HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 1982 (44)!4Z?40RANDUR
To: City Manager
From: City Attorney
Date: August 24, 1982
On Friday, August 20, 1982, Jim Schroeder and I met with
Wayne Trevena, General Manager of Pacific Coast Producers to
discuss the parking problem.
Mr. Trevena has provided parking for his personnel; he has
provided parking stalls for car pools; he has provided
parking stalls •for people who ride bicycles and mopeds; and
he has sent out letters asking employees to park in the lot.
Frankly, I think that he has gone the extra mile to see that
employees park within the lot.
Upon discussing with Mr. Trevena the issue of the barrels
alleged to be stored in the parking lot, Mr. Trevena said
that the barrels that were on the parking lot amounted to
approximately 3 or 4 parking spaces. At the time of our
visit, they were cone and quite frankly, Hank, with over 200
spaces there, having barrels on 3, 10 or even 20 spaces
should not make a difference 03 to whether people park in
the lot.
It seems to me that the two resolutions of this problem
might be to:
(al Speak with the Union and see it they would
agree to allow some kind of monitoring and
pay docking system for persons not parking in
the lot (which the City would have no way of
enforcing); or
(b) Provide for permit parking pursuant to Section
14.84.1 et seq. of the Lodi City Code. This
Section would reauire the City by ordinance to
designate an area for preferential parking that
would require us to issue pami.ts and, of
course, require our Police Department to
enforce the same.
ii WO .. . . :.
August 24, 1982
\ rage Two
2°
>, I would ask that this sante= be 2a£ as d «ocacil 2}362«
: for September 1, 1982 so that the council can be asked to .
\ / give further direction, {
\\ }
RONALD H. STEIN 4
City Attorney
RUS;vc
. (2
cc; James B. Schroeder •
{
.
(
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIJON
TO: THE CITY COMM
FRM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Producers - Parking
DATE
September 1, 1982
For the benefit of the new Council members, I thought that I
would discuss the parking problem near Pacific Coast
I c r f 3 , a i i d h , o isl o n i zvvi n --j -Co i i
and use this situation to sho--,w scina, ol.' tn:2 thoucj',ht-y ads ir_,4-�
must go into daterrdning whether or not to put a particular
ordinance into effect.
Since the City does have within the Lod
1494.1 et seq. dealing with permit par
that it would be an easy solution to
Producers' problem, to put an ord'
designating the streets at or near the P
only. Section 1484.1 at seq. requires t
by ordinance, certain residential sti
shall be preferential parking for the
course, the City Attorney must prepare
prior; to -preparing the ordinance, the
parking must be designated. This
Engineering Department to determine w
should be designated as residential parR
City Code, Section.
ting-, it would seem
the Pacific Coast
nance into effect
:P as permit parking
iat we iray designate
eats wherein there
residents' only. Of
the ordinance but
area to be permit
would . require :the
rich area or areas
Lngonly.
NO.
The reason why the Engineering Department 'would be - required
-Z�
to become involved would be that that Department would .have _-
to -determine from a traffic standpoint, how far., away., peop�le
would necessarily park their vehicles and walk; an :map u
'ao�r"e
that area for the Council. It should be:noted that the
that the Engineering . Department determines is..:.the ';-.proper .:,
area, must take into account that the vehi61es_. might,- then
park on other streets, so that Engineering would be required
M
..-
to determine the area from which persons would, no onger-
park their vehicles and walk, and will in effect, use� Oiii,'
parking. lot. Further, the Engineering Department or-- Publi%,�;.
Works' Department would be required to. get invol.v'
signing the area.
If the City decides to have permit parking, question
t
must then be asked of where residents', guests are going to
park.- The Ordinance has no provision for guest parkingi so
then, either the Engineering Department. or the Planning:
Department must determinethenumber of driveways and other',
areas available where additional people could park if uhis..
ordinance went into effect.
The next area that must be considered is the fact that .the
Finance Director must then sell permits, and at the present
time there is a fee of $3.00 per permit. It is not merely
selling the permits that becomes involved - each resident
must bring in proof of residency an,! motor v3hicle ownership
in order to Gave permit control. If we are going to have
this ordinance, then we must have enforcement and the Police
CIA
Department must be prepared to enforce this ordinance on a
24 -hour -day basis during the times in which the Cannery is
in operation.
What are the costs to the City in putting this ordinance
into effect? Of course, there is the cost of printing the
permits, the cost of signing the area, and perhaps the
necessity of adding a patrol unit to enforce the ordinance.
Ithas also been suggested in lieu of doing this permit
parking, perhaps we might consider doing a limited time
parking. Again, we must consider the cost of signing the
area= we must determine the driveways in the area which
again, would involve the Planning and/or Engineering
Departments and we must also consider the cost of
enforcement of a 4, 6, or 8 -hour limited parking area.
It is my recommendation that you consider the aforementioned
issues prior to recommending the use of a permit parking or
limited time parking solution.
RONALD N. STEIN
City Attorney
RHS: vc
MEMORANDUM, CITY OF LODI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Ron Stein, City Attorney
FROM- David Morimoto, Planning Department
DATE: August 30, 1982
SUBJECT: P.C.P. Cannery, On Street Parking
The Planning Department conducted a study of the parking situation adjacent to
the P.C.P. Cannery. The study was to determine the number of residences in the
area that had no off-street parking available and relied totally on street park -
Ing for their vehicles.
The survey area included the area from Tokay Street to Mission Street and from
Stockton Street to Washington Street (See attached map).
Within the survey area, we found only four (4) parcels that did not appear to
have any area on the lot to park a vehicle. The remaining parcels had an aver-
age of two (2) spaces per lot for off-street parking. These spaces were garages,
driveways, or in some cases, simply dirt being used for parking. These spaces
often did not meet the legal definition of an off-street space. in some cases
the cars were stacked down a long, narrow driveway or parked on a dirt or grass
area adjacent to the house. They did, however, appear to be used by the residents.
Besides the cannery workers, factors that compound the parking problem appear to
Include narrow streets, narrow lots and a high number of cars per household. Most
of the streets adjacent to the cannery have less than standard street widths.
The narrow streets make going in and out of driveways difficult when cars are
parked on both sides of the streets. The narrow lots also mean that driveways
are often narrow and in some cases two (2) lots may share a driveway. Finally,
It appears that many of the households have more than two (2) vehicles so some
of the vehiclr.s must be parked on the street.
DM/ns
Attachment ;
1 'Zll �x•(a�lr r�
a"
.. = TOKAY 6
J• � 2� �.. Z 2 I 1 !^�'+ � 3� �� 2 1 2
IL A77.7
01
• a u o � iia�+cm czw'w ®as.'cu+ �ro r � �d 3
3. �
T
YT, y j ;T i j r t t N y
MAPLE 03z)
1
T ,
: i 1 x• -f- o
�u
CHERRY ST.
30
ST. t - 7 VINE-
-coo � w :" rilr Z x -
Z lz.
t;'3t r T 7C x"I C6 Mal cm
z «» t `
WATSON »
o ' nas aRs cL�a R gym. cab: asr. m. •q� u� <
r " o • S i"� �^'� Z. Z7-1D
) p � T �� -' '-� -• `. � �r.�� — 'I SSS
r tar' -
1 ®' cGD mt, � � �*• em � ma • �a � as.� arm c» Q � n z
MISSION _
r d3i a�u'aCu Q1' a
r' PUBLIC
�. PAR K
e'•�:'f --'Z E—
No. OF OFFSTREET MR k/ G. .. csm�sv es��rdex �
t _^ i— No ot= DWE�LlNGS ; CONCC
U^)lr
• } 1
�.... — ---- -- --- POPLAR - -
r
COUNCIL CON151UNICATION
Y,1
•
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: pacific Coast Producers - Parking
DATE NO.
September 1, 1982
For the benefit of the new Council numbers, I thou h t that I
would discuss the parking; problem near Pacific toast
Produce:ss,InwI
and use :i3l to It ion t -o
must go into determining whether or not to put a aart:icular
ordinance into effect.
Since the City does have within the Lodi City Code, Section
1484.1 et seq. dealing with permit parking, it would. seem
that it would be an easy solution to the Pacific Coast
Producers' problem, to put an ordinance into effect
designating the streets at or near the PCP as permir parking
only. Section 1484.1 et seq, requires that we;-May:designate
by ordinance, certain residential streets wherein there
shall be preferential. parking for the residents only. Of
course, the City Attorney must prepare the ordinance, but
prior to preparing the ordinance, the area to be permit
parking must be designated. This would require the
Engineering Department to determine which area or areas
should be designated as residential parking only.
The reason why the Zngineering Department would be required
to become involved would be that that Department would have
to determine from a traffic standpoint, how far away people
would necessarily park their vehicles and walk; and map out
that area for the Council. It should be noted that the are
that the Engineering Department determines is the proper
area, must take into account that the vehicles ;night then
park on other streets, so that Engineering would be requirad
to determine the area from which persons would no longer
park their vehicles and walk, and will in effect use the,
parking lot. Further, the Engineering Department or Public
Works Departu:ent would be required to get involved in
signing the area.
If the City decides to have permit parking., the question
must then be asked of where residents' guests are going, to
parka The Ordinance has no provision for guest parking, so
then, either the Engineering Department. or the Planning
Department must determine the number of driveways and other -
areas available where additional people coulu park if'this.
ordinance gent into effect.
The next area that must be considered is the fact that the
Finance Director must then sell permits, and at the present
time there is a fee of $3.00 per permit. It is not merely
selling the permits that becomes involved - each resident
must bring in proof of residency :in -1 motor vehicle ownership
in order to have permit control. If we are going to have
this ordinance, then we must have enforcement and the Police
L�
Department must be prepared to enforce this ordinance on a
24 -hour -day basis during the times in which the Cannery is
in operation.
What are
the co -71--a
to tli;i "City in
pu"-tinc�
this ordinanc
into effect?
,
5_
permits,
the cue t
of signing the
area, and perhaps 1
necessity
of adding
a patrol unit to
enforce
the ordinance.
It has also been suggested in lieu of doing this permit
parking, perhaps we might consider doing a limited time
parking. Again, we must consider the cost of signing the
areal we must determine the driveways in the area which—
again, would involve the Planning and/or Engineering
Departmentl and we must also consider the cast of
enforcement of a 4, 6, or 8 -hour limited parking area.
It is any recommendation that you consider the aforementioned
issues prior to recommending the use of a permit parking -or
limited time parking solution.
RM3svc
n
DEC
MEMORANDUM, CITY OF LOD1, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Ron Stein, City Attorney
FROM: David Morimoto, Planning Department
DATE: August 30, 1982
SUBJECT: P.C.P. Cannery, On Street Parking
The Planning Department conducted a study of the parking situation adjacent to
the P.C.P. Cannery. The study was to determine the number of residences in the
area that had no off-street pat -king available and relied totally on street park -
Ing for their vehicles.
The survey area included the area from Tokay Street to Mission Street and f,
Stockton Street to Washington Street (See attached map)..
Within the survey area, we found only four (4) parcels that did not appear to
have any area on the lot to park a vehicle. The remaining parcels had an aver-
age of two (2) spaces per lot for off-street parking. These spaces ware garages,
driveways, or in some cases, simply dirt being used for parking. These spaces
often did not meet the legal definition of an off-street space. W some cases
the cars were stacked down a long, narrow driveway or parked on a dirt or grass
area adjacent to the house. They did, however, appear to be used by the residents.
Besides the cannery workers, factors that compound the parking problem appear to
Include narrow streets, narrow lots and a high npxdmr of cars per household. Most
of the streets adjacent to the cannery have less than standard street widths.
The narrow streets make going in and out of driveways difficult when cars are
parked on both sides of the streets. The narrow lots also mean that driveways
are often narrow and in some cases two (2) lots may share a driveway. Finally,
It appears that many of the households have more than two (2) vehicles so some
of the vehicles must be parked on the street.
DA/ns
Attachment
T _ -,, ma a E ¢D aiv ma si aus esu; 2s :ssl
„� TOKAY b
+' » ri �I�i�.,. •cra: �rnn ��.lar'c•-x. am C,'.D �!•3C�trtc.. .iY-.
�
�J ..
S p .• 1 � fes. _ c1 � �.�.�_: �
v R[DWOCD � 3 '
_ I 2 2i 2f a 3 1�2-z ►Ft 0 3
-Fla I '
F a'
z�a..s�¢ro • �:. oma, c.i, =�atr;.:?,•_ ��
MAPLE
IQA ft.0 •!� U!•� .� V7t� S t;
CHERRY 04ST.Ix
U � � � ^ � Z fNM-MI •O � - �i
x -1
,•• eL� 1 .t•�f y: aVF a �.;' a,:•u•• z•• C�-_I (.s+ -
: : ST. : _ VINE
.-
'
Z.—j! 3
1 N ; 1. j� •.,�, . 1
pp yy1
rS
t a »» �1 �'1 �► �' % ®i a+� m� art+ a® 1 ` °^�N+
WATSON Wq
o
Q»z
it gg t1.O � Q+D. QtP ED ; � , QR• w., cm •am crw4 C
Iv 6 lhi . Z z 2. e 7-1 Z r 7- x
jr
'' L_____ ... ' cs ' ca, � cm� azn m� � ma • arm T y asp aaa arm a
7
= MISSION = ;
iPUBLIC
� w
► PARK =A.
} k
- -r-
4.
No. OF OFF STREET PRRG- ,. [:UDl.zw w� aiT x
No 61c CONGO
UN,T
d ='
----- --- POPLAR