The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/05/1998, 2 - ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICTS council j acEnba RepoRt ]�N-6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works' — Prepared By: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager SUBJECT: ESTABLISIBoiENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICTS CAO RECOMMENDATION a) Adopt a'resolution establishing a residential parking permit district in the Johnson and Peach Street area with 2-hour time limit parking between the hours of Sam and 5pm, Monday-Friday and exempting qualified residents from the posted time limit restrictions. b) Adopt a resolution establishing a residential parking permit district in the Old Town Neighborhood area with restricted parking between the hours of gam and 5pm, Monday- Friday. c) By motion, approve $4,000 from the unreserved parking fund balance for sign and pole installation and purchase of materials to implement the proposed parking permit districts. d) By motion, conceptually approve the addition of a temporary Parking Enforcement Officer for 1998-99 in the amount of$7,500. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City has been petitioned by two resident groups living in the peripheral downtown area requesting the establishment of formal parking permit districts. One petition came from residents living in the Johnson and Peach Street area and the other was from residents living in the Old Town Neighborhood area(Buchon Street). Both requests are in compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.36.170 (Designation of Residential Padang Permit Area), which requires support of a majority of residents living in the affected area in order to create a parldng permit district. In addition, both petition groups are requesting that parking be restricted between the hours of 8am and 5pm,Monday-Friday. The residents' requests present a challenge to satisfy their wishes while at the same time provide effective management of on-street parking spaces. It is also imperative to "create parking opportunities" to compensate for the displaced non-resident users of the proposed district streets. In order to meet this task, the concept of shared use parking and enhanced longterm par_ __g are being recommended as follows: ... n.•.....,.., ....+.:.asa;3...R..........:..>.,... ..,..:..S,.H........:::::.5:-S:].:]++..;:. ...,:;^:.%.:,::;,;:,.:.:.>}Y...;£;>.]::::s..+.£;:i'iki>[.^.`.l.`::i::;:' .�:., aki.�:i i...: s.., i. k.,£k,`>• ] 3 k > ^i�l€ r,:<!p13(1I;; II 'Cs1d�5t3> : Sed d DiBi. "� > ...o:.,......],,:.,.. Ro.kk kx:::..:.........:�<:.y.,:.;;•+;,..[; ;..`j+F;:. ,.+.:.+....:.s:�<:�R.dw..ass,:,.: '+z£ ..3. vbkk,.,» .x#r.+• :'>.;y;'33:.;.,.. . �.>3»: .. ss;+:;,- ,,;•.',..,.;:::.].»..s: :.F.., ;,s3s],.,E;•' .:i::: :£:. �y' ' ..3::.:: m}� ii:.yF:.:. :..., �i ik:;<::,,....,.,.,; '<,,..r. IGI3�iG6 3C►I �Ie tlilTt' �iQ4irE.Yk`#`,��! £' y>�il kk t W ifi 10 `YC ,< tT I� IIi�J i ....v�....`.»::'.:,'.......:......»:.:+..:.i....n..,..::...i,...m.v........i..i,..�:.;.:...........i.,,. fn;:5^ : ... a.rv3::..^:� 1n3..�.. �>.� n;:,q, k:+k .... .,wE;+.:.^::'::43:•...::::,..s ..;... :5.;;31..:3�:y..... .;::n`kksy..,;::c:iC"+..:,..r.;:::; ,::?>kd.'^..,» Q3:[.:Rp>r:kv5;k #. „i+]]sem:.„:,..:, .i,. ?x.:a.... ..:........ •...; r ..... i.:.. ..; r:.. F ; ];;]:{ ;;£.'?:.kk33'k,;,,,,,...i:...;k`.3313.£.[, :3,...<k+;..?: ai.:.cx{2:.�s.;:. �#kkk£kkk., R _/ Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The residents from both proposed districts are seeking a solution to help address the inability to readily access their homes and improve the overall quality of their neighborhoods. The current Parking Management Plan (1995) and the Draft Downtown and Access Plan (1997) contain a policy that provides for the establishment of residential districts if supported by the neighborhood. Both of the proposed districts lie within the impact areas defined as part of the Study Area-for the draft parking plan (Exhibit A). Although the establishment of permit districts is one of the Parking Management strategies mentioned in the draft plan, it also stipulates that "arty permit parking programs must be accompanied by sufficient parking oT nlsion either through construction of snares or Transportation Demand Management (YYXvfJ to provide sufficient affordable parking for downtown employees within the S Area". Thus, in order for the proposed districts to be successful in teras of effective panting management, additional "parking opportunities"must be created. This could be accomplished via the concept of shared use;i.e., sharing the on-street parking spaces in order to maximize their use. The two proposed parking districts both border the downtown. Both districts will essentially remove parking spaces that downtown employees now use because of the lack of adequate parking in the downtown proper. The Johnson/Peach area is most likely an area used by County employees and employees of downtown businesses located near the west side of downtown. The Old Town area is most likely an area used by employees of downtown businesses located near the east side of town. The recent establishment of metered parking near Mitchell Park has moved parking demand away from the park(as intended to allow space for seniors to park closer to the senior center) but into the northern areas of the proposed Old Town parking district. This in turn led to support for inclusion in the Old Town district and which will likewise eliminate additional parking spaces for employee parking.. The dilemma for the City Council is: At what point will elimination of adequate downtown employee parking affect the viability of downtown businesses including the County? The County of San Luis Obispo has a policy of not providing off-street employee parking thereby forcing their employees to park in outlying residential areas. As parkdng districts become more plentifid and parking for employees becomes less, the County will either have to address the issue of employee parking or relocate the employees out of the downtown. The City and the County spent considerable energy in creating the tri-polar agreement in order to keep the County and its employees in the downtown. The eventual lack of adequate parking could endanger that agreeme The Downtown Parking and Access Study identified the existing Palm Street parking garage as the logical site for employee parking but only after the Palm II stricture is completed. There is opposition to any expansion of existing structures as well as construction of new structures so assuming that decreases in parking spaces (via parking districts) will-be offset by increases in structured spaces is not a valid argument. Likewise the Study concluded that even with a highly a2 —aP— Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 3 successful Transportation Demand Management Program, additional parking would be needed for both employees and visitors. Thus the loss of parking spaces cannot be made up via TDM measures. Clearly, continued loss of parking for downtown employees will eventually have negative affects on the quality of the downtown itself. This issue should be discussed by the Council and kept in mind as additional proponents for future parking districts near the downtown come forward. Municipal Code Section 10.36.170A governs the findings necessary to support the formation of a residential parking district. It requires that three separate findings be made and they are as follows: 1. the area is predominately residential 2. the streets are congested with parked vehicles by persons not residing in the area; and 3. limiting those vehicles is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life of those in the area Both of the areas studied for proposed parldng districts meet the first two criteria in staff's opinion however, as in the case of the Park View Parking District, the Council must take testimony and determine for itself the third criteria, i.e., the quality of life before granting final approval. Johnson and Peach Street Area Survey Results The residents (26 out of 44 or 590/6-see E)lu'bit B) living along a portion of 700 Johnson and 1200-1300 Peach Street feel the intrusion of non-resident vehicles parking in their neighborhood is causing a hardship. As a result, the residents are requesting the establishment of a formal parking permit district in order to improve access to their residences. Considering the concerns expressed by the residents, staff conducted field surveys of the proposed district during late January and early February. Staff also conducted spot surveys during late February and early March The results of the field surveys did support the petitioners' concerns of impacted parking during the normal work week. Given the potential for parking to spillover into other streets in the neighborhood if a district was created, staff independently surveyed a number of adjoining blocks to determine if there was support for expanding the proposed district boundaries. Staff mailed over 200 survey letters to 600-800 Toro, a portion of 700 and all of 800 Johnson, 1100-1300 Mill, 1300 Phillips, and 1100 Peach Street. As shown on Exhibit B, there was low to moderate support to be included in the proposed pig district beyond what has been proposed. Therefore, only the blocks requested in the original petition are being considered for a residential permit district. Shared Use Parka Considerations Although creating a shared use parking permit district would be new for-the City,this is not a new approach. Other cities have used this concept, either through time limit parking or a daily permit system with reasonable success. For example, the City of Monterey allows 1-hour parking in its �-3 Council Agenda Report–Residential Permit Districts Page 4 residential permit districts. The shared use idea could be implemented by various means that are discussed as follows: Long-term meters—The current parking meter zone (Exhibit C) could be expanded to include both district boundaries. This would allow installation of 10-hour meters along with strategic placement of shorter tern meters if warranted. The 10-hour meter permit program would apply to both residents and businesses within or nearby the metered areas. The current 10-hour program allows two annual permits per residence. This matches the current ordinance for residential permit issuance. Furthermore, anyone can purchase 10- hour meter permits ($25 per month) which are valid at any 10-hour meter in the downtown. Although meter installation is costly ($8-10,000 per block), they do eventually generate revenue to recoup the capital investment and are easier to enforce. Permit Machines—An alternative to meters is pay-on-foot permit dispensers. Installing 2-4 machines per block could serve'the same purpose as the meters with less visual intrusion for the neighborhood. Like meters, the permit machines can be costly depending upon the sophistication of the units, which could run from $4 to $8,000 per block or as high as $6 to $12,000 per block.. Time Limit—Another option is to post the proposed district with time limit restrictions (2 or 3 hours) and exempt the residents via the permit system. This is a low cost installation option,but much more labor intensive for enforcement personnel. The shared use concept has some advantages as well as disadvantages for the proposed districts. . It would create controlled parking to help reduce the current impact and provide more parking opportunities for residents and visitors alike. Conversely, it also may not create sufficient parking spaces to meet the minimum needs of affected residents. Although there are limitations, the shared use concept does provide a means to improve parking management of the neighborhoods without just displacing the problem. Actually, the time limit alternative has been proposed by the spokesperson for the Johnson and Peach area Given the mixture of patients and medical personnel requiring shorter term parking, the shared use (2-hour parking only except by permit) concept could be a viable solution to meet the parking needs of residents and non-residents. Residential District Issues The existing four residential districts (Exhibit D) have been in outlying areas that have been able to co-exist without displacing the parking problem to unacceptable levels into adjoining neighborhoods. Although the same could happen with the two proposed districts, the proximity to the downtown area vastly reduces the chances of this happening without a potential outcry from non-resident uses of public streets. Both proposed districts are indicative of a paradox facing the downtown area; namely finding the balance between residential and non-residential on- street parking. a-� Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 5 The Johnson and Peach district shares on-street parking with employees and patients from nearby medical buildings (Fremont Medical Plaza). According to the petitioners, it also serves as long- term parking for students who park in the neighborhood and take the bus to campus. Creating a residential district would help improve access for the petitioners, but it would not solve the problem of non-resident vehicles using the streets for long-term parking. If the current district boundaries were implemented, the parking problem may only move to the closest open street. In this case, 1100 Peach, 1200 and 1300 Mill and 600-700 Toro are the most likely streets to experience the spillover effect. This could result in more residents seeking relief from the intrusion of non-resident vehicles by expanding the district boundaries on a block-by-block basis. Although the current Code provides for this option, it may not solve the bigger picture of impacted residential parking. Staf'Recommendation Staff supports implementing the Johnson and Peach Street area as a shared use district. Implementing the district with 2-hour parking (8-5pm, M-F) and exempting residents from the time restriction via residential permits would allow better use of on-street parking. It also would provide the opportunity for shared use parking to be evaluated in a smaller area (3 blocks) as a test for this type of parking management strategy. Old Town Neighborhood Area SurveyResults Residents living along the 700-1000 blocks of Buchon Street (45 out of 61 or 75°/.-see Exhibit E) submitted a petition to establish a formal parking permit district. The driving factor for this request is the intrusion of non-resident vehicles that are denying easy access to their residences. The petitioners feel that controlling on-street parking through a permit district will improve the parking situation and quality of life for their neighborhood. In order to ascertain the level of the parking problem, staff conducted field surveys during late January and early February as well as spot checks during late February and early March The field surveys did confirm that on-street parking was heavily utilized during normal business hours in the proposed district. Because of the potential spillover into nearby blocks, staff also conducted extensive surveys to determine interest for expanding the proposed district. Survey letters (over 350) were sent to 600 and 1100 Buchon, 1400-1500 blocks of Broad, Garden, Chorro, Morro, Santa Rosa, 1300-1500 blocks of Toro and the 1100-1200 blocks of Pismo. In addition, the 700- 900 blocks of Pismo were surveyed for installation of 10-hour meters only because of the mixture of businesses and residents along these blocks. The intent of the latter was to gauge the results and impacts of the recent installation of 10-hour meters along 1000 Pismo and 1300 Santa Rosa as part of the Senior Center parking plan. As shown on Exhibit E, the results of the 10-hour meter surveys were Yery sparse with virtually no support (only 3 positive responses) for this type of parking control. However, there was substantial interest to expand the district beyond what has been proposed by the Buchon residents ��S Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 6 from other adjoining streets. Residents living on the cross streets of 1400-1500 Garden, 1500 Chorro, and 1400 Santa Rosa supported becoming part of the district. Additional support for expansion was also received from the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Pismo and 1100 Buchon. As proposed,the district boundaries represent a substantial portion of the residential streets along the south side of the downtown area. Residential District Issues The Old Town Neighborhood district parallels the Johnson and Peach district regarding on-street parking. Buchon Street is one block off the current metered area which "invites" downtown employees to use this open parking area. The survey results reinforce the fact that the problem is more wide spread than just Buchon Street, or at least residents are anticipating the problem will migrate into their block Like Johnson and Peach, there is a strong potential to displace the parking problem to the closest open block, which does not solve the problem of impacted residential parking. Therefore, it is likely that in the near future we will need to consider other parking management options in order to address the problem. &Zff ecommend2&w The Old Town Neighborhood area is much larger than the Johnson and Peach area (13 vs.3 blocks). As a result, enforcing for time limits will be much more labor intensive and it will not solve the problem of all-day parking needs. Long-term meters or permit machines would be a better application for this proposed district in order to reduce enforcement time and provide better parking opportunities for non-residents. However, given the concerns of the Old Town area about not wishing to share the streets, especially through the installation of parking metas, staff would recommend implementing the district as proposed with residential permits 8-5pm, M-F. Furthermore, staff also would recommend that the 5-hour meters (53) along Pacific Street between Broad and Osos be converted to 10-hour meters. This conversion would provide more convenient low cost, long-term parking to help mitigate the proposed panting restrictions. CONCURRENCES The Police Department has been contacted regarding the proposed parking districts. They have expressed concerns about reducing on-street employee parking in the neighborhoods, along with the inability to enforce the districts if parking enforcement personnel were not available. The Downtown Association Parking and Access Committee also has been apprised of the proposed parlvng restrictions 'but did not express a formal position. Furthermore, the Community Development Director has determined that establishing the proposed parking districts would be categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301 (minor change of an existing public facility). kFTSCAL EWPACT If the districts are implemented as proposed, sign installation and materials (permits) would cost approximately $4,000. The proposed districts would also produce citation revenues, but these s� Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 7 could be easily eroded from the lost citation and meter revenues as a result of enforcement staff spending more time patrolling the two districts. Workload Impact Implementing the districts as recommended will impact the workload of enforcement personnel. The time limit enforcement for Johnson and Peach and routine patrol of Old Town could range from 1.5 to 3 hours per day. Although this estimate could diminish in the firture, staff envisions at least 3-4 hours per week will be required to effectively enforce the new districts. There also will be seasonal impacts on enforcement personnel. The beginning of a new academic year and subsequent new quarters requires staff to patrol the two districts near the campus on a more frequent basis. The total time spent patrolling residential districts could easily reach 45 hours per day at peak times when the new districts are implemented. In order to counteract this loss of patrol time for the downtown area, additional part-time help is recommended. Staff will evaluate the impact of the parking districts and report back at mid-year as to whether the additional staff request for this purpose should be continued. Some of this staffing cost ($7,500) will be likely offset by increases in parking fine revenue as a result of the new permit districts. The estimated net revenues from all Residential Parking District (current and proposed) violations is approximately $16-18,000 per year. Finally, it should be noted that the residents within the current districts are not charged any fees toward support of the district. ALTERNATIVES Imolement districts with revised times, days of week and/or reduce size Modifying the proposed districts regarding the time or days is an option along with reducing the size of the districts. However, given the concerns expressed by the residents for creating the districts, any changes would need the support of the residents Do not implement districts but introduce some form of parking controls Another option is to introduce parking controls via meters or time limits without a formal parking district. This approach could subject residents to unnecessary citations and/or insufficient parking opportunities. Implement Shared use Parking in the Old Town Area All or a portion of the Old Town area could be posted for shared use parking. The previously mentioned options of time limit, meters or permit machines could be implemented throughout the proposed district to provide more parking opportunities. Another possibility is to partially post the proposed district, e.g., Buchon only, with some form of shared use to help determine the effectiveness of this strategy. — Council Agenda Report—Residential Permit Districts Page 8 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A—Residential Impact Area Map Exhibit B--Petition and Survey Map for Johnson and Peach Exhibit C—Parking Meter Zone Map Exhibit D—Existing Residential District Map Exhibit E—Petition and Survey Map for Old Town Resolution for Johnson and Peach District Resolution for Old Town Neighborhood District Council File Petitions for Johnson and Peach and Old Town Neighborhood I: count ilagendareports/caroldtowndistrict2 a C f7 C a o + if tl3 gM ` a z z � m Ll , En � Y w� En Q �, ss A [n q cocn s" � Zi Q > 0 y o is wase r .. rte-. v O Y ' h M bif asOwOOY m 4 r } IN a � L w '1Savmo � 11 El 1S OrOtlB . 3S 7• 'c if w301MJ '; •• ..t:; El a w • � r Y _ kt w L aa•a ..•... is O■uo,o ,f, �8. .. • 1 + L O • A O Y: • s w r r a D�H .aa a•.a.a -i m c if ou■on . "....■. x rN� t11�< e DMZ< Y O m r•a as aA ❑ ❑ � �• O D O 212M _ gr>2 i e A -4 O moi r Z Srlw.s '!■ruw.lwq .-0E M_ m T ¢ =e SrK } D D v r C� ........°r ' 1 uOUO1 O , . T m afoaOl m;o CM [IOE D rna,a9e �oaeww•w.... ••.....•:. D •ar wOsw„or . $ /nI 3r-r c 1 M � � m as erdeeac EXHIBZ A, - r = i i p= soso i f hT i — a f 0 r C> El�, O sou _ I V IS O w w� lift , x -- � t21T ; C21{ •� R I��Zt �y all U) Orrtt I rtt - � LLI bli OLtI�n --r •., 7 MIT i ¢t ¢n rtn • 1� tl e- wm Oit01 Jlot b Su Zyt �' r w O zt wit'ur Lzzt rzl r ' l J zt �• � s 6'sti Icii lJ " �� '• ay I nzt ILczl rat OLzI _ `• ro LLz; I ��t �• �� 2t E I qzt b oQl C y 5 NOSNHo e " d IC7 es — O 1-7\pat ` • `\♦ •`\ / / / /" V/ I LILT CD a � ao y o C i -- L— o z ' P m m q m L �. � VINI:IOdI'1S/� III _ 3noa� rsrT s I I .C-f- ~ � o tuo I t!ee t!oe ttoe L_ �e__•_ •� 0 I �` ate gee ; • . Y 'moo W 111L] El o Io O I OEI n [l 191 am 00011V ' Y `o a a %c7 0 _ EXHIBIT C 0 tI00 m j 1 i Alta Vista .j i i Monterey Heights i 1 Park View ' Tassajora A October,1997 cry or mmiZi Sa►1'1LU1SOB1Sp0 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT DISTRICTS EXHIBIT D .�i�lll: 1111■ 111 0111 • • - �1� r� : SSE Or!4-MiK� e,�4 '14 u �• 711 �IIIo �. � �'?�j�� ■ u loin �s`I W1 e qty-*ri, NN ►_%1��E.MUM= o �_V ►� � c rm r \ Ems ME iNr;NOMINEE 6 0 7mmmWE — SEE r►'�! aw INES INEE �; RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING THE JOHNSON AND PEACH STREET AREA OF THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT AREA AND ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION AND TIME LIMIT RESTRICTIONS OF SAID AREA WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has received a petition from a majority of the residents living in the Johnson and Peach Street area as shown on Attachment 1 and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the quality of life for the residents of this area has been adversely affected by non-residents using the neighborhood streets for excessive parking and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the restriction of non-resident parked vehicles on the neighborhood streets will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety and allow residents to gain proper access to their residences and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has held a public hearing to consider the establishment of a residential parking permit district and has determined the parking permit district will improve the quality of life for the district residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 10.36.170 et seq. of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code the residential parking permit area is hereby established as shown on Attachment 1. SECTION 2. The Community Development Director has determined that establishing the residential parking district would be categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301 (minor change of an existing public facility). SECTION 3. This permit area shall be posted with two hour limit signs. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a residential parking permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the drivers side of the vehicle may park on any street within the district boundaries between the hours of Sam and 5pm, Monday through Friday, beyond the posted time limit. SECTION 4. The Public Works Director shall be directed to post the area with signs 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 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. o�-1 fL ' I Resolution No. -- Page Two On Motion of seconded by and on the following,roll calf vote; AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ ..._. day of 1998.. Mayor Allen Settle .ATTEST: City Clerk, Bonnie L. Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: LA, — — - -- .-- 4 A_ _-ey Je�org sen z 1 1 , 1 , / 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 •----------�- HILLI - I' ------------, 1 ♦ 1 F •� r .a r - ' r JOHNSON and PEACH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Streets and Residences within shaded area and listed on attached list have restricted parldng, 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED JOHNSON-PEACH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Qualified Addresses JOHNSON PEACH PEACH 772 1206 1302 773 1208 1306 777 1209 1313 #1 1214 #A 1313 #2 1214 #B 1313 #3 MILL 1214 #C 1316 1266** 1214 #D 1324 1306** 1215 #A 1329 1215 #B 1332 1221 1346 1229 #A 1348 1229 #B 1351 1229 #C 1354 1229 #D 1358 1229 #E 1360 1229 #F 1235 #A 1235 #B 1235 #C 1245 #A 1245 #B 1245 #C 1245 #D 1253 1261 1269 s:%�DUM Diu eeecm **Dual frontage—Must park on Johnson o?!l 7 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING THE OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AREA OF THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT AREA AND ESTABLISHING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF SAID AREA WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has received a petition from a majority of the residents living in the Old Town Neighborhood area as shown on Attachment 1 and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the quality of life for the residents of this area has been adversely affected by non-residents using the neighborhood streets for excessive parking and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the restriction of non-resident parked vehicles on the neighborhood streets will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety and allow residents to gain proper access to their residences and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has held a public hearing to consider the establishment of a residential parking permit district and has determined the parking permit district will improve the quality of life for the district residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 10.36.170 et seq. of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code the residential parking permit area is hereby established as shown on Attachment 1. SECTION 2. The Community Development Director has determined that establishing the residential parking district would be categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301 (minor change of an existing public facility). SECTION 3. No vehicle other than vehicles providing services to the area or having a residential parking permit clearly displayed on the dashboard on the drivers side of the vehicle may park on any street within the district boundaries between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday. SECTION 4. The Public Works Director shall be directed to post the area with signs 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 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. _ Resol_ution No: . Page Two On Motion of seconded by and on the.following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution.was passed and adopted chis day of ; Mayor Allen Settle - - - - ------- ATTEST?. City Clerk, Bonnie L. Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORINT: i.C.it)rk44fneA, J Jorg sen --—--- — - �-79 \ J e N6 10 Ile t f 1 .' f. t j or I � Ne , / 1 l r f \• li :j" 1 r 1 r .01/ V x elf elf ee �Ghs. r t rt ! \ i or OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Streets and Residences within shaded area and listed on attached list have restricted parking, Sam . to 5pm,Monday through Friday. ATTACHMENT 1 a_�o PROPOSED OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Qualified Addresses BUCHON BUCHON BUCHON PISMO PISMO 714 972 1165 1109 1225 722 973 1170 1109 #A 1236 726 976 1175 1109 #B 1240 736 #A 977 1176 1109 #C 1241 736 #B 981 1177 1116 1253 743 #A 981 #A 1181 1123 1263 743 #B 1182 1126 1265 743 #C 1003 1189 1133 1267 743 #D 1015 1190 1145 743 #E 1027 1145 #1 743 #F 1027 #A 1145 #2 SANTA ROSA 743 #G 1027 #B CHORRO 1147 1414 743 #H 1035 1510 1147 #A 1426 745 1045 1518 1147 #B 1444 #A 747 1051 1534 1152 1444 #B 751 1053 1546 1155 752 1057 1160 770 1163 771 1110 GARDEN 1166 779 1118 1421 1171 784 1124 1422 1171 #B 785 1126 1423 1171-1/2 788 1132 1425 1176 793 1135 1430 1179 794 1136 #A 1185 1136 #B 1516 1188 #A 850 1137 1526 1188 #B 853 1144 1536 1190 855 1145 1192 860 1147 1193 865 1151 MORRO 1194 871 1152 1444** 880 1153 1446** 1202 885 1155 1202 #A 889 1155 #A 1203 890 1157 OSOS 1208 896 1160 1443** 1211 1161 #A 1218 966 #1 1161 #B 1219 _ 966 #2 1161 #C 1221 H-.R=n"`=n"`Addmum **Original Petitioner—Must park on Buchon St CHARLES I STORM 772 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 Telephone 1-805-544-8865 2 Jan. 1998 ACTUAL PETITION SIGNATURES ARE IN THE COUNCIL READING Transmittal To: FILE. 45 TOTAL SIGNATURES. City of San Luis Obispo City Hall C 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo Ca. 93401 City Council and staff. Enclosed are petitions. Enclosed is a map. Enclosed is previous correspondence pertaining to the parking situation. The majority of property owners request that the City of San Luis Obispo provide "parking by permit only" for the yellow indicating portion of the enclosed map. Indicated addresses are in the 1200 and 1300 block of Peach St. and the 700 block of Johnson Ave. It is requested that "permit parking" be provided Monday through Friday from 8AM through 5PM. It is requested that two spaces in front of any home be posted where available except for 777 Johnson where three spaces have been requested. Two people residing near this address are handicapped. Notice there is no request for posting part of the even side of the 1200 block of Peach St. The odd side of the 1300 block of Peach St. is-already posted no parking and this is not to change. Notice that not all the parking in the 700 block of Johnson is to be posted. The reason is to leave some parking for workers in the area. This posting should be accomplished as soon as possible. Certain neighborhood residence have mentioned their willingness to help with any city authorized enforcement of this parking authority. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. WCMNCL O CDD DIR areAn O RN DIR EAU= W CN1EF OIRQWWAN� 13 MM CNF Charles J. Storni (petition coordinator). D O� o pec m 1-805-544-8865 Omm� RECEIVED DEC 2 9 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL- .Z.-tea' CHARLES J. STORNI 772 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 Telephone 1-805-544.8865 17 Mar. 1997 City of San Luis Obispo Parking Mr. Al Cablay Mr. Keith Opalowski Ms. Debbie Larson 955 Morro St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Re: parking in the 700 block of Johnson Ave. Keith. This is a follow up of our phone conversation on the 17th of Mar. 1997. It is my understanding that your survey performed during a three day period late in February indicated approximately a 50%turnover of parking during each daylight eight hour period with most of the 22 available parking spaces being occupied most of the time. I have taken it upon my self to do a survey over a two week period. I think my survey will contribute to yours. Attached are the details. This shows the duration of parking by vehicle. It shows some movement of vehicles especially around noon. Evidently these cars are being used during the lunch break for personal reasons. Most of these cars return to park in the neighborhood. It shows that a great many of the people parking in the neighborhood to be the same ones day after day. It shows that when only one vehicle is parked in front of a residence,that it is a truck like vehicle or a vehicle that is poorly parked so as not to allow a second vehicle to park in front of the residence thus eliminating possible available parking. One peeve of mine and of my neighbors is when the vehicle in front of their home is a one ton pickup, a van, or a carryall style vehicle. These large vehicles take the space of two ordinary cars and present a real view blockage problem. Seems that there is a preponderance of this style vehicle parking in the neighborhood. Over the years I have put many notes on windshields of this style vehicle asking them to please not use thefront of my home for their all day parking needs. If you don't say anything you have the same large vehicles parking in the same spot five days a week. Most people seem4o respect the note. f It has been observed that about 80% of the people parking are employed at Fremont Plaza. Would this possibly indicate that Fremont Plaza does not provide parking for employees or are the employees being asked to park on the street to make room for patient parking? When parking is available on Johnson I have seen many of their able bodied patients park on the street rather than attempt to park in the slot parking provided at Fremont Plaza. Many older people especially don't like slot parking as it is difficult to open your door wide enough to get out. Also the sides of their cars don't get dinged when they parallel park on the street. What I am saying is that a parking limit on Johnson would contribute to patient parking for Fremont Plaza... About 10% are Cal Poly students parked to take the bus at Mill and Johnson to campus and the other 10% are people that work somewhere towards down town. Here are a couple of proposals for your possible consideration. Post the 700 block of Johnson, also the 1200/1300 blocks of Peach and the 1200 block of Mill and any others of your choice for permit parking only. Include also perhaps selected (doctors, nurses etc.) from Fremont Plaza in the permit process, with the stipulation that they can not use their(different colored) permit to park in front of a residence. This would at least give them the 16 available spaces that are not in front of homes on Johnson and they could still enjoy the approximately 12 spaces in front of their complex on Peach. The other posted blocks would not contribute many Fremont spaces. as they are a lot more dense with residences. However Pepper Street, on the rail road track side, has about 35 spaces and Phillips Lane down behind Fremont Plaza has at least 25 spaces to park that are not in front of any homes. I don't see any reason to post these but they would have to walk a block to get to the Plaza. An other proposal would be to paint the curb in front of each home tan and stencil it in red "residence parking only 2 hours max.". 1 realize this would start some thing new in town and probably would be some what of a long term maintenance problem but if there was a fine associated with it, it might pay it's way. I believe there is plenty of room for signs on all these streets where necessary. I have a second attachment that shows many people parking in the same block several days a week. We really do get familiar with seeing the same cars in the neighborhood week in and week out. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Charles J. Storni J CHARLES I STORNI 772 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 Telephone 1-805-544.8865 31 July 1997 Mr. John Dunn San Luis Obispo City Manager Mr. Allen Settle San Luis Obispo Mayor and Members of the City Council Mr. Al Cablay San Luis Obispo Public Works Manager Mr. Kieth Opalowski San Luis Obispo Parking Manager Meyer Mohades Associates.. San Luis Obispo Parking Consulting Firm. (copy sent). Dear sirs: Subject; Parking in neighborhood near Peach St. and Johnson Ave in the city of San Luis Obispo. The problem is 1/2 day or all day parking in front of our homes by workers from Fremont Plaza(75%),by Cal Poly students taking the bus to school (20%) and by other workers in the area(5%). These percentages are determined by my own survey over a two week period. A previous city survey done by chalking tires indicated that a percentage of were not parking all day, however that survey did not address the fact that many drivers used their car at lunch time or only worked at Fremont Plaza a few hours(doctors) and left. The net result is, we have no day time parking during the week in front of our homes for family, U.S.Mail, United Parcel Service or emergency use We can't sweep the gutters (trees in the way for city sweeper) nor can we, due to the truck like vehicles that many seem to drive to work in, can we enjoy the view from our front windows. The City of San Luis Obispo then sent out a survey by mail to occupants of the 1200-1300 block of Peach St. and the 700 block of Johnson. The results of that I understand were about 33% in favor of parking restrictions. That is probably about right in view of all the renters in the neighborhood. I will bet the 700 block of Johnson (my block)was vocal and 100% in favor of restrictions as we all own homes there. Here in lies a peculiar problem. First I am most interested (selfish of course) in the parking in the 700 Johnson Block. There are only three houses on the block. We each need two spaces (the width of most lots) for our parking needs. Fremont Plaza or whoever can have the rest, about 15 spaces. This may move some of the parkers down to Phillips Lane (south side) and Pepper St. (railroad side)which combined have a total of about 35 parking spaces which are not in front of any ones home and only one block from Fremont Plaza. Why not post these two streets for "Fremont Plaza Parking'. No one else ever uses these spaces. Post in front of our residences, "Residential Parking Onl}L or post the whole block, "Parking By Permit Only". Give Fremont Plaza employees permits with the stipulation that they may not park in front of any residence. The whole neighborhood is lost to parking and this should be vigorously addressed. Even the renters would enjoy the old neighborhood more if they could see the street from their front window. You may say what's the big deal. Most people work during the day so are not bothered by the parking. Believe me when I say there are several old timers left in this neighborhood that would like to enjoy whats left of it. People drive through and say what a nice neighborhood. What some don't realize is the amount of work and money it takes to keep it looking nice. At this point we need the cooperation of the parking department to impose some regulations to keep our property livable. CHARLES I STORM 772 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 Telephone 1-805-544-8865 1302_PEACH ST. Owner occupied. John Nettlship 543-3536 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2823 RETURNED 1306 PEACH ST. Rental owner, Gail S Taylor Renter Roy Sundback 543-1859 Address 2255 Stenner Creek Rd. San Luis Obispo 93405-7819 RETURNED 1313 PEACH ST. Rental owner, John A. Woodworth 543-3594 Address 624 Mission San Luis Obispo 93401-2366 RETURNED 1316 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Marilyn F. Grizzell 541-2116 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2823 RETURNED 1324 PEACH ST. Rental owner, Harry E. Overland 543-7203 Address 1351 Oakwood Court San Luis Obispo 93401-5918 RETURNED 1329 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Paula R. Ringer 785-0618 ADDRESS San Luis Obispo 93401-2822 RETURNED 1332 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Linda Fairchild 543-2079 544-1392 ADDRESS San Luis Obispo 93401-2823 RETURNED 1346/1348 PEACH ST. Rental owner, Jack Bronner 544-6479 Address 689 Serpa Ranch Road San Luis Obispo 93401-8143 NOT PROBABLE 1351 PEACH ST. Rental owner, James R. Christensen 595-2211 Address 1501 See Canyon Road San Luis Obispo 93405-8004 RETURNED 1354 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Ann M. Mercer 543-4429 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2823 RETURNED. 1358-60 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Ruth E. Jensen plus rental 543-2659 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2823 RETURNED 1206 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Robert A. Davidson 546-8217 Address San Luis Obispo 93401 RETURNED 1208-1-2 1214-A-B-C PEACH ST. Rental owner, Dorotha Wallace Address 319 W. Mission St. Santa Barbara 93101-3821 RETURNED 1209/1215 PEACH ST. Rental owner, Laura B. Hoover 543-3326 Address 6088 Joan Pl. San Luis Obispo 93401-8231 RETURNED 1221 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Ethel M. Powell 543-4894 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2820 RETURNED 1229 PEACH ST. Rental owner, Elmer R. Johnson 544-4665 Address 3350 Edgewood Dr. San Luis Obispo 93401-6018 RETURNED 1235 PEACH ST. Rental owner, David L. Nord 541-6309 Address PO Box 381 San Luis Obispo 93406-0381 REFUSED TO SIGN 1245 PEACH ST. Rental owner, George B. Weig 481-9371 Address 1585 Bee Canyon Road Arroyo Grande 93420-4907 RETURNED 1253 PEACH ST. Rental owner, John Patriarca Address 7560 Eads Ave. #3 La Jolla 92037 RETURNED 1261 PEACH ST. Owner occupied. Emil E. Krege 543-2785 Address San Luis Obispo 93401-2820 RETURNED 1269 PEACH ST. Owner rental, Earl P. Hill 544-2685 Address 1812 Tiburon San Luis Obispo 93401-8300 RETURNED 772 JOHNSON Owner occupied. Charles J. Storni 544-8865 Address San Luis Obispo 93401 RETURNED 773 JOHNSON Rental owner Charles J. Storni 544-8865 Address 772 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo 93401 RETURNED 777 JOHNSON Rental owner. James E. Shipsey 543-4170 Address 2266 Mill St. San Luis Obispo 93401 RETURNED �-a 9 RECEIVED WORK SHEET 1302 PEACH returned 1306 PEACH returned 1313 PEACH returned 1316 PEACH returned 1324 PEACH returned 1329 PEACH returned 1332 PEACH returned 1346/48 PEACH Jack Bronner NO return 1351 PEACH returned 1354 PEACH returned 1358/60 PEACH returned 1206 PEACH returned 1208-1-2/1214 PEACH returned 1209/15 PEACH returned 1221 PEACH returned 1229 PEACH returned 1235 PEACH David Nord Feels city has too many regulations now.REFUSED 1245 PEACH returned 1253 PEACH returned 1261 PEACH returned 1269 PEACH returned 772 JOHNSON returned 773 JOHNSON returned 777 JOHNSON returned -30 IldS IS A REPORT ON PARKING IN THE 700 BLOCK OF JOHNSON AVE. IN FRONT OF THE THREE HOMES THAT EXIST IN THIS BLOCK. I 3 MAINLY TO SHOW THE DURATION OF DAY TIME PARKING BUT ON CLOSE &._iINATION IT WILL ALSO SHOW REPEAT PARKING BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS . IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE IS SOME MOVEMENT OF CARS DURING THE DAY. THIS IS MOST EVIDENT AROUND NOON WHEN PEOPLE LEAVE TO EAT AT HOME OR HAVE SOME OTHER NEED TO USE THEIR CARS DURING THEIR LUNCH BREAK. IT ALSO SHOWS, WHEN ONE VEHICLE IS PARKED IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE THAT IN ALMOST ALL CASES IT IS PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO SPACES AVAILABLE IN FRONT THE RESIDENCE SO THERE IS NO SPACE FOR A SECOND CAR. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT ABOUT 80% OF THE PARKERS ARE EMPLOYED AT FREMONT PLAZA. ABOUT 10% ARE CAL POLY, PARKED TO TAKE THE BUS TO SCHOOL AND THE OTHER 105," ARE EMPLOYED DOWN TOWN SOME WHERE. DAY 1 DATE 3 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 FORD 3KWN569 RED 8 :00 5 :30 CADILLAC 3EPP004 TAN 12 :30 5 :00 13 STERLING 2DKS697 GOLD 8 : 00 12 :00 FORD VAN 3LWP383 WHITE 8 : 00 2 :00 FORD 2XQK038 RED 2 :30 .777 VOLKS WGN 3ARA481 GOLD 8 :00 5 :30 HONDA CIVIC 2HGV098 GOLD 9 :00 11:00 DODGE 2BQP164 WHITE 12 :30 5 : 00 DAY 2 DATE 4 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 FORD 3KWN569 RED 8 :00 5 :15 HONDA 3FGY650 BLACK 8 :00 5 :00 773 MAZDA GOLEEGO WHITE 8 :00 5 :30 OWNER 8 :00 1:00 VOLKSW 3NZZ977 " BLACK 1 :00 3 :00 777 ACURA 2UDB584 WHITE 8 :00 5 :00 DAY 3 DATE 5 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 HONDA 3NZY741 WHITE 8 :00 5 :30 VOLVO 1FCC624 YELLOW 8 :30 11: 00 PLYMOUTH BLUE SW 11:00 11:30 773 BMW BRDS265 BLACK 8 :00 12 :00 GOLEEGO WHITE 8 :30 5:30 777 CADILLAC 3EPP004 TAN 8 :30 5 :00 DAY 4 DATE 6 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 HYUNDI 2FDA105 BLUE 8 : 00 10:00 FORD CHOIR BLUE 10 :00 12:00 HONDA 2BXH2O9 BLUE 12 : 00 5:00 FORD VAN 3LWP383 WHITE 1:00 5:30 773 STERLING 2DKS697 GOLD 8 :00 6 :30 777 CADILLAC 3EPP004 TAN 8 :00 5 :00 )AY 5 )ATE 7 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE kDDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 GEO PRIZM 3CIK206 BLUE 9 :00 12 :30CP 7IRGINIA LIC GEO PRIZM ZXL3338 BRONZE 9 :30FP 2 :30 MAZDA 2PLH876 SILVER 3 :OODR 5 :30 773 MAZDA 2PLH876 SILVER 9 :00 12 :OODR TOYOTA 3CLD022 BLUE 9 :00 4 :OOFP 777 VOLVO WAG 2LIL JJ GOLD 8 :30PP 4 :00 02-3Z DAY 6 DATE 10 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE 1 ESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 MERCEDES 2DSP799 RED 8 :00 1 :00 PLYMOUTH 1DDJZ873 BLUE 8:00 5 :00 BUICK 2DLH122 SILVER 1:00 5 :00 773 HONDA 3FGY650 BLACK 8 :30 12 :30 HONDA 2PLH876 SILVER 1: 00 4 :30 777 HONDA 3FBG785 GOLD 12 :00 6 :00 DAY 7 DATE 11 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 HONDA 3FGY650 BLACK 8:00 12 :00 NISSON 2SMH173 RED 8 :00 5 :00 CADILLAC 3EEP004 TAN 12 :00 5 :30 MERCEDES 2DSP799 RED 8 :00 5 :00 TOYOTA PU 2H71135 BLACK 8 :00 5 :30 777 HONDA 3PJS502 SILVER 8 :30 5 :00 DAY 8 DATE 12 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 TOYOTA VAN 1MCJ538 SILVER 8 :00 6 :30 773 MAZDA 2PLH876 SILVER 9 :00 5 : 00 TOYOTA PU 2H71135 BLACK 8 :00 5 : 00 777 CADILLAC 3EEP004 TAN 8 :00 3 : 00 a?33 DAY 9 )ATE 13 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 FORD VAN 3LWP383 WHITE 8 :00 5 :00 773 HONDA 3RYY609 WHITE 8 :00 5 :00 777 MAZDA 2NQC091 WHITE 8 :00 5 :00 )AY 10 )ATE 14 MAR 97 ALL ADDRESSES ON JOHNSON AVE ADDRESS AUTO LICENCE COLOR TIME IN TIME OUT 772 MAZDA 3FGB785 GOLD 8 :00 12 :00 773 BMW YHW704 BLACK 8 :00 5 :00 777 MERCEDES WAGON BLACK 11 :00 2 :00 c� lN1 `NJ a C19 (r.11.HAT11AWAY) TORO STREET o" of NO°rOfcu vo u. rot `� PD 93.70 ; 75 60 90 60 a m Os NF N �' •'°� Ip O` I OHO •+�,y `•� '° '� � _ +t+4 O O O 1 O� 019, 44.75 aa.TS T w 60 90 oti O \\ A - 09 \ OPD\• OS \♦ o O •D O tin ISO OS OS tt`AJ V I 9 +i CL Ail th p o D /09 /l s ozl 3 D o Lu Q•O i O '' � n l a\ � �'; o°' JOHNSON AVE R s$ O 00, b O \\ `, (FW j. KeNTuCK„ O •a • V ', Q` S b�P 7 ` J _ 165 0 y--4T to • So 7 W O y y y 1 O • � ° N .y. fi u � • r • � �� '`p ii\♦t O ^y A•\•�\l yti 9 `\ h j t. 4A 0 e m u W O 'O m N m t Oi i � D - ' V O w J 0 W OMZ W , .,d . Z D 6 m '� m m 75 N 14 IY Y6 v` t9tito♦� .' �. T_ ®wt PO Sd ld• m. Q J ."D D♦\srr, �,73.3e�;--:asi ,�, ,baa � ,, e O yii ♦ , p � S 1 50 \Y C& e �w yo Z.< =1 N O '-•p „ PD n N(A ZO rs- y O'm Z F 20OC % �c a *31 t') om ~ D N fA 7