546.9926 May 31, 2003 RE: Expansion of Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit Area Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members: We have a prior commitment on Tuesday, June 3 and won't be able to attend the City Council meeting, however, we wanted to express our concern to the above referenced matter. We purchased our home last summer in 2002 on Fredericks Street. We were shocked when Cal Poly went back into fall session to find that the students park on our street, from one end to the other, leaving our friends and family with no place to park when they come to visit. Parking is very erratic, sometimes blocking our driveway partially. Vision is definitely impaired when pulling out of our driveway as the cars lined up one side and down the other make it impossible to insure you are not pulling out in the line of traffic. Due to the dangerous nature of the profile road, along with the inability of having our friends and family visit during the day, we would like to have the City Council include our neighborhood in the already existent Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Tim & Hayley Townley Cc: Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland, cmulholland@slocity.org Council Member John Ewan,jewan@slocity.org Council Member Allan Settle, asettle@slocity.org Council Member Ken Schwartz, Schwartz@slocity.org CC: "SLO City Council" <dromero@slocity.org, cmulholland@slocity.org,jewan@slocity.org, asettle@slocity.org, kschwartz@slocity.org> 2rCOUNCIL TCDD DIR RED FILE j'CAO yyFIN DIR fdACAO ZFIRE CHIEF M ING AGENDA gATTORNEY 2-pW DIR PICLERK/ORIG 2r POLICE CHF DA O�ITEM f-1� ❑ DEPT HEADS 2 AEC DIR 0LITILDIR /N j�HR DIR Dave Romero-expansion of Alta Vista P^-'ting Permit District •_ _ _ •... Page 1 �C JUN 0 2 200' From: Karen Adler<fudge805@charter.net> SLQ CIT( CLERK To: <dromero@slocity.org> Date: Sat, May 31, 2003 7:46 PM Subject: expansion of Alta Vista Parking Permit District Mr. Mayor: On your agenda Tues. eve. is a petition for the expansion of the Alta Vista Residential Panting Permit District. This concerns not only the new properties on McCollum St. This, also, concerns the residents of Fredericks St. between Grand Ave. &Chaplin Lane. McCollum is already partly in the AVPD so iVs only natural that the remainder of the street with.new housing be included. Fredericks St. is petitioning to be included, also, since that leaves us the only street in this area not included in a parking district I have lived here for 44 years and have. seen our neighborhood become more& more impacted with people leaving their cars for the day&going off to classes at Cal Poly. Please help us control this problem &keep our residential neighborhood as intact as possible. We would truly appreciate your support! Thank you, Karen Corda Adler 1676 Fredericks St. SLO 93405 543-7213 COUNCIL .? CDD DIR L2-CAO /FIN DIR ACRO E-FIRECHIEF lATTORNEY 2'PW DIR 8y,CLERK/ORIG 7'PbUCE CHF O OUT HEADS 2(REC DIR Z1'U7IL DIR RED FILE J! -- _- 6HR DIR MEETING AGENDA DATE "tJ ITEM #Vqk 1 coun C11 1. M CM OI2an o RECEIVED JUN gnn3 MEETING AGENDA RK June 3, 2003 DATE ITEM #�-I TO: City Council COUNCIL 2"CDD DIR 'CAO J2 FIN DIR VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative OfficerK;11 ACAO !!FIRE CHIEF F / QATTORNEY 2rpw DIR U/✓ FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works LERK/ORIG '2 POLICE CHF .13 p T HEADS Z REC DIR 8' Er UTIL DIR SUBJECT: Expansion of Alta Vista Residential Permit District Bounder _ 2"NR DIR Yesterday morning staff received petition documents from residents living on the 1600 and 1700 blocks of Fredericks to be excluded from the proposed expansion of the Alta Vista Parking District. Five residents have changed their support for becoming part of the district expansion. This request stems from concerns of these residents who now feel that including their block in the proposed expansion area would create more disadvantages than benefits. These residents have reconsidered the matter and now fully do not support becoming part of the district. With this change in support (7 out of 16 residences),44% of Fredericks residents no longer support the proposed expansion of the residential district. The seven no support Frederick's residents feel that all of Fredericks should be withdrawn from the request to expand the district and only consider McCollum for the district expansion. However, the proposed expansion area includes five residences on McCollum Street, for a total of 21 residences to be included within the revised boundaries. Although the change by some Frederick's residents does reduce the support for the expansion, overall (7 out of 21) or 67% still endorse the idea of becoming part of the Alta Vista.District. This percentage fulfills the City's Municipal Ordinance requirement of needing 60% or more neighborhood support to allow the process of forming a residential parking district to proceed. This information is being provided to Council prior to taking public testimony so that all of the issues can be considered before a final decision is made on the district boundaries. As it stands now, there is sufficient support for an expanded parking district on McCollum, and percentage wise sufficient support for the entire area to be included in an expanded parking district, but insufficient support on Fredricks Street for inclusion of that street in the expanded district. Since the original petition was for both streets, staff is still recommending the establishment of the district as originally proposed. However, if the Council wishes to take testimony or make decisions on a street-by-street basis the outcome could be much different. Attachments--Petition material for changing support for the district expansion LLCouncil Agenda Reports\2003 agenda teportskouncil memo alta vista change.doc To Whom It May Concern: May 28, 2003 The occupants at this address signed a petition several months ago supporting a restrictive parking district for Fredericks St. I am very concerned that at the time of signing the petition as to whether you knew all of the ramifications of being part of a parking district. As a result of this I have included the reasons why I do not support the parking district. If, after reading my thoughts, you change your mind I have included a letter that you can use to indicate that you no longer support the parking district. If you do decide to sign the enclosed letter please have the individual who originally sign the petition sign the letter if they still live there. Because of the short time to respond to the City(the hearing is June P) I would be glad to take the letters to the City Offices on Monday Morning. If you would like me to do this you can drop them off at 1660 Fredericks or call me at 543-2059 and I will pick it up at your house. Sincerely: Roger Keep 1660 Fredericks St. San Luis Obispo, CA To Whom It May Concern: May 28, 2003 This letter is regarding the proposed Parking District that is being considered by the San Luis Obispo City Council on June 3, 2003. I live within that proposed district at 1660 Fredericks St. I am opposed to the parking district and personally feel that the disadvantages far outweigh any benefits that the parking district might provide. The following are the reasons I feel the way I do. 1. Each house within the district will be given 2 parking passes(good for 1 year, Sept. 15th to Sept. 15th of the following year)that can be used to park on the street. This means that your vehicles or any others cannot park on the street unless the parking pass is displayed on the vehicle. If you park without the pass you can be ticketed and fined. Lost passes can be replaced for a fee, $15.00 for one lost pass, $25.00 if you lose your second pass. Each pass can be replaced 1 time only during the above mentioned time period. If you lose your replacement pass or passes you cannot replace them until the next Sept. 15"'period begins. This means you will not be able to park on the street during that time. 2. Having only 2 parking passes really reduces any kind of activity during the Restricted parking time. It pretty much eliminates Birthday parties, book clubs, study groups,or any other meetings or gatherings at your house if more than 2 people have to drive to get there. It's going to be as big"pain in the neck"to have to go out and put a parking pass on the car of anyone who comes to visit you for any reason. 3. Concern has been expressed that people that live in the 10 new homes on McCollum St. will spill over onto Fredericks St and take up parking spaces. This will not happen in that McCollum St has a lot of parking available. Each house has side by side parking in their driveway plus 26 street parking spaces. This is 46 parking spaces. 4. Concern has been expressed,and seems to be the driving force for the restrictive parking area,that Fredericks St. is heavily over parked because of Cal Poly students Based on my observations, having lived on Fredericks St. for 34 years, this is not true. During the first 3 or 4 weeks of Fall Quarter and Winter Quarters we do have a lot of people that park on the street but this has never completely filled up every parking space. Once you get past the first 3 to 4 weeks of the Quarter the number of cars reduces substantially. To prove this I counted the number of cars parked on Fredericks St. during selected days of Winter Quarter and Spring Quarter( Fall Quarter was not counted because this did not surface as an issue until after Fall Quarter). Fredericks Street has 45 street parking places. Second week of Winter Quarter Tuesday Jan 14 Wednesday Jan. 15 8:30AM 22 cars 15 cars 12.00 PM 31 cars 32 cars 5:00 PM 22 cars 20 cars Sixth week of Winter Quarter Tuesday Feb. 11 Wednesday Feb. 12 8:30 AM 22 cars 19 cars 12:00 PM 22 cars 23 cars 5:00 PM 18 cars 18 cars Second week of Spring Quarter Monday April 7 Tuesday April 8 8:30 AM 15 cars 16 cars 12:00 PM 21 cars 23 cars 5:00 PM 18 cars 16 cars Ninth week of Spring Quarter Tuesday May 27 Wednesday May 28, 2003 8:30 AM 16 cars 16 cars 12:00 PM 21 cars 23 cars 5:00 PM 17 cars 18 cars CONCLUSIONS from the data collected. . 1. The largest number of cars parked at any time checked was 32 cars out of 45 spaces. 2. As Winter Quarter continues the number of cars parked on the street reduces significantly, takes up only 50% of the spaces available. 3. Spring Quarter stays about the same the entire Quarter,again about 50%of the spaces available. 4. Based on my general observation, but not counted, Fall Quarter Starts at about 36 to 38 cars parked the first few weeks and drops to about 50% lice Winter Quarter. MAJOR CONCLUSION During the first 3 to 4 weeks of Fall and Winter Quarter(6 to 8 weeks out of the year) Fredericks St. has a high number of cars parked on the street. The remainder of the year 50%or less of the street parking places are used. SO we have concern about parking for 6 to 8 weeks(15%of the year) but have to live with the parking restrictions for the remaining 44 to 46 weeks(85%of the year) of the year. I personally do not want to have to deal with parking restrictions for 85%of the year when we have minimum problems with parking anyway. To Keith Opalewski This is to notify you, prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003, that we the occupants at --- Fredericks St. wish to change our position regarding the Parking District to a Non Support of the proposed District. Signed ------------- Date-----__-------- To: Keith Opalewski This is to notify you, prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003,that we the occupants at 1760 Fredericks St. wish to change our position regarding the Parking District to a Non Support of the proposed District. Signed!-5--- �`"�' S_un er_� ��rO103 Date — To: Keith Opalewski This is to notify you, prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003,that we the occupants at 1616 Fredericks St. wish to change our position regarding the Parking District to a Non Support of the proposed District. I 43 Signed Date To: Keith Opalewski This is to notify you, prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003,that we the occupants at 1631 Fredericks St. wish to change our position regarding the Parking District to a Non Support of the proposed District.. Sign - ------------ ------- Date ---- � To: Keith Opalewski This is to notify you,prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003,that we the occupants at 1740 Fredericks St. wish to change our position regarding the Parking District to a Non Support of the proposed District. Signed -------------------------- Date �� l�-�� To Keith Opalewski This is to notify you, prior to the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003,that.we the occupants at 1720 Fredericks St. wish to state that our position regarding the Parking District is a Non Support of the proposed District. At the time of the petition this house was under construction but is now occupied. Signed--- - --- --- --- Date--6-1-oI- _ ... ....... . .. . ........ N . 1� z � .� z � o > O � ° ° rn :.: ...Ca ::.::........... th 1- ...... ..... ........ ....... ....... .......:... .. i Q FFTTTl P Iuawi40nlly Lee Price Meeting Date: June 3, 2003, " -n#PH 1 Page 1 From: "Cydney Holcomb" <cholcomb@charter.net> To: "Ken Schwartz" <kschwartz@slocity.org>, "John Ewan" <jewan@slocity.org>, "Christine Mulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, "Allen Settle" <asettle@slocity.org>, "Dave Romero" <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 6/3/03 1:12PM Subject: Meeting Date: June 3, 2003, Item#PH 1 M PUBLIC HEARING: June 3, 2003 1. EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT. Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council, RQN supports the request to expand the Alta Vista Residential Parking District to include the residences located on Fredericks and McCollum Streets as shown on Attachment 2. This is a very small addition that should not measurably increase the workload on the City's parking enforcement staff, or their"time away from downtown". You have heard many times, from residents in this community, how difficult life has become in our neighborhoods. Establishing residential parking districts is one of the few tools the Council has available that can provide a modicum of relief to the people living in the impacted areas. To bring this type of action before the Council, every resident in the area must be petitioned and more than 60%of them must agree to limit"their own parking" as well as others. The entire process takes approximately one year to complete, even when adding on to an existing district. The Council has always approved our parking districts with no strings attached. However, recently there has been some discussion with regard to: charging a fee for the permits; requiring a hearing before the Planning Commission as well as the City Council; and, having a study session to revisit the whole notion of residential parking districts. We see these approaches as methods to directly discourage the formation of future districts and respectfully urge the Council not to move in that direction. I .'COUNCIL a CDD Dari RED FILE -fl CAO 0 FIN DIR Sincerely, ZACAO .2 FIRE CHIEF ME ING AGENDA ZATTORNEY 0 PW DIR 21 CLERK/ORIG a POLICE CHF_ DA v ITEM # D T HEADS REC DIR UTIL DIR ® HR n1R ;Lee Price- eeting Date: June 3, 2003„!` #PH 1 — _-__ _Page 2 Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN CC: "Lee Price” <Iprice@slocity.org>