HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2004, PH2 - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO PRINT AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL PARKIN council M.&gTugust 17.2004
j acenba aepoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public WorksK`i —
Prepared By: Robert Horch, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO PRINT AMENDING THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL PARKING
PERMIT DISTRICT PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Approve recommended changes to the City's Residential Parking Permit District
Program.
2) Introduce an ordinance to print amending various sections of Chapter 10.36 of the City
Municipal Code.
3) Appropriate $5,500 from the unappropriated balance of the Parking Fund to cover the
additional cost of proposed changes.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
During the Alta Vista District Expansion hearings (July 15, 2003) Council directed staff to
review and recommend improvements to the parking district formation policies and procedures.
Prior to that date, the two previous district requests had been controversial due to various
interpretations of procedures and Municipal Code language. Specific concerns included: the one
vote per residence clause; staff involvement in the district formation process; the proper
education of district initiators; the need for enhanced direction from staff on district boundaries;
the need for staff to provide maps, a copy of the ordinance and sample ballots to district
initiators; a way to address changes in voter preference between the survey and public hearing;a
definition of"quality of life"; and the provision of a mechanism to address changing votes at the
Council meeting. Staff was directed to work with the Neighborhood Services Team to resolve
issues and return to Council with recommended improvements to the program.
DISCUSSION
Because the Residential Parking Permit District (RPPD) program affects people at a personal
level, opinions on each of the identified issues ran high. Staff's challenge was how to dialogue on
the various issues and revise the program without over or under representing individual segments
of the community and other interested stakeholders. To allow for balanced discussions resulting
in fair and appropriate revisions, a task force was established comprised of the following
representatives: Cydney Holcomb (RQN), Matt Quaglino (a concerned resident), Steve Del
Martini (property manager/realtor), Sarah Behm (student/resident), Pete Hubbard (Police), Tim
Bochum (Public Works), and Robert Horch (Parking Manager). The task force held a series of
C�—
1
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 2
meetings to discuss the issues and propose improvements to the process, and although there were
wide-ranging opinions on the various issues, the task force reached consensus on a number of
them. The following recommendations are a direct result of those discussions:
1. Creation of a Residential Parking Permit District brochure (New)
Council directed staff to develop an informational brochure for residents use when determining
the need for a permit district in their neighborhood. The task force spent a majority of its time
working on this brochure. (Attachment I)
Why is the brochure needed? Based upon input at public hearings, it became obvious that the
existing Municipal Code does not provide clear direction for residents to make informed
decisions regarding a parking district request. In addition, there were allegations that petition
circulators oftentimes only informed residents of the benefits of a residential parking district and
not the potential deficits. The informational brochure will be used by residents to consider the
full effect of a proposed district. It will not supplant the ordinance but will hopefully make it
easier for people to understand the pros and cons of district formation.
2. Initial meeting with residents and Parking Services (Modified)
Why is an initial meeting needed? The present practice of handing out a packet of information to
petitioners consisting of basic instructions, a sample survey and the applicable Municipal Code
sections is not sufficient. The task force felt that more staff involvement during the process,
especially at the beginning, was warranted. Therefore, the recommendation is being made that
when a new parking district is pursued, a minimum of three interested residents will meet with
the Parking Services Manager to review the process and receive assistance on how to proceed.
3. Determination of the district boundaries (Not modified)
There is no recommended change to this procedure. Staff shall determine the "affected area" of a
proposed district and the logical "district" boundaries. This may include enlarging or decreasing
survey areas as well as the possibility of adding a proposed district to an already existing parking
district. Staff will also recommend the hours of district restriction based upon discussions with
district proponents, field conditions and effective enforcement criteria.
4. Informal survey by residents to obtain 50% interest(Modified)
"Grass Roots" support indicating a neighborhood's interest in pursuing a parking district is still a
critical component of the proposed process. The significant difference under the proposed
program is that the results of the petitioner's initial neighborhood survey will no longer be used
as the basis for recommending a parking district to Council. Rather, the initial survey will be
used to show that a minimum of 50% of households in the proposed district want to "receive"
additional information on a parking district. After obtaining the 50% support needed to move
forward with the districting process and, after the neighborhood meeting, staff will follow-up
with a second neighborhood survey that will be used to determine an unbiased 60% support for
district formation.
a ,a
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 3
Why the proposed change? There have been accusations surrounding recent district formations
that the results of the initial survey process are unreliable due to what is considered by many
residents as an "intimidating" grass roots neighborhood process. By changing the emphasis of the
initial survey to "finding out more" about district formation rather than finding out who actually
favors district formation, the chance of intimidation evaporates. The City will then be responsible
(through a formal survey and neighborhood meeting) to collect the actual approval rating for a
district. The results of the formal City-conducted survey will then be used to recommend
approval or rejection of district formation.
5. District formation meeting (New)
If, through the informal survey process, the parking district petitioners receive requests for more
information from a minimum of 50% of the residents in the proposed district, the City will host a
district meeting to answer questions and discuss the formal survey process. This provides an
additional step for information sharing and for neighbors to meet and discuss the proposed
district. Households within a larger "affected" area will be invited by the City to attend the
meeting.
6. Formal City survey of affected households with confidential voting(New)
Why is a formal City survey needed? In recent parking district formations, many residents felt a
survey based upon a door-to-door petition did not always allow for the best voting atmosphere. In
order to address this problem, the task force recommends an independent City-conducted formal
survey to produce more accurate and less controversial results.
Therefore, a formal survey will be mailed out to each household within the affected area for
residents to vote on the proposed district. The survey will include a self-addressed envelope to
encourage participation. The process will provide for confidential voting to avoid complications
experienced in the past. Results will be presented on the total vote rather than on an individual
address basis. It is hoped that this additional step in the procedure will result in greater time to
consider the issue, reduced likelihood of neighborhood peer pressure, and reduce the potential for
people to want to change their vote between the survey and Council consideration.
7. Not counting those who fail to vote(New)
The task force discussed this issue in depth. The consensus was that those choosing not to vote
would not be counted in the results.
Why is this recommendation necessary? The task force struggled with how to "count" the non-
votes. In recent district processes, some residents tried to cast their vote (or change it) at the
Council meeting. This was considered unfair by many and was problematic for Council since it
made the survey numbers dubious. Also, in some prior instances, a non-vote was treated as not
being in favor of forming a district. The task force considered this unfair to those people who
educated themselves and took the time to vote. Therefore, the recommendation is to treat the
formal survey like a general election. A vote counts if cast prior to the survey deadline. Votes
received by the Parking Services Office after the vote deadline will not be counted.The absence
P% -3
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 4
of a vote results in a reduction in the necessary number of proponents (or opponents) to carry or
defeat the district formation.
8. Voting by household (not by resident) (Modified)
Why is this change necessary? Another important issue was who votes? Currently the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code uses the term "resident in the district" to distinguish voting members of
the district area. The problem is determining which resident votes in a unit that has two or more
residents, or when there are two or three addresses on one parcel.
The proposed recommendation is to modify the voting unit from "resident" to "household."
Each household would be allowed one vote. It will be incumbent on the members of that
household to determine who votes and how to vote. Apartment complexes greater than five (5)
dwelling units (DU's) and other commercial/institutional uses will not be surveyed (allowed to
vote) since they should have adequate off-street parking to satisfy their demand. [The threshold
of five DU's in the multifamily zone was chosen because that is the threshold where projects (by
City Zoning Code) must provide additional off-street parking spaces for guest parking and the
likelihood of on-street parking demand should be minimal.] If there are multiple households on a
surveyed property, each household would get its own vote.
If the dwellings are rentals, the occupants will be mailed the ballots. It is up to the occupant to
review the issues with the property owner to determine the effect of the proposed district on the
household. For survey purposes, households will be determined using the City's address
database.
9. 60% Majority responding to "formal'survey of affected area voters (modified)
Affected Area vs. District Area
A change is recommended in the area of who votes on actual district formation. As indicated
earlier, City staff, along with district proponents, will determine the appropriate district
boundaries and whether it is a new district or possible amendment to an existing one. The
households of that area will then be surveyed by the district proponents (the informal survey) to
garner the 50% indication of support for the proposed district.
City staff will then formalize an "affected" area for the proposed district. This area will be the
area that may be impacted by parking diversion from the proposed district, and will be the survey
area of the formal, independent survey conducted by the City. The affected area of a district may
be the proposed district area itself, or something larger, depending upon the complexity and
proposed changes to curbside parking. A sixty percent (60%) majority of households in the
affected area must support the district for it to receive a positive recommendation to Council.
Staff will also ask households in the affected area (outside of the proposed district) if they wish
to be included in the proposed district. The intention of this change is not to reduce the likelihood
of a proposed district to form, but to make sure that other neighborhoods are not impacted
negatively without a voice in the process. This approach may also potentially reduce the
a -q
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 5
possibility of a domino effect (requiring other subsequent district formations) created by a
proposed district. If sufficient interest in extending the proposed district is expressed by
households in the affected area, a second parking district process may commence without
duplicating the initial formation steps (the informal survey) outlined for the new program.
Other Issues
The above are the major changes to the revised RPPD process being recommended for Council
consideration. There are also some other policy issues being recommended that will make the
process more effective. They are:
1. Change of Vote: In recent RPPD processes, some individuals have expressed a wish to change
their votes prior to Council consideration of the permit district. The major revisions to the RPPD
process proposed above have been recommended to reduce this situation from occurring.
However they do not guarantee it will not happen. Because such a request can be very
controversial, staff is recommending implementation of a provision preventing voting status
changes between the formal survey and Council consideration of a proposed district. If we
encounter significant numbers who think this revised process is unfair, this may be an area
worthy of future reconsideration.
2. Appeals of Formal Survey: The task force recommends that if the formal survey does not
garner the necessary 60% support from the affected households, then the district request process
stops at that point in time. In the past, some proponents have requested that an appeal process to
Council be allowed, even though the required percentages are not reached. Staff does not concur
with this approach, since the percentages are set to determine support above a simple majority,
and it is incumbent upon proponents of the district to canvas the affected area to deliver the
necessary support for formation.
3. Twelve Month "Cooling Off' Period: Following past RPPD processes that have failed to
receive adequate support, there have been requests to immediately resume another RPPD
process. Starting over at once is problematic, as tensions sometimes are running high, and doing
so is also a drain on limited staff resources. Staff is proposing that for any RPPD, there be a
minimum twelve (12) month "cooling off' period before another RPPD can be proposed, or an
implemented district can be overturned. (In order to overturn a proposed district, the same
process as forming one will be used.)
4. Minimum RPPD Size and location: There are currently no minimum size or location criteria
for RPPD formation. The task force discussed this issue but did not reach consensus on criteria.
In practice, staff has set the minimum size of a proposed RPPD and limited its location to an
effective enforcement area. Without direction on this matter from the task force, staff proposes to
maintain the current practice of determining a proposed RPPD minimum size based upon
discussion with district proponents and consideration of other logical issues, such as ease of
enforcement and adjacency to other districts.
S. Predetermined RPPD Areas: One area of discussion revolved around predefining allowable
RPPD areas. This process is used in some communities in an attempt to standardize RPPD
i
I
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 6
locations, times and impacts. These areas normally surround parking problem generators, such as
universities, medical complexes, multifamily complexes and downtown areas. Staff is not
proposing to predetermine RPPD's within the City at this time, as the task force made no formal
recommendation on this approach.
Issues Not Addressed by the Task Force
1. RPPD Implementation and Maintenance Costs
As outlined in the proposed recommended changes to the RPPD process, there will be more staff
involvement and costs borne by the Parking Fund to implement the proposed changes. Changes
will also lead to a reduction in staff time available for processing other RPPD requests and
parking related duties. Many of the recent RPPD requests have required significant staff time for
review and implementation. The proposed recommendations are an attempt to focus this staff
involvement up front in the request process and minimize unnecessary staff follow-up.
The task force did not take up the issue of whether costs should be passed on to individuals
requesting RPPD formation, because the Council did not specifically identify this as an issue to
be reviewed. Therefore, staff is not recommending changes to the current practice of having the
Parking Fund bear these costs. However, in light of the City's current difficult financial situation,
Council may wish to direct staff to return with future recommendations on this issue. Because the
actual cost of the proposed changes is not known at this time, this issue may be more
appropriately addressed as part of the twelve-month review of the RPPD program.
2. Quality of Life Rationale for RPPD Formation
Another issue discussed by the task force was the "quality of life" standard. While not directed
for review by Council, the concept was considered by the task force for a number of reasons. The
definition of "quality of life" was not included in the existing RPPD ordinance, and this
exclusion creates difficulty when neighbors cannot agree on a definition. Some task force
members requested that the criteria be removed or replaced with criteria clearly defined from a
neighborhood perspective. However, because the Council did not specifically direct staff to
review this issue, staff suggested that individual members of the task force (along with any
community member) express their concerns and suggestions directly to Council as part of
consideration of this report.
Staff believes that the existing "quality of life" standard makes the process more open from a
data collection standpoint, but that lack of definition can be problematic, since it creates
ambiguity and potential animosity among neighbors, and puts the Council in the position of
constantly redefining the standard. Concern for "quality of life" has been used in the past as the
mechanism to address non-parking related neighborhood issues and, unless more precisely
defined in the ordinance, will continue to be used this way. Council may wish to direct staff to
consider changes to this section of the ordinanceaspart of the proposed twelve-month program
review.
Evaluation of Proposed Changes
a -�
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 7
Staff proposes to implement the changes and then monitor effectiveness and problems as they
arise during subsequent RPPD requests. At the end of twelve months we will return to Council
with any proposed modifications to the revised guidelines. Additionally, as we process new
RPPD requests in that period, positive and negative outcomes of these proposed modifications
will be brought to Council's attention as part of their specific approvals.
Conclusion
Council's objective for the task force was to improve the RPPD process by allowing for more
informed decision making based upon objective criteria, and eliminating dissemination of
misinformation between neighbors that has caused problems in the past. Working with a task
force of interested stakeholders, staff believes that these goals have been met, and we wish to
thank committee members for their efforts. However, Staff believes that the twelve-month
review of the RPPD changes will allow the process to unfold and give staff and the community
time to expose strengths and weaknesses of the proposed revisions, and of the process as a
whole. Following that review, we propose to bring forward recommended changes for Council
consideration, as necessary.
CONCURRENCES
The Neighborhood Services Team received a report on the proposed changes and a copy of the
draft RPPD Brochure from the Parking Manager at its meeting of May 20, 2004, but took no
action on the item.
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be increased costs to the parking budget for brochures, maps, postage. Estimated
annual cost for the production of the RPPD brochure is $1,000.
It is difficult to estimate the cost that the proposed revisions will add to each RPPD process.
However, staff believes that each proposed district will require an additional $1,500 for things
such as copying, mailing, meeting room rentals, and some staff overtime. Based on the number
of annual RPPD requests in the past, staff recommends that an additional $4,500 be included in
the budget for this purpose in fiscal year 2004-05.
Staff proposes that the total additional cost of $5,500 be appropriated from the unappropriated
Parking Fund reserve. A is anticipated that the cost will be offset by increases in annual fines
generated by the permit districts.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may wish to make changes to the proposed recommendations. However, since they were
the result of numerous task force meetings, staff believes that they provide well thought out
solutions to the difficulties that have occurred in the formation of past parking districts.
a , 1
Residential Parking Permit Program Update Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Residential Parking Permit District Brochure
Attachment 2 Proposed Ordinance Changes—Legislative Draft
Attachment 3 Ordinance (2004 series)
HAICouncil Agenda Reports\2004 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review (Bochum)\Parking (Horch)\CR RPD Update
v33.DOC
ca
^�
ATTACHMENT 1
z Neva � go Qw cc
minim
��� �/ �p�
C . : �►
0.
ObispoIle
LU
City of San Luis
Obispo,Parkmg Services
1260 Chorro,Street,Suite B
San Luis
1�
•
d O a 6 QI N O N Ol N y _ U
J
u
U m
N T m N i m a rn� 3 N b o a � > >�.� � �r v 3 .y E � °'•,.eQ'
-
fU
�o m �
ATTACHMENT 1
C �' ai L '9 ^ d C `C a C N m :.o. �>s•—>'i^ C m .•
XNa>i WLo Eu: 4 mm W N S WoW
m Qs do Cm
N moa a Lm `oap y
3cam
0 G c =�`uoF^Co'r.mcWS
q
.cN• NmC•d1 o•o
m So W
Yt N (a �+N+•mC8 tC •GC .'�C. �: V. cd P. .'Wc� mNmm
•D O
sa Ym m ^cg m m o ca 4 �E 3 s d cs.�U a c C Y S �°+�y $ a
34 mm GC sN — mu E = e > wW � Y �woNmO m � o—
r. 0
Eq E .3 t'. OP. V N w.0 w... m.� 6. 0..3 y
WL.'�' G E a� m ism wo iC a D R:g 71 6iw "O E,s E•� .3 o ',j"y W
Cam V O� •D a 0' L +- l 0. 0 > Oa T.+ C; m N w +-' w O (.� bop•i,
m L C E k c y m i Y p m
omiom C `0 �O a a `° E' oEN offi
Nc
ym N m �= mq� en° ooEw— Sz � mEL 8 '
o a•,.,. G E 'G m N o N i m N v ° N pG ,.0. t o �O'' $, m,.m N Y C u 8° G N J c
C a E r E > m s u oCa N , ya ° mwL
m 7 3 C m m to C — m m N wm^ ti y w 3 S CO N � as W y^ - % $ a 7 d c a
c E• o y >� C O o a w N �: E 0. E �. o- N C O ti a °: .L m 'o C. x p N a C E.0 $
>, 7 E U ."' .0 .. G C O ~ `E E t>tl Y� N C y u '�.+ N 7 N .� .L.+ ~ O W E..C. o cyi s
o-w» 0 4 w : z.E, w .N, m N [z7•C.� n C F C t0 O r q m m.�iC CC m 0 N m W o •F m m a
E 3 N F m .
W G !� N m m 7 d .w •D :� •� >FF+ y E Vp�.m ..
y •� .:� ". y "'� T a'ti FJ y v >,
r m >,= > r.. W N w
O W d O C.•p
UCC c N w ay W L 3 a e u pLp
O0. IX
A.d
� D NJm E am 4y = ,mC `r. �9=m� Es3' �pO ENto .>
7 m `O `. N m m i O 4 E W 4, E L•O + Y
m•v o O • C o m•o 0.s��• N m o E: °'L b
L �' on v m •q O E �" 0..�. t1a m w 0. o tl W 3 ', ,•, .5 C
c ° ar � 3 g �; ° o. p c. a C � c E 0 E o � m mo �� o c
O w — w Y w L m N
°` 3mm i s $ ami i Oem �> 9 > aN $ ° >+0 ti 'c �'Emdrx c
C z 3 t C m N N L 1. 0•.,. u pj O G 0 >4 >•o "' N N
W ' E m v •`,y C y W C C„p p
•'G T G4 v Y N � � 'N N CO 3 '•'' � O
>>
C w 3 L m m G '0 O A a CO R'C. N > N Lo E >> W O O 6. G N " C 0m'� y E N
m ,, 3 0 '-0 'c W m= 3
m a—.. "' s.�'fl C y " u p i O v N N
m N L N E m •o C W s c
w O "°i• o'fK C.mN. L r E 4 m'9 v .�, E == L :- >,.- 3 d m >, m0.' E 3 t z
E� a .wmc 'c• o N = 000mp � EQam� am = e
m c y y U w v.y LN m v m m .m O u m y m U] E cc
'°gym m mem ° m > � °. N ° m E � Tscm � c � o °. °am EN.. a °c �c
m E 3 L m a N N a _
o W c a Y ° ' 'G a N >, m L t C i o. a s w L ° � �o i C E s d N Z
0 0. O a - m oWn d 0 " y 0 0 G O d C C G ? bD D E v t O " ° C am m C
vid c .c s � 3 0.v m o 3
P.
Cz O m `•%' :.° �"o W C
w m`' 0 •' w•v`o o .y. "'�Q �+ •" �'3 3 E c `+ r•oa e.- `o 2t f0
m
0-0 c 'G a o Lo `° a' N s c '+'C •mv m E ? o N'fl Y W N V N C E w .� 3'9 .`. E
t0. r .m O N .La C r+ G U m V C N 6l W O C a0. z C
o m C. Ea 3 4. D+ o. > E m C.
c ydco oo G E � m'm� cs ddu .Cm °zLwm 't =0 °CC c
'0
Cr c d m �m = > c— asp 3 L ^ wm W� 'ms�__
C C�'cc a, Y ::, o ,W, m m L u m.W c wC_
?cam owrCm� c 0 ma` acd >seo E° mEaa° 3mE >w > � y m
�y 'nommp _ L .p N0. >.nNE m �o m >,-9 mow o
1a '. ^ a� as E °> s� o m m uE M �r $LU m= m, Q p s
4O y 3 C C C W^ 0 W r m ° E p m�. O._ C O 3 Ca w
.p ` m� s � m3 Um m,� m .L. � E i � w8'm $ ow 3v N, ° cyi C w
�l a.. t y N N C N m p o y m N t s m D L N •C r " o
'w C L. c > m `' ami Lm 4 v %kcE "m c W •o y q °o = _u�Lj•y N .L. 7
E W•0 o aN 'm m= m m mE a '�' sa m m '� N cs', m o•p m °� N ' v
W-0 e N N.0 N s .O o
C .t+'C'C s C L ^'S C mL' cc cs G $ V]y ,•L,, o C 3 L .L.,`C 3 C C v •�
v Y two Y Y x
ma � oq 3 coa c3'tW W " eo ?" oc mF ' m s� GNB E �
m 40 C 7 > N U N..C. E N a N WC, E ami 1�C L C 3 N O W N
C O XC O N 's•' m N a>,+'E C i m m w a>'i C 4 e m'O 6Ti +L+ ,s,,f1r '�C .a. m
w C U G C N N N Y y Ca m L W m B m N Q
3 a _m•.. d T ^m m �'� w... u—� L.fl m G C1. ca
7 y 7 N•0.� a m .�
m m 6 6 •'•' N w w OO'.a m m m m m._ m O a� m C C Y
N y ^ 3 �, C E
m e o p y C T! �j o e m �, N p `' o w E E o :� N E L L 7 3 .ce N m
r f: N I� L �wr 7 fi Y
C >,•m L E O y 0 r G N U m ami? Y N �4 C�= m L E L N L w > m y N
m o N W $ o w w 0 C r m N u o L m s C c^ o m o .N 9 No m
L s L aw s o ur s e4 ° F m. L W O w C w aj m._ ._p w ._ o f 0.a
a -� o
Attachment
10.36.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas - Adoption of resolution.
A. The council s4etrl4Da 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 si*Ey-peFeertmajority of
the affected fesidentshouseholds as indicated by survey of the affected
households in which a-60% majorityparticipating households is required;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 poises=�idinghouseholds in the area.
Households will be determined using the City's address database (there may be
more than one household per parcel) and will be limited to non-multifamily units
of less than five (5) dwelling units.
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 negative effect of vehicles parked by persons not residing in the
area on a) environmental characteristics such as ambient noise levels and
—air pollution
levels-; . a ath ntal eh ere sti of th .
bLpedestrian and vehicular
traffic safety in the area; and cZthe burden on persons residing in the area ifl-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 ..,,..mss-households 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,item a majeFity of the reside is ",..,..ehelds of the •
(Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 1264 § 1, 1994: prior code § 3209.17)
10.36.180 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 fes s-households in
the district, when parking will be limited to those vehicles. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002:
Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: prior code § 3209.18)
10.36.190 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
a _ c �
Attachment 2
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)
10.36.200 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
-e�enee-household 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 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 the daily parking of vehicles. Any vehicle not displaying the proper or
authorized 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.
10.36.220 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 ro.•�denees
households 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
Q ds
1 i
Attachment 2
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.
Parking 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 annually and shall be free of charge. The permits shall be
considered part of the -esu;-household property and shall be transferred to the new
property owner upon sale of the ~esi�eehousehold. (Ord. 1264 § 4, 1994: prior code §
3209.21)
10.36.221 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 for 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 fe e—household until the beginning of the next
permit year and shall be guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 1264 § 5, 1994)
10.36.230 Residential parking permits - Display required.
Parking permits issued under Section 10.36220 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 governed by the civil proceedings set forth
in the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994)
IA]Council Agenda ReQQrts\2001 agenda reaortS\TrarhgiMalion and Devel��mentRe�ie«;�Bochum)\Parkina (Hnrch]�ftl?D
Ordinance Change.doc
_ Attachment_3
ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING SECTION 10.36.170 (DESIGNATION OF REDSIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT
AREAS ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION) AND AMENDING SECTION 10.36.180
(DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT AREAS —CONTENT OF
RESOLUTION)AND AMENDING SECTION 10.36.200 (LIMITATIONS ON PARKING IN A
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA) AND 10.36.220 (RESIDENTIAL PARKING
PERMIT—ISSUANCE)AND 10.36.221 (LOST, STOLEN, OR DEFACED PERMIT
REPLACEMENT) OF CHAPTER 10.36 (STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING FOR
CERTAIN PURPOSES OR IN CERTAIN PLACES) OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, State law provides cities the authority to establish regulations to control the
parking of vehicles within the jurisdiction of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that revisions to
the existing formation process of residential parking permit districts is necessary to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10.36.170 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
10.36.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas - Adoption of resolution.
A. The council may, 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 majority of the affected
households as indicated by a City survey of the affected households in which a
60% majority of participating households is required; 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 households in the area. Households will
be determined using the City's address database (there may be more than one
household per parcel) and will be limited to non-multifamily units of less than
five (5)dwelling units.
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 negative effect of vehicles parked by persons not residing in the area on: a)
environmental characteristics such as ambient noise levels and air pollution levels;• b) pedestrian
Attachment 3
and vehicular traffic safety in the area; and c) the burden on persons residing in the area 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 households 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. (Ord: 1412 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 1264 § 1, 1994: prior code § 3209.17)
SECTION 2. Section 10.36.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows:
10.36.180 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 households in the district, when parking will
be limited to those vehicles. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: prior code §
3209.18)
SECTION 3. Section 10.36.200 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows:
10.36.200 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 household 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 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 the daily parking of vehicles. Any
vehicle not displaying the proper or authorized identification shall be subject to citation. (Ord.
1264 § 3, 1994: prior code § 3209.20)
l
SECTION 4. Section 10.36.220 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows:
10.36.220 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 households 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.
Parking 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 annually and shall be free of charge. The permits shall be considered part
of the household property and shall be transferred to the new property owner upon sale of the
household. (Ord. 1264 § 4, 1994: prior code § 3209.21)
SECTION 5. Section 10.36.221 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows:
10.36.221 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 for 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 household until the beginning of the next permit year and shall be
guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 1264 § 5, 1994)
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five
days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City.
This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of 2004, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2004, on the following role call votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J ath owell, City Attorney
coq
Page 1 of 2
h"0 FILE
Allen Settle-August 17th, Residentual Parking Districts ME ING AGENDA
DATE
From: <dancarp54@earthlink.net>
To: <kschwart@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <dromero@slodty.org>; <asetde@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>
Date: 8/12/2004 10:35 PM
Subject: August 17th, Residentual Parking Districts
Dan Carpenter
2030 Johnson Ave.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To: All Council Members
I am not able to be at the Council meeting on August 17th, so I wanted to let you know what I thought about the
parking districts that will be on the agenda that-night.
I don't agree with idea of parking districts at all. I believe they are inherently wrong. In my opinion, they don't solve the
problem; they push cars off to the next neighborhood. For example, Fredericks Street didn't have.a need for a parking
district until Slack, Albert Drive, Longview districts forced cars over to Fredericks. Most of the districts have been created
because the parking issues in that area are the result of their close proximity to Cal Poly, or were once single family
neighborhoods and are now occupied mostly by students. Some 4 bedroom houses now have 5 and 6 cars for the
residence. When you're approving residential development, please encourage the developer to plan off street parking for
the worse case scenario. I know it will cut down on the build able space in the project, but it's the right thing to do so
that we don't continue to flood our streets with more cars. The number of cars in this town is not going to diminish.
Until we give up our second cars and start car pooling and riding public transportation, the problem is not going to go
away.
Also, I don't understand why the taxpayers of this city have to pay for maintenance on a street they don't have the right
to park on?If you insist on having parking districts; then I think you should create an assessment district and collect the
maintenance fees from the property owners who directly benefit from it. I understand the administrative fees are paid for
with the permit fees; however it just doesn't cover the day to day cost of maintenance. I would suggest you go back to
all previous districts and give them the same option. You're providing a discriminatory service to very few people. The
city just doesn't have the money to take care of a few people with its limited funds.
Personally, I live on a street that doesn't have any parking in front of my house. Should the city provide me with spaces
in front of my house at the taxpayer's expense? When parking became a problem for me, I created more parking on my
property. How many property owners in these parking districts have converted their garages into bedrooms to boost
their rental income? Is this fair that they change their parking spaces in their garage into bedrooms, and then expect the
city to solve their parking problem that they've now created? I would suggest you investigate the number of garage
conversions before you issue parking districts. There are other ways to solve this parking problem, other than restricting
street usage.
If"quality of life"is what you're after when creating these parking districts, then please check out my neighborhoods
quality of life. If I come to you with enough signatures form the residents in my neighborhood that wanton street
parking, are you going to provide us with this"quality of life" issue. How about abuse of the speed limit in front of my
house? Can you fix that quality of life issue? What about the air and noise pollution from all the cars during the day..
Can you fix that quality of life issue? I suggest you stop right here with making an attempt to provide this discriminatory
parking and quality of live issues. All taxpayers deserve equal quality of life enhancements. And if you choose to give
these benefits to some residents, at leastchar_ ge them maintenance fees for this public property you want to give them
exclusive rights to. �O N tN
COUNCIL DIRThank you for listening. CAo IR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 1 PW DIR
2030 Johnson Ave. CLERK CRIG POLICE CHF
DE T RTC DIR
I_ iUTIL DIR
c . . . LI HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\ us r ocal o20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 8/13/2004