HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 7, 1982 (44)PETITION RECEIVED
RE PROBLEMS FACING
MERCHANTS AND signatures of residents and merchants on Lodi Avenue V
RESIDENTS ON LODI regarding a limited no parking area on Lodi A' ,enue -
:.
AVENUE Hutchins Street to :,77C'.�,
Mrs. Carol Grenko, 233 S. Pleasant Avenue, Lodi presented
to the Council a petition bearing approxima--ely 170
ing the Council to establish an ordinance deeming it
unlawful for a_ay person to park, leave standing or cause
or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon any
privately owned off-street parking facility or lot when
the adjoining business or commercial establishment is
not open for business. Mrs. Grenko related that problems
facing the merchants and residents do not stem from the
movement of cars up and down "the drag "; problems stem
from loitering of young people afoot who, on Friday and
Saturday evenings during the school year and nightly
during vacation periods, can be observed engaging in the
following "recreational activities" betwezn the
approximate hours of 8:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m:
1) Vehicles are parked at the curb of t1he 300 block of
West Lodi Avenue. Their occupants then sit on top of
these vehicles (or in the bed of pick-up trucks) to
call out, whistle, yell, and throw objects to draw the
attention from passing vehicles. Lawn chairs are
occasionally set out on the sidewalks for additional
seating. Car stereos are played at excessively loud
levels.
Broken bottles, beer cans, food wrappers, cigarette
packages and cigarette butts can be found the next
morning in the street, on the sidewalk, and in flower
boxes and flower beds. The merchants report that urine
must be cleaned off of the sides of buildings and off of
walkways. The merchants also must pick up all -refuse
1
-4-
unnecessary daily clean-ups, bills to pay due to Y,
vandalism, and possible loss of business as customers
are deterred from this area for nightly shopping and
appointments. We feel that the physical i
mposition of
posted signs (whether they be along
the avenue or in
a parking lot) and the mental awareness of an ordinance
that would impose a monetary or restitutional fine will
be an incentive to keep vehicles moving and thus reduce
the probelm of loitering and its side effects.
A very lengthy discussion concerning the matter
followed with questions being directed to the City
Attorney and to Staff.
COMMENTS BY CITY Council directed the City Attorney to meet with Judge
CGUNCILMEN Seibly regarding legality of the proposed ordinance,
and to give Council a report regarding this meeting at
his earliest possible convenience.
'--'--... ..._. _....«., _..— _,.,.-ato:..,vp^'or„„.-��^ .. s.rraee. ,.:�^--�,... .. _. .---�-.-a--.... ,......; -s .c_ ..--T..,-•—,c--r,.-r..:�c-� ....- ..-r-.--4?nr.,E�.:
a
MEMORANDUM
To- Honors't`b! 1C :” s
From: Ron Stein, Cit spa'Co ney
Re: Lodi Avenue
Date: April 8, 1982
In order to properly take care of the problem of people park-
ing on streets and in private parking lots, a two -prong pro-
gram should be initiated:
(1) An ordinance implemented,prohibiting parking on
Lodi Avenue, similar to City Code Section 14-59.3
which limits parking on Laurel Avenue;
(2) An ordinance similar to that of the City of Fairfield
which would prohibit parking in private lots. In
speaking with the City Attorney of Fairfield I was
told that although there has been no challenge to
said ordinance, it was his opinion and also that of
the municipal judge of Fairfield, that said ordinance
was constitutional regardless of the fact that there
was no notice provisions therein.
If this Council is desirous of implementing either part of
this program, please let me know.
RONALD M. STEIN
CITY ATTORNEY
RMS:vc
cc: Judge Thomas Seibly
0 &
The merchants doing business in the area of Lodi Avenue
stated in the petition and the residents living in their homes
and apartments bordering the area of Lodi Avenue stated on the
petition would like th-, Lodi Council �o ts1,): r t�..;
recommendations that might help to control the loitering and
subsequent vandalism, theft, and littering associated with what
is known as "the drag."
Problems facing the merchants and residents do not stem
from the movement of cars up and down "the drag"; problems stem
from loitering of young people afoot who, on Friday and Saturday
evening's during the school year and nightly during vacation
periods, can be observed engaging in the following "recreational
activities" between the approximate hours of 8:00pm to 2:30am
1.) Vehicles are parked at the curb of the 300 block o -f
'.Jest Lodi Avenue. Their occupants then sit on top of
these vehicles (or in the bed of pick-up trucks) to
call out, whistle, yell, and throw objects to draw
the attention from passing vehicles. Lawn chairs are
occasionally set out on the sidewalks for additional
seating. Car steros are played at excessively loud
levels.
Broken bottles, beer cans, food wrappers, cigarette
packages and cigarette butts can be found the next
morning in the street, on the sidewalk, and in flower
boxes and flower beds. The merchants report that
urine must be cleaned off of the sides of buildings
and off of walkways. The merchants also must pick
up all refuse left behind before the business day
can begin.
:1
2.) Vehicles are parked at the curb of the 200 block of
:Jest Lodi Avenue. Their occupants engage in the
aforementioned activities, but in addition, they
gather in the protected garden area of medical of i
on this hl . __ , , ti _ , _ t;:, 3-:"
in the garden, in addition to the litter left on the
sidewalk and streets.
3.) Vehicles park in area parking lots usually in groups.
Their occupants also sit on top of cars, in truck beds,
and yell, whistle, and throw objects at passing vehicles
in and around the lot. The congregations last for
hours, with music at excessive levels. Beer bottles,
cans, cigarette butts and other assorted litter is
left behind.
4.) Although it is usually not observed in progress,
vandalism has plaoued this section of Lodi Avenin.
Some examples follow:
ate) plate glass window broken out at medical office
b.) "No Tresspassing/Loitering" signs ripped down _
from buildings and destroyed
c.) plants stolen 'and/or destroyed (from flower beds
and boxes)
d.) planter with miniature garden destroyed
e.) sign and property stolen from front lawn area
and porch area of a store
f.) property of sentimental value stolen and destroyed
at bart-er shop
g.) threat of serious vandalism/damage from smoldering
cigarette butts left in flower boxes near wood -
frame buildings
h.) urination on buildings, in gardens, on walkways
We merchants and residents in the area of Lodi Avenue be-
tween Hutchins and Sacramento Streets feel that controlling the
stopping and parking of vehicles along the avenue and the closing
Of parking lots after business hours will help to alleviate the
loitering that noise,
assorted problems associated with "the draq."
It is an effort not to control the cruisers' civil rights,
but an effort to protect our own. We feel that we deserve the
consideration of relatively quiet neighborhoods after 9:00pm
and we feel that our businesses should be able to remain as clean
and secure as they were left that evening.
Lodi's most established neighborhoods have turned into a
loiterer's recreational area and businesses face unnecessary
daily clean-ups, bills to pay due to vandalism, and possible
loss of business as customers are deterred from this area for
nightly shopping and appointments. We feel that the .physical
imposition of posted signs (whether they be along the avenue
or in a parking lot) and the mental awareness of an ordinance
that would impose a monetary or restitutional fine will be an
incentive to keep vehicles moving and thus reduce the problem
of loitering and its side effects.
Addendum:
1.) The parking lot ordinance might also benefit all
businesses in Lodi who urovid.e parking facilities.
It would not be feasible for cruisers/loiterers to
move from this section of Lodi Avenue to congregate
in any other lots in the city as it would be against
the law there also.
2.) The City Attorney Mr. Stein indicated that posting
limited parking siqns in the proposed area is legal.
In addition, Vr. Stein has in his office information
regarding the parking lot ordinance as supplied by
0
City of Fairfield.
3.) Judqe Baysinger, Judge Seibly, Chief Yates, and
Captain Williams have been made aware of these
proposals.
i
0 0
To: Honorable Nayor and City Council
C/o Alice Reimche
Subject: Limited No = : _ . _ Io a ; ��a n Y. od i
Street to Sacramento Street, and
Private rarkinq Lot Crdinance
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
Limited No Farkina between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am daily,
in the area of Lodi :Avenue from Hutchins Street to Sacramento
Street.
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
an ordinance deeming it unlawful fcr any person to park, leave
standing or cause or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon
any privately owned offstreet narking facility or lot when the
adjoining business or commercial establishment is not open for
rusiness.
Address Date
Ya -7 !J- Z.,/� ' �,r, 2_,7, _f L
X07 - 3- -3/- ''z
3 - 3 l- 82
I -M w • v),ne,
y- I- P �-
/3 S.
a -o 9 Gam.-
/1/0%
/Apy
'44--4
/X7
e"zel
l' w C�%
y���z
12.) sQ.
13.)�
14 .)rL[:[.�
• � A
15 . Tey
16.
17.)
18.)
19.)Y-�--
20.)
21.)
22.)
24.)
25.) �.
2-.) S
L7.) -
?9
0
30.)
31.)
33.)
�O^ ate• l..J Cu ti✓
730 s. p.-.ta.4- -,*
gig
70t)�- N. C, Uod s�
3S-
-7 S �.
V-3.9
35.
�.vj �✓��
36.)
37.)
38.)
39.)•u�
40.)
/.3,2'7
V1,a/f 2
4/apl-q-
`ll-�.lga
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
c/o Alice Reimche
Subject: Limited No Parking area or, Lodi
Street to Sacramento Street, and
Private Parking Lot Ordinance
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
Limited No Farkinq between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:OOam daily,
in the area of Lodi Avenue from Hutchins Street to Sacramento
Street.
4e, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
an ordinance deeming it unlawful for any person to park, leave
standing or cause or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon
any privately owned offstreet parking facility or lot when the
adjoining business or commercial establishment is not open for
business.
Name
Address
-
2.)
Vr
3.) aLt; t. S�&/D ld• U` '�
4 It
O'
7.) U
40P
to.) o .)��--
/�W/
/
ow
330
Date
_ ;/- d.[
:3/ 31 I -P"2-
f
0
330 > � 6
...._-
�
Lg.)-
-6�- Z
23.)t
?4.) �- ti.- 71.E Z.�� ,_ .
�1.
rl. -��. �n ,. r p�• .3
6.!;'��L �!
17,-f4 -.I-
+3, c---
29. ),71C
,
30,
32.)
36.)
37.)
`'�II N h{,f n-,n.� c' c J / U !� // '� d''�✓`�`�i ��G-s- -c.. ' c i 3�i,.
38.)
39.)
1,7
%9
N j� C
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
C/o Alice Reimche
Subject e Limited No Pa k- inq on L:o�31
Street to Sacramento Street, a-
Private narking Lot Crdinance
We. do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
Limited No Farkina beta-jeen the hours of 9:00pm and 6:OOam daily,
in the area of Lodi Avenue from Hutchins Street to Sacramento
Street.
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
an ordinance deeming it unlawful for any Terson to park, leave
standing or cause or permit to he left standing any vehicle upon .
any privately owned offstreet rarking facility or lot when the
j adjoining business or commercial establishment is not open for
business.
Name Address Daty
401 7W, z
5'.yt3c1
.)
P, _� Cd apt 10-47
9
12-) e13
14.) l'�D
16. Q ;'
19.)
ADD/ Al,�- y - i 6P 2--
2 3 .) ;�7 d . �T.¢J 33G 1!c►s�t CEc� .iyCL �f,- I - �Z
24.)C�u-,,tLtG� % �ci �// ,t�Cv�cFZ
We 4L -
z9.) 40��-
o.) • o` `mac- V/ AR
32.)
io
33.)
31e, —
34 .)
36.
37.)
` 314 X.
38. )� c, t, L
39.) Cf -a--e
q i ,iil.l l�'�, �,( t,�,c,i� J 2 s. {� I[ 4 S G u t' S fr Lam..
M
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
c/o Alice Reimche
Subject: Limited No Parking area on Lodi Avenue --Hutchins
Private Parking Lot Crdinance
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
Limited No Farkina bet%)een the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am daily,
in the area of Lodi Avenue from Hutchins Street to Sacramento
=treet.
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
an ordinance deeming it unlawful for any person to park, leave
standing or cause or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon
any privately owned offstreet Parking facility or lot when the
adjoining business or commercial establishment is not open for
business.
Name
. M
e
L
Address
/114 �z4ttJ
c
�FU4
,-�3 /
i'L�'LlZ i IGZG�
'sitN.ti!litxu9.�'d�.s3w.�S•,+�'�b•,.`�^"�1.rn5k'.
7
t7a 43 )r
f
Jl o i
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
C/o Alice Reimche
Subject o° LL-ni -i-c� No Pa r R 1 �jq .'�. on Lod1 A-,--iu'tc3h ° .n.`�
Private Parking Lot Ordinance
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
Limited No Farkina between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am daily,
in the area of Lodi Avenue from Hutchins Street to Sacramento
Street.
We, do hereby petition the Lodi City Council to establish
an ordinance deeming it unlawful for any person to park, leave
standing or cause or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon
any privately owned offstreet narking facility or lot when the
adjoining business or commercial establishment is not open for
business.
Name Address Date
67
3.
qw-
4.)C) i
5.
6.
7.)
s.)
9.)
10.) j:
UNCIL COAIMUNICATCN
TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATE NO,
FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OWE April 16, 1982
SUBJECT:
LODI AVENUE
Subsequent to my Memorandum to you dated April 8, 1982
(attached), I did speak with Judge Seibly and he said
that he would implement the ordinance if same were
adopted. It is important for this -uracil to know that
at this time, the Council could consider a number of
alternatives:
(1) Pass an ordinance similar to Lodi Municipal Code
Section 14.59.3 re prohibited parking on Laurel
Avenue (copy attached). This would prohibit park-
ing on Lodi Avenue between the hours of nine p. m.
and six a.m.;
(2) Council could adopt an ordinance similar to that
adopted in Fairfield which would prohibit the
parking of vehicles in any privately owned facility
or lot when the adjoining business is not open for
business (copy attached); or
(3) Council could ask the merchants to "sign" parking
lots according to Lodi City Code Section 15-20 et
seq. so that offenders can be cited by the Police
Department for trespassing (cdpy attached).
I will await Council's further direction in this matter.
RONALD M. STEIN
CITY ATTORNEY
RMS:vc
attachments
}
14-50.2
f 1.1-593 Molin Vchi4lcs and Traffic 14-61
a single
tpliancc iK•twren twelve -thirty p.rri. and one -thirty p.m. on sclzoo1 da;">
u1on any of the folio`vinb rnuni�ratcd streets:
(a) Walnut Street between 11am Lane and Pacific Avenue.
( b) Oak Street between Ilam lane and Pacific Avenue;
(c) All of Wellington Way.
(d) On the cast side of Pacific Avenue between west Walnut
Street and West Ehn Street. (Ord. No. 1148, § 2 (part).)
Sec. 14-59.3. Parking prohibited on designated part of
Laurel Avenue.
Narking is prohibited on Laurel Avenue from the north line
of Turner Road to the northerly termination of Laurel Avenue
between the hours of nine p.m. and six a.m. In addition to the
other penalties provided by this chapter, the violation of this
Section authorizes any police officer of the city to remove said
vehicle and store the same at She expense of the registered
owner. Signs shall be posted giving notice of the right of
removal. (Ord. No. 1148. § 2 (part).)
Sec. 14-60. Park:..g prohibited at all times.
When signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall
park a vehicle at any time upon any of the streets of the city
designated by ordinance or resolution as streets upon which
parking is prohibited at all times. (Ord. No. 493, § l5 t.)
►n shall
facility
b1. and
iys and
,ed by
(Ord.
orderly,
tking or
sited or
ithority
hat the
are in
d any
signs.
y of the
parking
P.M. of
of tirne
gated on such
.m. and
Division 2. Stopping for Loading and Unloading Only.2
See. 14-61. Permits for loading or unloading at angle to curb.
The chief of police is authorized to issue special permits to
allow the backing of a vehicle to the curb for the purpose of
loading or unloading merchandise or materials subject to the
terms and conditions of such permit. Such permits may be
issued either to the owner or lessee of real property or to the
owner of the vehicle and shall grant to such person the privilege
as therein stated and authorized herein, and it shall be unlawful
for any permittee or other person to violate any of the special
2. As to to dcabs stands Fr net ally. we 124-16 or this Cede.
126.1 (Lodi 12 -IS -79)
4P
CITY
L)
PA
Sec. 12.16 Private 2arking lots.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park, leave standIngs
or cause or permit to be left standing any vehicle upon any pri-
vately owned offstreet parking facility or lot when the adjoining
business or commercial establishments are not open for business
without -the written consent of the owner of such privately owned
parking facility or lot.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to enter and remain upon
any privately owned offstreet parking facility or lot when the
adjoining business or commercial establishments are not open for
business without the written consent of the owner of such privately
owned parking facility or lot. (Ord. No. 81-16, 5 1.)
• 12-7a (Ord. No. 81-17 eff. 8/Z4/81;
Ord. No. 81-16 eff. 8/21/81)
REV. #12
I.0111 CITY CoDr
Article 11. Trespass and Loitering.
See. 15-20. I?,
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Ported pro;,crty. Any property specified in section 5-21 which
is posted in the manner provided in section 5-22.
Sign. A board, placard or card not less than one square foot in
area and upon which, in lettering not less than two inches in height,
appear the words "Trespassing -Loitering Forbidden by Law," and
any time limit that may be specified thereon. (Ord. No. 941. § 1.)
Sec. 15-21. Property subject to posting.
Any property within the city may be posted against trespassing
and loitering in the manner provided in section 5-22, and thereby
become posted property subject to the provisions of this article. The
provisions hereof shall not apply to the following property
(1) An established and existing right-of-way for public road pur-
poses.
(2) Any property which corns within the provisions of section
554 of the Penal Code of the state. (Ord. No. 941, § 2.)
Sec. 15-22. Method of posting.
Property may be posted against trespassing and loitering in the fol-
lowing manner:
(1) If the property does not contain any lineal dimension exceeding
three hundred feet, by posting signs at each corne"f the area and at
intervah not exceeding one hundred feet. and, if such property has a
definite entrance or entrances, at each such entrance.
(2) If the property has lineal dimensions exce:ding three hundred
feet, by posting signs at each corner of the area and at intervals not
exceeding two hundred feet, and, if such property has a definite en-
trance or entrances. at each such entrance. (Ord. No. 941, § 3.)
Sec. 15-28. Trespass on posted property prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain on any posted
property without the written permission of the owners, tenant or the
occupant in legal possession or control thereof. (Ord. No. 941, § 4.)
1402
/ Supp. 9-71
w 1
provisions of ,
,dllon posted property
or other duly authoriz
S<Pc. 15-25. Satne-Un
The provisionai'of't
a:tivity by which the
.1neged labor dispute. f
Sec. IS -26. Destructic
It shall be unlawful
.town, deface or desttc
IOrd. No. 941. J 7.)
Sec. IS -27. Stoppin&
It shall be unlawl
stand, park or leave`
upon any posted: pl
owner, tenant or' ]
thereof. (Ord. No.94
Sec. 1S-28. Vito la i
Any person;whi
visions of this Wit
punished aecordi
and parks director. (O
i
i
N
Scc. 15-24. Exempt ions— Peace cafI-B erstlaer Iaaal)lic
employees.
l he provisions of this article shall not apply to the entry
upon posted property in the course of duty of an} peace officer
or other duly authorized public employee. (Ord No. 941. § S.)
Sec. 15-25. Same—Union activities.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to any lawful
activity by which the public is informed of the existence of an
jllc ced labor dispute. (Ord. No. 941. § 6.)
Sec. 15-26. Destruction of signs prohibited.
it shall be unlawful for any person without authority to tear
down. deface or destroy any sign posted pursuant to this article.
(Ord. No. 94 1. § 7.)
Sec. 15-27. Stopping, standing or parking vehicles on
posted property.
It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to stop,
stand, park or leave standing such vehicle at any time within or
upon any posted property without written permission of the
o%vner, tenant or the occupant in legal possession or control
thereof. (Ord. No. 941. § 8.)
Sec. 15-28. Violations.
Any person who is convicted of a violation of any of the pro-
visions of this article shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and
punished accordingly. (Ord. No. 951. § 1.)
Article I1I. Permit for Use of City Facilities.
Sec. 15-29. Administration.
All city -owned neighborhood centers. recreational centers,
and other public buildings used for recreational purposes. are
Placed under the adiministrative jurisdiction of the recreation
and parks director. (Ord. No. 1225-§ 1(1).)
140.3 (Lodr 7-31)
M■
,1
cc: Judge Thomas Seibly
Dear Tom
".ttached hereto is a copy of my Memo which will be sent
to the City Council. Your comments on the second part of
this memo would be appreciated.
Apparently, the Municipal Court Judge in Fairfield has
stated that there was no problem with there not being
notice provisions therein.
I suppose this ordinance is similar to a number of the
ordinances which have been passed by cities regarding off
street parking of vehicles wherein there is no posting.
As X said previously, your comments would be appreciated.
Thank you.
7
RON STEIN
-- CITY ATTORNEY
u _
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorabl :rl t c,tlr;c..L
From: Icon Stein, City Attorney
Re% Lodi Avenue
Date: April 8, 1982
In order to properly take care of the problem of people park-
ing on streets and in private parking lots, a two -prong pro-
gram should be initiated:
(1) An ordinance implemented, prohibiting parking on
Lodi Avenue, similar to City Code Section 14-59.3
which limits parking on Laurel Avenue;
(2) An ordinance similar to that of the City of Fairfield
which would prohibit parking in private lots. In
speaking with the City Attorney of Fairfield, I was
told that although there has been no chsllenge.to
said ordinance, it was his opinion and also that of
the municipal judge of Fairfield, that said ordinance
was constitutional regardless of the fact that there
was no notice provisions therein.
If this Council is desirous of implementing either part of
this program, please let me know.
RONALD M. STEIN
CITY ATTORNEY
RMS : vc
cc: Judge Thomas Seibly