The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/15/2003, BUS 3 - REVIEW OF THE EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT l ' counat `'° °is-03 j acenaa nepoat 3 C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Worksrr Prepared By: Keith Opalewski,Parking Managerh SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1) Review the process followed in the proposal to.expand the Alta Vista Parking District, including information provided by staff and added information presented by residents. 2) After considering staff and resident information, provide staff with desired direction. 3) If the direction is to formally reconsider the expansion area,direct staff to resurvey the residents and return in the fall of 2003 with a final recommendation; and adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 9455 (2003 Series) that approved the expansion and reinstating Resolution No. 9283 (2002 Series) establishing the original boundaries of the Alta Vista Parking Permit District. DISCUSSION On June 3, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the expansion of the Alta Vista parking permit district along 1500-1700 Fredericks Drive and 1700 McCollum Street. At the meeting, a number of residents expressed their desire to change their support for the expansion of the district. These residents felt the establishment of the district would cause more problems than benefits so they no longer supported the district expansion. Additionally, two issues were raised at the hearing regarding the petition process that was used. The first issue was the hours stated on boundary map that was distributed to the petitioners was different from the recommended hours for parking restrictions. The second centered on confusion by McCollum Street residents that their street would be included as part of the district expansion. The McCollum residentspresent at the meeting changed their support for becoming part of the proposal because they thought they were supporting Fredericks only and not McCollum Street when they signed the petition. Although this reduction in the number of households that supported the district did lower the overall support from 84% to 67%, there still was sufficient support to fulfill the 60% majority requirement to establish a residential parking permit district. Because of the public testimony(pro and con)from all of the residents, the Council unanimously support the expansion of the district based on information available at that time. Shortly after the meeting, staff received correspondence from a resident living in the expanded area alleging that there were inconsistencies in the process that was used to bring the matter before the Council (Attachment 2). At the request of the City Attorney, staff conducted an investigation into the allegations to determine if there was any merit to the claims. 3 � � Council Agenda Report—Residential Parking Permit District. Page 2 Staff met with the petitioner representative who spearheaded the petition process. After a thorough and detailed discussion into what steps were taken during the circulation of the petition, it was apparent that there were discrepancies in how the petition was processed. Several requirements for circulating a petition were not fulfilled during the petition process. These inadequacies are detailed on Attachment 3 and summarized as follows: 1- A copy of the ordinance governing the requirements for establishing a residential permit district was not provided to all petitioners. 2- A summary petition statement indicating the reasons and proposed hours and days for restricted parking was not included in the petition. 3- The proposed boundary map had conflicting hours of restricted parking. 4- Residents from streets outside of the initial expansion area signed the petition with the understanding that their street would not be included in the proposed district expansion. In short, the residents who signed the petition did not receive all of the information about establishing a parking district so they could make a fully informed decision whether or not to support becoming part of the existing Alta Vista parking district. These findings were based on information provided by the prime petitioner at the time of the initial investigation into the alleged discrepancies. However, a recent e-mail from the prime petitioner(Attachment 4) has provided new information that was not previously conveyed to staff. Considering the conflicting information and misunderstanding of the residents about the district process, staff is recommending that Council review the process that was used and consider the information provided by staff and residents before making a final determination about the status of the expansion area. CONCURRENCES At the July 1, 2003 meeting, Council directed staff to begin the process to have this matter return to the Council for review. The City Attorney and Public Works Department also concur that this matter needs to be reviewed so the most appropriate action can be ascertained for establishing the expanded parking district. FISCAL IMPACT There would be no direct fiscal impact to reconsider this matter in the coming months. ALTERNATIVES Considering the confusion surrounding the petition process that was used, the staff recommendation to review the matter before a final decision is made is the best course of action. Attachment 1---Resolution rescinding the district and reinstating the original boundaries Attachment 2---Resident allegation letter Attachment 3---Staff memo responding to resident allegations Attachment 4---Petitioner e-mail rebuttal Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9455 (2003 SERIES) 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 considered the expansion of the District at the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting and has since determined that the petition procedures did not meet city requirements. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has directed staff to have the matter reconsidered at a future council meeting in the fall of 2003 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 9455 (2003 Series)is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. Resolution No. 9283 (2002 Series) shall remain in full force and effect as shown on Exhibit A. 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: Jo P. Lowell, City Attorney i(r /� EXHIBIT A N M1 y ..................... . ................. cn En Lr' L•'L'`L'•'M1 •• M1�. Y('L viav'v A .•.y..4••,j•,. `4 v 4.r M1 14,1} ,• W l{:.:rf:;f{: ,+.1`•:•.J:..::f:.f:.• •`L \y41:•.N % i ... t...• 'L,1+•'`•`y�:. .. �Y+�`•..,y.'L 1..y., .,y.:. .is �ry Y:. a :: . M [ASN01_ .....f:. ......L.. .....Y..... .......................................... .v.M1M1M1..:S .............. .............: 'Y M1 ♦ `5 • yam•:"�,yV .•� xx4• N: i t f:1 V tM1f t f�. i :r • �L ••J `•'`•\yy�yM1''r�xl ;1�•.R. ' y Cv•. •y j5 ,LM1 •,14'L 1 Lv ;::..;r4 ............. ::. L •• :.•nL.vi Z :::\ .).l ♦.:11•.1 y•� y y1 •..`}%: :' '�. � X41\'�$[ w u.� :'ti•\`'3 l nttacnment. Z D EC EUVE JUN 12 2003 To: Jonathan P. Lowell June 11, 2 03 City Attorney—San Luis Obispo, CA SL CITY C AnORNEY I am writing this declaration is regards to the misrepresentation and defects relating to the Alta Vista Parking District petition which consequently affected the decision by the City Council on June 3, 2003. The following are the defects and misrepresentations: 1. The petition states that those who sign the petition should have read and understood the"Residential Parking Permit District Guidelines" and the "City Ordinance regarding Residential Parking Districts Established Within the City of San Luis Obispo". These documents were not mentioned, provided for or given, to those who signed the petition. The petitioner(s) have an implied and actual responsibility to provide clear and accurate information and did not. As a result people signed the petition without knowing the ramifications of a Parking District. A good example of this is the 5 residences that changed their vote to no after being provided with additional information. 2. The original petition only pertained to Fredericks St. (see attached map, lower right hand side,that was provided to residents, and Petition for a Residential Parking Permit District which was not provided). A number of residences were added after the original petition was signed but no notification was given to the original signers indicating the changes. This certainly gave an unfair advantage to the supporters of the petition and severely limited the opportunity of the opposition to respond. You can't respond to something you do not know. 3. The original petition indicated the hours of the Proposed District would be from 8am to 5pm. (Again see attached map, upper right hand side). This was later unfairly changed to 2am to 5pm. People I talked to (at least 9 people,both pro and con) did not know of the change of hours and I assume most other people did not know either. Again no opportunity for.the opposition to respond 4. The occupants of residences on McCollum were specifcally told by the petitioner(s)that by signing-the petition they were supporting the residents on Fredericks St. who wanted a Parking District ,:and that the residents on McCollum would not be affected by said Parking District. This turned out to be not true as, unknown to them, they were later added in. Declarations to this effect are attached. As a result of all of these misrepresentations and defects I suggest the following. 1. Suspend the issuing of permits and the installation of signage. 2. Request the City Council to rescind Resolution#9455 (passed by the Council June 3,2003) and have a revote. 3. City staff to resurvey the 21 residents on the petition after providing clear and accurate information as to what they are voting on. This would be by mail with a mail back postcard indicating a"for or against" vote. 3-� Attachment 2 The clear and accurate information should address the following. 1. What a parking district is, what streets are involved. 2. The hours of the parking district. 3. All the information relating to the permits, how many, cost, can they be replaced, can you get more than two, etc. 4. Permits have to be placed on any cars parked, whether your car or cars of your guests that are visiting you. 5. Recognition that a parking district can restrict the number of people that can visit during the district hours. (could restrict the number of people that could participate in study groups, meetings, parties and other activities). 6. Any other pertinent information that people need to know in order to understand what all is entailed in a restricted parking district. I would suggest wording such as that below to be on the return postcard " I support the petition to be include within the Greater Alta Vista Parking District because nonresident parking adversely affects my Quality of Life". "I do not support the petition to be include within the Greater Alta Vista Parking District because the proposed parking restrictions would adversely affect my Quality of Life". I.would be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss the above declarations. My phone number is 543-2059. S incer� . Roger Keep 1660 Fredericks St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Attachment 2 I .LN3PVHDY.L.LV � I IIIIIIII In Q � m licuu t cc . n- r w 0111 J all Q . �N w Q I J am �6c11 Z!tl W H�m O t y. a/tl .0 wQ w w LJ t N 3 I 101t Mail �OOOP_Li � z a.3Zuu . IY p91 l O O OOM O 1191 OMI If91 m01 z cn:j,=L. =) (((AAA I Lost lift cni MO U LJ%11 1 t !rn w _ p tii t trot Z Int Q' WZ W Q O O IV telt IZfl list O 3 a I KC' _ L Sit 19: let z9c O d� I ccci �+ `' DRIVE Z OWN Q O t 19c1 r4 wl ccr lbr ar tic car 'j Cri_ I ttt Q,ti eeel U l Q O} Kcl rrt 9LCl 1nn.mm w Iart 9LC1 W Letl Ott 41 $ ORtel. M m err " LL act Ceti Oct J Lit ql', "r 99c t lit MI 9,t Q elrcot: cq �tlE r cyt Z Cot 69t t gets i1L tiZ. '� l0Z (J Ctr 1Cet , 091 oezt0t 10i taieor tar 90i an LONGVIEW LANE itc fm i nct In 702 215 721 7b '7i1 291 LII RI \ 6c1 \ c \►.� art ert aL. oeL.. - \ >` AVE. \\ ,ci cu lu lot 1 ` �.o G of et 9r ` ��y 9tOLD` wi .� \ .; /CLI 991 wl to �.e. DR. ,S G c, tit Cel Y6, O ` - fill on l9r tit na \ \ sit !9t at I9Z lei Izc L� D a Attachment 2 FEB 19 PETITION FOR A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT We, the undersigned residents living on the 1500— 1700 block of Fredericks St., wish to establish a residential parking permit district. The street has become congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area. These vehicles are left for the day and cfeate a burden for residents trying to access their properties. Also, the garbage pickup is impeded and the streets cannot be swept in a timely manner. We make this request out of concern for the safety of our families and to preserve the quality of our neighborhood. We propose that parking permits be required from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as they are in the AVNA parking district to which we are contiguous. Our request is for Mon. to Fri., excluding weekends. 3-S Attachment 2 i To Whom It May Concern: June 10, 2003 This declaration is in regards to the misrepresentation and defects relating to the Alta Vista Parking District petition. The undersigned living at 1764 McCollum St. in San Luis Obispo, CA, under penalty of perjury, declare that the petition for establishing a Parking District was misrepresented to US. 1. We were not provided the Parking Permit District Guidelines, nor the City Parking Ordinance information, prior to, during or after the time the petition was presented to us. 2. The occupants of our residence were specifically told by the petitioner that signing the petition was supporting the residents on Fredericks St. and that the residents on McCollum would not be affected by the Parking District. 3. The first we heard that McCollum was to be part of the Parking District was at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003 Executed on this date Lo`1 2? 3 -q Attachment 2 To Whom It May Concern: June 10, 2003 This declaration is in regards to the misrepresentation and defects relating to the Alta Vista Parking District petition. The undersigned living at 1744 McCollum St. in San Luis Obispo, CA, under penalty of perjury, declare that the petition for establishing a Parking District was misrepresented to US. I. We were not provided the Parking Permit District Guidelines, nor the City Parking Ordinance information, prior to, during or after the time the petition was presented to us. 2. The occupants of our residence were specifically told by the petitioner that signing the petition was supporting the residents on Fredericks St. and that the residents on McCollum would not be affected by the Parking District. 3. The fust we heard that McCollum was to be part of the Parking District was at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2003 Executed on this date Y � Attachment 3 MEMO June 18, 2003 To: Jonathan Lowell From: Mike McCluskey Keith Opalewski Subj: Response to Roger Keep's Allegations for Alta Vista Parking District This memo is in response to your request to respond to Mr. Keep's allegations regarding the process that was followed to expand the Alta Vista Parking District. Given the issues addressed in Mr. Keep's letter, I contacted the-petition spokesperson (Karen Adler at 1676 Fredericks) and scheduled a meeting to go over each item mentioned in the letter. The following comments are the result of the meeting with Ms Adler regarding the process that was used to establish the expansion area. #1 According to Ms Adler all residents were provided copies of the general parking guidelines for residential districts along with a copy of the map of the proposed expansion area(Attachments I and IA). However, Attachment 1 is not the actual parking guidelines, which are included in the petition package (Attachment 2). Also, the general petition statement outlining the streets, hours, and reasons for the requesting the district was not included in the circulation documents. Furthermore, the petitioners were not given a copy of the ordinance governing the establishment of a residential parking district as stipulated on the petition header indicating that their signature acknowledges that they have read and understand the parking guidelines and ordinance:'. Ms. Adler indicated she verbally denoted the overall provisions of the ordinance only and felt that they would not read it anyway. Thus, the City requirement to provide a written copy of the ordinance and a petition statement outlining the specifics of the propose&parking restrictions were not fulfilled based on Ms Adler''s statements. #2 The final petition that was received showed only Fredericks on the map, but included McCollum resident signatures on the petition..Mr..Keep's signature not supporting the district appeared just below the four McCollum signatures that endorsed the expansion. As with all districts, the final boundaries usually get larger, sometimes substantially larger, and the original group is not individually notified'of the expanded boundaries as part of the expansion survey process. Once the results of the survey,are determined, the staff recommended final boundaries are passed onto the petition contact person for their. edification and then presented at the public hearing. The final boundaries are published in the paper as part of the legal ad requirement forgiving public notice of the public hearing. #3 The petition introduction spelled out 2am-5pm, Mon.-Fri. as the requested hours of parking restrictions. However, the old 1994 map that was used for defining the district Attachment 3 boundaries in the handout showed the 1994 proposed hours of restricted parking from gam-5pm, Mon-Fri. Ms Adler indicated that the 8am-5pm restriction was never mentioned in the presentation to the petitioners. This was also staff's understanding that this map was only used to show the initial boundary for expansion and not nece ssarily the requested time for parking restrictions. However, staff cannot confirm what was told to the residents when they signed the petition, and technically the map that.was provided to the residents did have conflicting hours from what was beingproposedverbally and on the.petition. #4 The final petition did include signatures from the McCollum residences, but Ms. Adler indicated that the McCollum residents initially signed the petition to support Fredericks Street arking restrictions and not McCollum. Ms. Adler indicated that some McCollum residents inquired about getting parking restrictions on their block, but she told them she was only concerned about Fredericks at the time they signed the petition. Ms Adler initiated the inclusion of McCollum at a later date. She went to each of the five McCollum residences and verbally received their support for being included in the expansion area. According to Ms. Adler, all five endorsed becoming part of the proposed parking expansion. Ms Adler also distributed a letter(Attachment 3) to the five residences on McCollum informing them of the June 3 public hearing, which included McCollum Street as part of the final recommended boundaries. In the final analysis,based on statements from Ms. Adler and submitted documents used for the petition, it appears there was a lack of appropriate information disseminated during the petition process.. 1. Petitioners did not receive a copy of the ordinance spelling out the requirements and provision of residential parking districts. A copy is included in the petition packet distributed to residents interested in forming a district, which clearly states all petitioners must received a copy of the ordinance. 2. Initially the McCollum residents signed the petition with the understanding that their street would not be included. Only later was this confirmed by verbal discussion with the residents. 3. The map was that distributed to potential petitioners was in conflict with information on the petition regarding the requested hours of parking restrictions. 4. The petition statement was not included in the circulation process to obtain signatures. Unfortunately,.we cannot absolutely verify what was or was not passed onto the residents when they signed the petition or during the follow-up discussions. Staff believes the petition spokesperson had good intentions and attempted to follow the general guidelines to establish a residential parking permit district, but ultimately did not technically.meet the precise requirements for circulating a petition in several areas. It could be noted that all residents had an opportunity to contact staff, the Council, or attend the hearing to express their desires about the proposed parking district expansion. It boils down to neighbor vs. neighbor regarding what information or misinformation transpired.during the petition process. Nevertheless, there were inconsistencies in the 3 - la Attachment 3 process that did not make it as clear as it should have been to get the matter before the Council. Thus, technically there is merit to Mr. Keep's allegations and it would appear there are grounds for Council to reconsider this matter if is so desires. rogerkeepresponse q f3 Attachment 3 %r INTORMATION IMPORTANT: Things you need to know about residential parking permit•districts .r .ntt i -tiR _ •r,i y. .. r� ss,�Er �;� A _ _ `t ' .� .Mf 1 „' .'. :.moi•' f qT� t 41"� r • 1 'Y, , .A1. y SJ 4 TJX T. •k� y.}'.R' o Permits are issued to the.,,, owner on ;record v�nth.�the:- Recorder's Office and they` ar446e ponsible for -dispersing the residential parking permits to the tenants) living at the residence:. Contact your land` rd,; . nor property Ymanager to receive our arkig Permits.. V. o Permits MUST be displayed andclearly visible.at.,alltimes'during,the�:psisfed :, hours of enforcement throughout;the year foi each residential parlarfg•dict. Permits are ONLY valid in the district for which they have beenissued � • •. 'a i•' ' :iii-:�' �Y..C� ' ddddd AD �{^ o Enforcement CAN BE ON A RANDOM PATROL BASIS`inadditi` o� responding to a complaint`- call A single compliant call', cai nxtiate+ enforcement patrol of the entire-+„/tea:rkuig permit distnet f- xpia o Parking is only allowed onyo _,Wesidentt floc Nand- one dJo ' . t�f .,s� :- .side '” Vehicles parked more than,: o> oe w b o e Vit � C R\y,'• �YAC„ i j t. . im ro er;use of the arku a eyen ough¢iis ui the .`' 1 ..riot�b o �or �' o Unauthorized andoriuno i q�yt��}� �y}t, resident parkirig permy 'it.. k c P']S{� r: additional information on-s`eci lu 'arKMg ege a o Lost. orrstolen ermrts.4 rt s r• .�. :.�:�. it Department.. .A-'replacement r permit will be �assesysed ONE 1 i1riL�' e_qtr t Rss Peccoit lnfo.doc' I . NMIloylly Attachment 3 YLd (C1 '3AV ONt80 cut CLC lilt Q SSC cdc (' fLZlD l<•••Z I DELI —� 0M ro[t �3 Q ►+� I aat au1 H tntnZ Z W MP=l 1 alit O ne it W Q >d w WO I ? sou Mott W Z $a,p --416044 ( can (� � I (rot utl5LLOm O�Y_ 1 I Erol ,t0211 :) L»t • 1» MI0 MW ^ i IntIn, Z tq1 �Z �W<o� uh 1 lzfr n�i - O !r F «st rt. fez tttr !ac ��L 3 �"—01 a �y tit to e9�O d ? I act �� DRIVE r,Z t] In Q I t,, JUL Cie rac czr to coc _ U1 QN ¢R j ly�''� O ) tKt 1j �yL Dart V N d m m [J O iLtl t Pp` VLSI M C'OCI I cctrl act W I Lal at W oo � t tY CD Ste a' Slcl SLIT Ott J Ott »[ tv 1 ren tic ¢ alt OfL ro[: rte �pNE Cn 62C ems• I Itlt LR SIL. OIL J CCL all• �� C12` LLL� e LS►I - COL V ru MI toz on IOL In wr fill' for 0al1 LONGVIEW _ LANE 11 nr art I rcn to of zof zu 2 21 . zu 'vl to Get ALLEY \ art air 'lam11 - - . . .-_ — . : - s AVC- 'C' \ /CL Sot YLL loZ .e lift M, tat tttt N t III tot Lit - sytt. DR. lc,: act. lit Ill 0" �v>1 � attl o 6y otzr fait a on It, ►a ►itl \ SIL Ike ok tot I" ILC 1 o `� It Attachment 3 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT GUIDELINES Before Parking Staff and the City Council consider a proposed parking district, the Parking Operations Office must receive the following: 1. A petition from the majority(60% or more) of the affected residents supporting the proposed district is required. Persons signing the petition must be actual occupants of the residential dwelling. All residents within the proposed district need to be contacted informing them of the petition and providing them with the opportunity to voice their support or opposition. Residents at least one block or more beyond your proposed district should also be contacted to see if there is additional interest in becoming part of your proposed district. This would include making sure all residents contacted are aware of the requirements governing the establishment of residential parking districts. They should also be aware of the following details: a. Enforcement may be on a complaint basis only when staff is available or on random patrol. b. No more than two (2) permits per residence (no exceptions) and will be mailed only to the property owner. c. Regulatory signs will likely be installed in front of"your" residence. 2. Absent property owners are not eligible petitioners. 3. The signed petition should have the following information: a. Reason for request—Give specific reasons, and answer why street parking is being impacted. b. Exact proposed area—Provide a clearly labeled map of streets to be affected. c. Proposed time restriction and days of the week for enforcement—Consider realistic parameters (days of week and time) as well as an efficient use of the public streets(possible shared use by way of time limit parking). d. Resident name clearly printed. e. Resident address,clearly printed, with specific unit identified(#1, #2; #A, #B, Rear, etc.). f. Resident telephone number clearly printed. g. Resident signature. h. Resident status—"Resident Owner"or Resident Tenant". i. Summary—Provide a copy of the map (see"b" above)with the results of your petition survey shown. Residents need to assist staff by providing all of the required information set forth in the guidelines herein. Once a petition is received in an acceptable format, additional surveys may be required on the part of staff. Field surveys will also need to take place to assess the street conditions and affirm the need for restricted parking. The conditions and restrictions outlined in the Ordinance(see attachment) are strictly adhered to. Petitioners must have a copy of the Ordinance made available for their review and consideration before s gni"ng th�ition. The City Council will not be asked to'review the petitions unless Cal Poly is in session between Fall and Spring quarters. Because of the time to complete the necessary steps to move the request through the approval process, it can take 4-6 months to fully implement a formal residential parking permit district. This is from the time a petition is received until the permit signs are installed and parking permits are distributed to the property owners. 3� ILo Attachment 3 The following is a sample petition and map given as an example only. Wording shown in ITALICS represents wording given in previous request(s). There may be additional or different reasons detailed in your request. SAMPLE PETITION We, the undersigned residents living on the 100-400 block of Grand Avenue and 1800-2000 blocks of Slack Hays McCollum and Hope Streets, wish to establish a residential parking permit district because the street is congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area. The congestion creates a burden in QaininQ access to our residences. Also, the streets cannot be swept in a timely manner, and our trash containers are continually being taQQed and not emptied. We_make.this request for the safety of our families and to preserve our,quality of life. We propose that parking permits be required from am/pm to am/pm, days per week, (daily, weekends, M-Sat, Sat. only, etc.). SAMPLE MAP UQ O P P P 00 _ 130 150 145 144 40 0 159 1 166 I65 4.0 161� '66 HAYS - _- - - - 240 4 I •• 246 4 260 O O O O 1 276 P P P McCOLL lAi f e e ]10 P N N N 30 N J 21 34] 34 n d 74 a 357 763 344. 0 _ f O N P P a Nry a .„ , e 351 ' HOPE ((J� "e 776 ^• - � • E O e N N N f ]8] ^ 7t1 , P 410 e N i} R. 405 L I'f 4 <30 127 420 m -o a 411 \ 40 �^- Q ZSC 476. - - �. 40 44 z 60 . 471 455 CC 60 w 74 �n ££ 470 t•..4(90 OOPdi(S i Attachment 3 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". Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner// Resident Tenant Signature Status (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES 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) Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner//Resident Tenant Signature Status(circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES 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) Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner//Resident Tenant Signature Status(circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES 9Ppose-NO (circle one) Attachment 3 � I 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". Print Name Print Address Phone Number Resident Owner// Resident Tenant Signature Status (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES 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) Print Name Print Address . Phone Number Resident Owner//Resident Tenant Signature Status (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support-YES O_._P'nose—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) Print Name Print Address' Phone Number Resident Owner//Resident Tenant Signature Status (circle one) Current Date PETITION RESPONSE: Support—YES OQppose—NO (circle one) Attachment 3 SAMPLE SUMMARY MAP # YES = % # NO = % –It v Tr 110 y Iy � Y YcIYP y y y . y - y y ,zo Y no 0o �/ N f GSI I30 / 131 �I n C, y o 15a y _� 145 y N_NI Ni I40 ��rr 1/ _/ Y 141 1,4 y I ,59 �/ 166 1� N YJ _ 165 60� fV !�/Y 161 t '66 N y y y , y o c t o O o N: �•I �. o: Y Oj y O PI 4�I 190 I N' N; CU:HA HAYS _ �/ N c„tol C, N c t7 �10 Cl JLC` cl �� y �� y N� CuI I N 1I I )1 z3o N �6 y i y 1 �1 249 21 N 241 y —i 246 I x 254 y y y y y / Y 268 y I y l y Al y .D� o O c of J oN .r %a rlCI O� P' N Y of o� 01 o1 o0i o O O Co Co J Z76 N� N! N: N� Cu N y d y of Y N I N Y C y Cun s lln y P NNyN n3410r]3 � yy 21 300 I 43 y 3_'47 – J �.. NAinrij yl Cu 346 357363 78351 yo 376Cu - °t. / ._,_ N y ro HOPE 383 . \r ! N C %NDI �/ o p 0' ni 7 y y y c� �.) r ;11 410 y. N Q�N' cru: 405 430 CoLu Co 411 *.� 428 _ N 435 430 N ` y I 423 4 56 476 48 N I` 4415 Z 460 c 1 71 y 455 y 460 ] Y 1 471 �1.t 74 Y N o may( 0 490 v O c N �� Y o / W Py N N N N 470 VV »l (/�� #�. 00MIS 0 0 In IYE 52 Attachment 3 s 1036.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas-Adoption of resolution. A.The council should,by resolution,designate an area of the city as a residential parking permit area if the council finds that: 1.The area is predominantly residential; 2. The streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area and the designation is supported by a sixty percent majority of the affected residents;or 3. 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 ptrsons residing in the area. ' B. In determining whether limiting the parking vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered to or controlled and used exclusively by persons residing in the area is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life of persons residing in the area, the council shall consider the effect of vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area on ambient noise levels, air pollution levels, and other environmental characteristics of the area; pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety in the area; and the burden on persons residing in the area in gaining access to their residences. C. The council may, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking permit area after holding a public hearing and making a finding that the establishment of the district represents the desire of a majority of the residents of the area. The hearing on any such resolution should only be held after the council receives a request, in a form acceptable to the council, from a majority of the residents of the area. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part),2002; Ord. 1264 § 1, 1994:prior code§ 3209.17) 1036.180 Designation of residential parking permit areas-Content of resolution. The resolution designating an area of the city as a residential permit parking area shall describe the designated area in which parking will be limited to vehicles displaying a.parking permit issued by the public works department for that purpose and shall set forth the hours and days, as specified by a sixty percent majority of the residents in the district, when parking will be limited to those vehicles. (Ord. 1412 §2(part),2002; Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994:prior code § 3209.18) 1036.190 Designation of residential parking permit areas-Sign posting. Upon adoption of a resolution by the council designating an area of the city as a residential parking permit area, the city traffic engineer shall cause appropriate signs to be erected along the. streets identified in the resolution which shall give notice of the limitation on.the parking of vehicles in the area as provided in Section 10.36.170, and shall.indicate the hours and days when such limitations shall be in effect.(Prior code§ 3209.19) 1036.200 Limitations on parking in a residential permit parking area. It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street identified in a resolution adopted by the council designating a residential permit parking.area during the hours and on the days set forth in such resolution except: A. Those vehicles described in Section 10.36.180 displaying a valid permit issued as provided for by Section 10.36.220 and parked within the street block in front of the residence to which the permit is issued or within one adjoining district block;or B. Any emergency vehicle, including,but not limited to,an ambulance, fire engine, or police vehicle; or C. A vehicle with commercial plates which is under the control of a person, who does not reside Page 1 3-41 - Attachment 3 within the district, providing service for hire to property located in the designated residential permit parking area, including but.not limited to a delivery vehicle; or D. District residents wishing to sponsor special one-day events which will exceed the number of parking permits available may contact the city parking manager and request a temporary, special-event exemption to the residential permit requirement. If the temporary exemption is granted by the parking manager, all vehicles which have as their destination a qualified residential permit address, shall display in clear view on the dashboard, written confirmation of the street address and date and time of the event. Further, special events shall be deemed infrequent occurrences and any regular requests for parking permit exemption will not be authorized. This section shall not be interpreted to allow th'e daily parking of vehicles. Any vehicle not displaying the proper orauthorized identification shall be subject to citation. (Ord. 1264 § 3, 1994: prior code § 3209.20) 10.36.210 Reserved. *Ord. 1264, adopted June 7, 1994,repealed former§ 10:36:210,relative to fee for residential parking permit application,which derived from prior code§3209.22. 1036.220 Residential parking permit-Issuance. Annually, the director of public works shall issue two residential parking permits to the registered property owner, or the registered property owner's representative, as authorized in writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest County of San Luis Obispo assessment role within each residential parking permit area established by resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified residences that have multiple, separate dwelling units, shall be eligible for additional permits providing the total number of permits issued to one parcel does not exceed twice the number of residential dwelling units on the parcel. All parking permits may be picked up in person at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property on written request of the property owner. Parlang permits may be transferred by the residents to any vehicle that is to be parked on the street and will be recognized by the city providing they are displayed clearly. The parking permits shall be issued anqually and shall be free of charge. The permits shall be considered part.of the residential property and shall be transferred to the new property'owner upon sale of the residence. (Oid. 1264 § 41 1994:prior code§ 3209.21) 1036.221 Lost,stolen,or defaced permit replacement Any permit lost, stolen, defaced or otherwise altered shall be�deemed invalid and a replacement permit shall be issued to the qualified property owner for a fee of fifteen dollars. If the replacement permit is again lost, stolen, or defaced, a replacement permit will be issued f6r a fee of twenty-five dollars. No additional replacement permits shall be issued within a twelve-month period. All permits shall be picked up by the property owner or a representative.authorized in.writing by the registered property owner, with proof of'identification, at the office of the city parking manager. The property owner or a representative authorized in writing by the owner'shall certify that the original permit was lost, stolen, or in the case of damaged permits shall submit the damaged permit, stating the permit shall be used by qualified residents and their bona fide visitors. Any resident and/or property owner found to misrepresent themselves for the purposes of fraudulently obtaining residential parking permits shall lose their right to said permits and no permits will be issued to the residence until the beginning of the next permit year and shall be guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 1264 § 5, 1994) Page 2 Attachment 3 10.36.230 Residential parking permits-Display required. Parking permits issued under Section 10.36.220 shall be displayed on a vehicle in a manner prescribed by the director of public works.The method of display shall be clearly stated on the rear of the permit. (Ord. 1264 § 6, 1994: prior code § 3209.23) 10.36.232 Enforcement. Enforcement of the residential parking permit district shall be on a regular and routine basis,and may be on a complaint basis by residents within the district boundaries. Enforcement personnel shall be dispatched on an as-available basis as determined by the city parking manager/police department. All parking citations issued for noncompliance with the parking permit requirement shall be govcmed by the civil proceedings set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994) Page 3 3 -a3 Attachment 3 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY HALL 990 PALM ST. TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS The expansion of the Alta Vista Parking Residential Parking Permit District will come before the City Council this evening. This includes the half of McCollum St. not already in a parking district and Fredericks St. from Grand Ave. to Chaplin Lane, excluding the Lutheran Church. Your support&comments the night of the meeting would be deeply appreciated. When the petition was passed around the neighborhood in Dec. 2002,90% of the residents supported getting some relief from people parking in front of our homes & leaving their cars for the majority of the day. This support came from both resident owners&student tenants. We are all affected with the same problem. Help us convince the City Council to include our streets in the parking district that already exists. If you are unable to attend the City Council meeting, please call or email your supportive comments&reasons for wanting to be included in the already existing Alta Vista Residential Parking District to: Mayor Dave Romero dromero@slocity.org or 781-7415 Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland cmulholland@slocity.org or 781-7598 Council Member John Ewan iewan@slocityore or 783-7752 Council Member Allan Settle asettle@slocity.org or 781-7417 Council Member Ken Schwartz kschwartz@slocity.org or 783-7750 This item will be late on the agenda that evening(around 9:OOp.m.) The suggested recommendation for the parking restrictions is 2:OOa.m. to 5.Mp.m. Mon.-Fri.. No restrictions apply on weekends or holidays. Keith Opalewski -Alta Vista Residential ''-•king Permit District expansion Page 1 Attachment 4 From:. Karen Adler<fudge805@charter.net> To: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz @ slocity.org> Date: 7/1/03 1:22PM Subject: Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District expansion Dear City Council Members: There has been a complaint by Roger Keep to the City Attorney that we misrepresented the parking permit district process. These are the facts: 1. We supplied a 1994 map showing the existing Alta Vista Parking Permit district&outlined the Fredericks St. area to be included. When staff told us that Mc Collum needed to be included, also, (the part that was not already in the district), we went back to those residences to let them know. 2. Those who signed the petition were given a map&a copy of"Important Information°which included things they need to know about a residential parking permit district. They were not given a copy of the three (3) page Ordinance but we did carry that with us &asked all residents if they were interested in reading it. It was verbally explained to them at the time. No one chose to review the Ordinance. 3.The times on the map said 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. but it also said .m certain areas have 2:00 a —t. o 5:00 p.m. We were told by staff that we had to adhere to the signage already posted in the areas adjacent to us which is 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We still have over 60%of the residents who wish to be included in a parking permit district. In favor: Opposed: 1528 Fredericks St 1616 Fredericks St. 1574 ° 1660 " 1632 " 1706 " 1646 ° 1720 (was not built when original petition circulated) 1676 " 1740 ° 1692 " 1760 ° 393 Grand Ave. (property corners on Fredericks St.) 1631 " 1633 Fredericks 1760 Mc Collum St 1661 " 1693 Mc Collum St. 1740 1750 " - ------ ._ _ . --- ------... _.— I Ken Hampian-Alta__—Vista Resid—ential Pay' '-q_—Permit_ ._- District-----_expansion__ --- Page 2j We would greatly appreciate that you would honor your original vote of 5 -0 to include us in the expansion of the Alta Vista Parking Permit district and not let one disgruntled neighbor undo all the hard work that we have done. Thank you, Karen Adler 1676 Fredericks St. SLO, CA 93405 543-7213 CYDNEY HOLCOMB 80s 594 0365 07/14/03 10:16am P. 001 RECEIVED W JUL 14 20P ® � Q Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box.12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RED FILE DATE: July 14, 2003 MEETING AGENDA DATE,�'.,I,01 EM # TO: San Luis Obispo City Council FAXED TO: 781-7109 ITEM: Bus-3, 7-15-03 REVIEW OF THE EXPANSION OF ALTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, RQN is very concerned with the direction this matter has taken and the inference that the petition circulators have somehow acted inappropriately. Staff on page 3-2 of the agenda report, in response to Mr. Keeps allegations, cite several "inadequacies" relating to the requirements for circulating a parking district petition. They then reach a conclusion that the resident/petitioners misunderstood the process to the extent that they were unable to make an informed decision. We find that rather insulting, given the caliber of the public testimony at the hearing on June 3, 2003. We are particularly troubled with staff's statement that the petition circulators were "required" to give each resident in the proposed district a copy of the City ordinance. There is nothing in the material given to the circulators to support that notion. The Residential Parking Permit District Guidelines (Page 3-16) state: "Petitioners must have a copy of the Ordinance made available for their review and consideration before signing the petition" [Emphasis Added.] According to Ms. Adler's statement (Page 3-25) the circulators were in compliance with that requirement. They carried a copy of the City ordinance with them. They verbally explained it to the petitioners. And, they offered it to the residents for their review. We certainly don't find any of the other charges to be significant enough to rescind this parking district. In fact, most of them have been explained to some extent by staff either in their report or the memo to the City Attorney. Mr. Keep was only able to convince four (4) of the original petitioners on Fredericks street to change their minds, (one house was vacant at the time the petition was circulated) and none of them have substantiated his claim of misrepresentation. Additional public testimony should resolve any other doubts. We do, however, believe that the guidelines and procedures associated with the formation of parking districts should be clarified. Since this is an issue that directly affects neighborhoods we would propose sending this item to the City's Neighborhood Services Team (NST) for their review and recommendations. This is appropriate because there are neighborhood representatives on the team and the City's Parking Manager is a member as well. ,i3'COUNCIL e CDD DIR ['�-CAO )FIN DIR '(a'ACAO ;�,FIRECHIEF P,ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR ;d-CLERK/ORIG ,2 POLICE CHF ❑ D PT HEA 4?REC DIR j� 011 4TLRIL DIR Z HR DIR CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0365 07/14/03 10:1Bam P. 002 July 14, 2003 REVIEW OF PARKING DISTRICT EXPANSION Page 2 In summation, we urge you: 1. Not to rescind this parking district; 2. To refer this matter to the Neighborhood Services Team for review and clarification of the guidelines and procedures used in the formation of Residential Parking Permit Districts, and report back to council, if you so desire. Res ctifully submitted, ' Cydneney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN c: Karen Adler Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager Rob Bryn, Neighborhood Services Manager Barbara Ehrbar-Please don't rescind inch cion of Fredericks into AV _ Pagee 11) From: "Carol S. Lick" <click@calpoly.edu> To: <behrbar@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 7/15/03 2:38PM RECEIVED Subject: Please don't rescind inclusion of Fredericks into AV JUL 15 200, Dear City Council Members, SLO CITY CLERK Our city's parking districts are an extremely important element of your support for neighborhood wellness. We are daily aware of their benefit in our Alta Vista Parking District adjacent to Cal Poly, with its high demand for parking spaces and particularly by those who do not wish to pay university parking fees. The petitioners for the inclusion of Fredericks Street into our district have followed the appropriate procedures and received the required number of affirmative responses from residents. Please do no rescind your previous decision. Sincerely, Carol S. Lick Albert Drive C COUNCIL TCDD DIR CAO 2'FIN DIR ,RrACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY 21PW DIR J�?`CLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF ❑ D T' EADS 9 REC DIR RED FILE p g UTIL DIR /-_L NYHA DIR MEETING AGENDA _ DAT ITEM CLIO Allen Settle-Expansion of Alta Vista ResitJAntial Parking Permit District _ __ Page 1 RECEIVED TJL 15 200? From: <TIMTOWNLEY@aol.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@sloc ity$ o,CITY CLERK <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwariz@slocity.org> Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: Expansion of Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District Our City Leaders, Thank you for your 5-0 vote including our street, Fredericks in the Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District. I wanted to let you know that we completely understood the petition process&the residential parking district was explained to us in detail. We also recieved the map & "Important Information"sheet. This explained all we needed to know about residential parking permit districts. We definately STILL want to be included in the expansion of the Alta Vista District. Please honor your original vote supporting our inclusion in the expansion of the parking district. Thank you for your time and representation. Tim and Hayley Townley 1574 Fredericks San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-546-9926 7,A�TORNEY ?'CDD DIR jFIN DIR FIFlE CHIEF C AO ;ep0 DIR xFOLICECHF FILE "RECDIR RED S �,uTIL DIR GENDAoIa �ft ING A 3 _�---- — DATE �„�' ITEM # Allen Settle- Expansion of Alta Vista Resi ential Parking Permit District _ Page 1 From: <patshere@pacbell.net> T'JL 15 NE ITo: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.L-RECEIVED <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org> LO CITY CLERK Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2003 12:46 PM Subject: Expansion of Alta Vista Residential Parking Permit District Dear Mayor and City Council, My name is James (Patrick)Vaughan. I am the owner and resident living at 395 Grand Avenue here in San Luis Obispo. My property is located on the north comer of Grand and Fredericks. I have no questions regarding the petition process and the residential parking district was explained to me along with the map and information sheet which was given to each resident within the proposed Alta Vista parking expansion district. I still want to be included in the district expansion and ask you to please honor your original vote of 5-0 supporting our inclusion in the expansion of the parking district. Thank You Patrick Vaughan Phone#787-0924 COUNCIL -2 CDD DIR ,dCAO FIN DIR EfACAO -f 1 TTORNEY SIRE CHIEF [[�� ?'N DIR RED FILE CLERK/ORIG 2"'°OLICE CHF DEPS HEADS iCP,= DIR MG AGENDA �_,� TIL DI�9� DATE tb ITEM #AH.R, DIR j Allen Settle-Alta Vista Parking District Ext-rasion ^ _ _Page 1 RECEIVED From: <KJones4724@aol.com> JUL 15 2000' To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@sl ity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org> SLO CITY CLERK Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Alta Vista Parking District Extension Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council: SUBJECT: Expansion of the Alta Vista Parking Distract We do not understand why reconsideration of the expansion of the Alta Vista Parking District has returned to the City Council Agenda on July 15, 2003. We have reviewed the information, 'Things you need to know about residential parking permit districts,"and the map of the Referential Parking District boundaries. This information was furnished to us by Mrs. Karen Adler before our previous meeting and appears to answer any questions. We still believe it is wise to protect our street from impacted parking and do not want to wait until problem recurs this fall before the matter can be revisited. We request that Council honor its original decision by a confirming vote favoring the planned expansion of the Parking District. Sincerely, KENNETH R. & NORMA H. JONES 1646 FREDERICKS STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93405 (805)543-9154 kjones4724@aol.com ,L�000NCIL WCDD DIR eCAO Y FIN DIR CACAO ZFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY Z--PW DIR YCLERKiORIG 2"POUCE CHF RED FILE DEPT HEADS 2 UEC I TIL DIR �;VHR DIR MEETING AGENDA — -- DA' ITEM # `5