Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 4, 1985 PH (7)PUBLIC iFARINGS u I ya�552'x3.`kzcZ�+. �•S..n`.`.�f..sL�.�i�t'AaS.!1r15,:.a�v.+.h4tt:m�v �'4 'RkL�.f'rr: ke.......�e:..,. Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Hinchnan called for the Public Hearing to seek cnity input regarding the adoption of policy guidelines for the designation as to permit parking only of the residential area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers Cannery on South Stockton Street, Lodi, California. The matter was introduced by Staff who presented diagrams of the subject area and responded to questions as were posed by Ccuncil. The following persons spoke in favor of permit parking in the subject area: a) Mr. Ben Kauk, 209 Maple Street, Lodi b) Ms. Inez Villa, 817 S. Washington Street, Lodi c) Mr. Albert Castro, 206 Maple Street, Lodi d) Pastor Loren G. Stacy, Church of God - Seventh Day, 245 E. Vine Street, Jodi e) Mrs. Darrell Mueller, 412 N. Ham Lane, Lodi, owner of property at 735 - 731 S. Washington Street, Lodi f) Mr. Dale Baumbach, 1453 W. Tokay Street, Lodi, owner of property at 814 S. Washington Street, Lodi and io Staff. The following aiternauvt=z, were � x z e. y -a gy Mrs. Arnold Schnaible, 728 S. Washington Street, Lodi No persons were in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to pen -nit parking in the subject area. Mr. Mike Bradley, Bicecuti.ve Manager of the Lodi District Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council regarding the various actions that had been taken by Pacific Coast Producers over t -he years in attempting to alleviate parking problems in the area of their facility. There being no other persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter the public portion of the hearing was closed. Council Member Pinkerton proposed various alternatives that could be mpleimnted to remedy the present parking and traffic problems which included amendments to the present ordinance; limited time parking alternatives; a combination of limited time parking and permit parking. Council Member Pinkerton proposed a permit parking fee of $1.00 for three years; suggested police department monitoring of the subject area; and proposed that the restrictions be implemented for the yearly 9 month period that the cannery is in operation. P e` S:xiC '4 r ,rax f Y ' a r 4 of A— .- discussion followed with questions b lengthy directed to those who had given testi*nony beteg erected and to Staff. The following alternatives were recapped as possible solutions to the situation: .,) No parking for 1 hour a) 2 times/day b) 3 times/day 2) 1 hour time limit during 2 hour period a) 2 times/daY b) 3 times/daY 3) Resident Penn t plus no parking as set forth in item 1 above Resident Penniplus limited parking as set 4) forth in itan 2 a; ave. ass per 5) Permit Parking with one guest P� resident 6) 2 hour time limit - all day or some portion of day Additional discussion followed. On motion of Counl:ll Mgnber Snider, Olson second. .ouncil directed Staff to bring back to council, at the 2nd Council meeting in October, a written report detailing the. various pia t� solutions and alternates discussed at testimony received at the meeting and included in this matter. Public Hearing regarding . _ aFs^ - All M, R " 4 P f _ 2. r 'fi3OUNCH, C%i1 MUNICATN y TO: 1HE CITY COUNCIL DATE FR0,1A: TWE CITY MANAGER 5 OFFICE September 4, 1985 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PERMIT PARKING GUIDELINES RDCOKNT2 DED ACTION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing on the proposed guidelines for the designation of permit parking areas and take action as deemed appropriate BAC:KGRDUI`�J INFORMATION: At its regular adjourned meeting of July 24, 1985 the City Council heard concerns expressed by residents in the area of the PCP cannery about crowded parking conditions. The Council set this meeting as the date and time for a public hearing to receive input concerning staff recommendations for permit parking guidelines. All area residents have been advised of this hearing and have received copies of the rec nded z: guidelines. NO. CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED M. REID Mayor Pro Tempore EVELYN M. OLSON JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER CITE' 0-F, LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)334-5634 ��To: Residents (S' yom City Manager -Subject: Residential Permit Parking Guidelines THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney At its regular meeting of July 24, the City Council heard ccurents from residents in your area concerning designating your neighborhood as one where street parking would be by permit only. this was a suggestion offered by one 7 of your neighbors as a means to easing the parking problems you are now experiencing when the cannery ?.s in full operation. Attached are: A copy of the City's present ordinance concerning permit parking areas. A copy of a map of the proposed area to be so designated. A copy of the proposes: permit parking guidelines to be discussed by the City Council at its study session Tuesday, August 27, 1985 at 7:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers. A copy of the notice of the public hearing on this matter to be held Wednesday, September 4, 1985 at 7:30 p.m._ in the City Council Chambers. The study session (August 27) is primarily a work meeting for the City Council and public input will be limited. This meeting will probably be adjourned around 8:15 a.m. It is at the public hearing (September 4) that the public will have ample opportunity to address the City Council on this matter. Should you have any questions or have need for any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk's office, at 333-6700. Chapter 1032 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING Sections: 1032.010 Statutory authority. 1032.020 Zone designation. 1032.030 Permit required. 1032.0.10 application for permit. 1032.050 issuance of permit. 10.32.060 Term of permit. 10-42.070 Displa% of permit. 1032.080 Fee. 1032.090 Exemptions. 1032100 Violation—Infraction. 1032.010 Statutory authority. The ordinance codified in this chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority con- tained in California Vehicle Code Sec- tion 22507. (Prior code § 14-84.10) 1032.020 Zone designation. A. The council may designate by ordi- nance certain residential streets or alleys or any portions thereof as a preferential parking zone for the benefit of residents adjacent thereto in which zone vehicles displaying a permit or other authorized indicia may be exempt from parkingpro- hibitiom; or restrictions otherwise posted. marked or noticed. B. No preferential parking ordinance shall apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. (Prior code § 14-84.1) 1032.030 Permit required. No person shall park or leave standing on such street or portion thereof an.• vehicle unless such vehicle has displayed thereon an appropriate permit issued by the finance director which entitles the holder thereof to preferential parking privileges on the street or portion thereof in question. (Prior code'3- 14-8-1.=) 1032.040 Application for permit. Each application for a parking permit shall contain information sufficient to identify- the applicant. his residence address on a street within the residential parking permit area. the license number of the motor vehicle for which applica- tion is made and such either information that may be deemed relevant by the finance director. (Prior code § 14-84.4) 1032.050 Issuance of permit. A. Parking permits shall be rued by the finance director. Each such permit shall state the license number of the motor vehicle for which it is issued. No more than one parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle fe;r which application is made. The finance director is authorized to issue such rules and reg- ulations. not inconsistent with this chap- ter. governing the manner in which persons shall qualify for parking permits. B. Parking permits may be issued for motor vehicles only upon application of a legal resident of property adjacent to a street within th_ residential permit park- ing area who has a motor vehicle regis- tered in his name or who has a motor vehicle for hs exclusive use and under his control. C. Proofofresidencvandmotor vehi- cle ownership or vehicle use and control shall be demonstrat,,-d in a manner deter- mined by the finance director. (Prior code § 14-84.3) 1032.060 Term of permit. Permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall remain effective for a period of one calendar year or fraction thereof. or so long as the applicant continues to reside in a qualified dwelling unit, for such per- mit or until the prefe-ential parking zone for which such permit was issued is elimi- nated. whichever period of time is less. (Prior code § 1-4-84.5) 1032.070 Display of permit. Permits shall be displayed on the left rear bumper of the vehicle for which the permit is issued. (Prior code § 14-84.6) 1032.080 Fee. The finance director shalt collect a fee of three dollars for each original permit issued and one dollar for a renewal per- mit. (Prior code § 14-84.7) 1032.090 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any delivery vehicle. which vehi- cle is under the control of an individual providing service to property located on a street in a residential permit parking area: nor to any emergency motor vehicle including. but not limited to. an ambulance. fire engine or police vehicle. (Prior code § 14-84.8) 1032.100 Violation ---Infraction. Pursuant : to Government Code Sec- tion 36900. violations of this chapter are designated infractions. (Prior code § 1484.9) RARKIMGAREA Map 11,99, . ........ ... ... ... .. .... 1!7 4 ............ .................... . ........................ . ... ....... 4 V: OjO aw ..... ..... .;.y . ... .............. I!p '1011:12 rm m puwo' empL:::::r:::.......... y. ago am eNZRAMCE .... .... .. .... ... ....... . .......... .. .. .................... Ism I=> as �m MID ...... ..., ari:.:io :1=pa:.up: 7w :a0►:':t!! .Y.aw u..H..t•/.:w..,w.•In mow. — � - ... N -_ In, ccD, �xw . ....................... ........................ . .... ... ..... ... . i * ASRIIA47LOT L W/PALL 64 5 (wt'jj WATSON ST Q2, 03 'fa, 'drip ldmwvl, w=b, up cro <a a.. qA, ala Tp 1� PCP lu� PARK/MG 4-07' -0 ciao so .00 a lap CYPRESS Ow PQ govoeMm, , MMM �-M CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMI'"`� PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM The general objective of the preferential parking program is to provide on - street parking for residents in their own immediate neighborhoods, to the exclusion of non-resident parking on the street, The specific social and environmental objectives to be considered in the exclusion of non-resident parking are the reduction of air pollution, exces- sive noise, traffic hazards and litter, the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood, and the provision of access for residents to their homes without unreasonable burden. ORDINANCE The City Council has enacted an ordinance that will provide the legal basis for the program. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRICTED PARKING NEIGHBORHOODS a. Petition: At least 60% of the residents living in a reasonably sized neighborhood shall sign a petition requesting residential permit action. A reasonably sized neighborhood is generally defined as one complete block, including both sides of each block (eight block faces) with a minimum of 50 residents. b. Council Referral: Then City Council may direct the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department to conduct surveys and studies to determine the eligibility of the neighborhood for which the petition is submitted. c. Scope of Surveys and Studies: The surveys and studies by the Engineer- ing Division shall include: On -street parking space supply. 2. Off-street parking space supply and accessability. 3. On -street parking supply vs. demand. 4. Non-resident vehicles vs. residential vehicles during peak hour occupancy. 5. Percentage of non-resident vehicles that could use off-street parking spaces. 6. Average vehicle turnover per on -street space. d. Report, Recommendation and Council Decision: Upon completion of the surveys and studies, the Engineering Division will submit a written report, together with recommendations, to the City Manager. The City Council, at a regular meeting, will decide whether or not to designate the area for residential permit parking program. e. Permits: If the City Council, by ordinance, designates a preferential parking zone, the application for permits, issuance of permits, duration of permits, display of permits, fees, exemptions, penalties, and other conditions shall all be in accordance with Ordinance No. 1158 of the Lodi City Code. PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 2 f. Regulation: .The permit vehicle will be exempt from the area's signed parking regulations, and all other parked vehicles (except those specified in Sec. 8, "Exemptions") will be in violation of the ordinance. g Fines for Preferential Parking Violations: The fine for a parking viola- tion in a preferential parking area should be set so that it is prohibitive to the extent that it prevents enough violations to meet the primary objective of the program, yet in a range that generates some revenue to pay some of the cost of the program. A fine of at least $S is recommended for the reasons mentioned above. DISCUSSION A preferential parking area will, most certainly, create problems for the residents of the area, residents of the surrounding area, enforcement officers, and other citizens of the City. Some of the problems that can be anticipated are: a. Some residents of the area will be opposed to paying a fee to park in front of their own homes. b. Some residents will object because visitors to their homes will not be able to park on the street. c. Some non-residents will contend they are being denied what they consider their rightful access to public streets and complain of inconveniences to them. d. Since no arrangements are anticipated for visitors to the area, residents will have to make their own arrangements for visitors by parking in the street to allow visitors to park in their driveway or garage. e. Fraudulent use of permits will be difficult to control. It will be easy for a resident.to resell permits at a profit. Detection of this kind of violation will be difficult. Counterfeit permits, false proof of residence, resale of resident permits - these are some of the many problems inherent in this kind of program. f. In some areas, commuters will walk the extra distance and park on streets just outside of the program area. This will create new parking problems in areas that are now unaffected. It may require preferential parking in areas where there are no parking problems tc begin with. g. Some problems caused by preferential parking are unkncwn prior to implementation of the program since some neighborhoods will have unique .characteristics in terms of traffic and parking not yet realized. COSTS For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all costs relating to the project are to be borne by those in the benefit area. It is highly recommended that revenues be set to accomplish this. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION AS PERMIT PARKING ONLY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ADJACENT TO THE PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS CANNERY ON SOUTH STOOMN STREET, LODI, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 4, 1985 at the hour of 7:30 fin, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi_, California, to seek comminity input regarding the adoption of policy guidelines for the designation as permit parking only of the residential area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers Cannery on South Stockton Street, Lodi. The subject area would involve all properties within and having frontage on the streets bounded by Tokay Street on the north, Washington Street on the east, Vine Street on the south and Stockton Street on the west, except those properties fronting the west side of Stockton Street. Information regarding this item including copies of Ordinance No. 1158 An Ordinance Y%Tending Lodi City Code Chapter 14, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" by Adding a New Section Thereto Relating to Permit Parking on Designated Streets" may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk or the Public Works Department at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views on this matter. Written Statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: August 7, 1985 By Order of the Lodi. City Council ALICE M.I114CHE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO SEE{ COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION AS PERMIT PARKING ONLY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ADJACENT TO THE PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS CANNERY ON SOUTH STO0(TON STREET, LODI , CALIFORNIA IDTICE IS HEREBY GIViEN that on September 4, 1985 at the hour of 7:30 pin, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to seek cornnanity input regarding the adoption of policy guidelines for the designation as permit parking only of the residential area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers Cannery on South Stockton Street, Lodi. The subject area would involve all properties within and having frontage on the streets bounded by Tokay Street on the north, Washington Street on the east, urine Street. on. the south and Stockton Street on the west, except those properties fronting the west side of Stockton Street. Information regarding this item including copies of Ordinance No. 1158 An Ordinance Amending Lodz City Code Chapter 14, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" by Adding a New Section Thereto Relating to Permit Parking on Designated Streets" may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk or the Public Works Department at 221 West Pine Street, Loci, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views on this matter. Written Statements may, be filed with the City Clerk at any time prier to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: August 7i 1985 By Order of the Lodi City Council 7:l .J11MCHELx� ALICE M. CITY CLERK CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM The general objective of the preferential parking program is to provide on - street parking for residents in their own immediate neighborhoods, to the exclusion of non-resident parking on the street, The specific social and environmental objectives to be considered in the exclusion of non-resident parking are the reduction of air pollution, exces- sive noise, traffic hazards and litter, the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood, and the provision of access for residents to their homes without unreasonable burden. ORDINANCE The City Council has enacted an ordinance that will provide the legal basis for the program. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRICTED PARKING NEIGHBORHOODS a. Petition: At least 60% of the residents living in a reasonably sized neighborhood shall sign a petition requesting residential permit action. A reasonably sized neighborhood is generally defined as one complete block, including both sides of each block (eight block faces) with a minimum of 50 residents. b. Council Referral: Then City Council may direct the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department to conduct surveys and studies to determine the eligibility of the neighborhood for which the petition is submit*.ed. c. Scope of Surveys and Studies: The surveys and studies by the Engineer- ing Division shall include: 1. On -street parking space supply. 2. Off-street parking space supply and accessability. 3. On -street parking supply vs. demand. 4. Non-resident vehicles vs. residential vehicles during peak hour occupancy. 5. Percentage of non-resident vehicles that could use off-street parking spaces. 6. Average vehicle turnover per on -street space. d. Report, Recommendation and Council Decision: Upon completion of the surveys and studies, the Engineering Div sii on will submit a written PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 2 M report, together with recommendations, to the City Manager. The City Council, at a regular meeting, will decide whether or not to designate the area for residential permit parking program. e. Permits: If the City Council, by ordinance, designates a preferential parking zone, the application for permits, issuance of permits, duration of permits, display of permits, fees, exemptions, penalties, and other conditions shah all be in accordance with Ordinance No. 1158 of the Lodi City Code. f. Regulation: The permit vehicle will be exempt from the area's signed parking regulations, and all other parked vehicles (except those specified in Sec. 8, "Exemptions") will be in violation of the ordinance. g. Fines for Preferential Parking Violations: The fine for a parking viola- tion in a preferential parking area should be set so that it is prohibitive to the extent that it prevents enough violations to meet the primary objective of the program, yet in a range that generates some revenue to pay some of the cost of the program. A fine of at least $5 is recommended for the reasons mentioned above. ni(�rtirc:nm A preferential parking area will, most certainly, create problems for the residents of the area, residents of the surrounding area, enforcement officers, and other citizens of the City. Some of the problems that can be anticipated are: a. Some residents of the area will be opposed to paying a fee to park in front of their own homes. b. Some residents will object because visitors to their homes will not be able to park on_the street. c. Some non-residents will contend they are being denied what they consider their rightful access to public streets and complain of inconveniences to them. d. Since no arrangements are anticipated for visitors to the area, residents will have to make their own arrangements for visitors by parking in the street to allow visitors to park in their driveway or garage. e. Fraudulent use of permits will be difficult to control. It will be easy for a resident to resell permits at a profit. Detection of this. kind of violation will be difficult. Counterfeit permits, false proof of residence, resale of resident permits - these are some of the many problems inherent in this kind of program. J PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 3 4e f, In some areas, commuters will walk the extra distance and park on streets just outside of the program area. This will create new parking problems in areas that are now unaffected. It may require preferential parking in areas where there are no parking problems to.begin with. g. Some problems caused by preferential parking are unknown prior to implementation of the program since some neighborhoods will have unique characteristics in terms of traffic and parking not yet realized_ COSTS Attached is a preliminary rundown on costs and revenues. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all costs relating to the project are to be borne by those in the benefit area. It is highly recommended that revenues be set to accomplish this. PERMIT PARKING AREA (CANNERY AREA) INITIAL AND ANNUAL COST AND ESTIMATED REVENUE PER YEAR This typical district would be bounded, approximately, by the north side of Tokay Street, the east side of Washington Street, the south side of Vine Street, and the west side of Stockton Street as shown on the attached map. The area consists of the equivalent of 24 block faces and would affect approximately 130 residents. INITIAL COST Studies & Surveys Permits & Administration Signs (including labor, material and equipment) TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST Sign Maintenance (10% Replacement) Permits & Administration (50%) Enforcement - 365 hours @ $14.0jW(��i 3toU hrQ X30/►.. COK.ct+�ut�.., 0 0 TOTAL INITIAL REVENUE 19g S "eA'At $ 700.00 4 SO O 800.00 goo 7,200.00 S000 $ 8,700-00 %-goo $ 703.00 SOO 40C.00 400 5 ,100.00 ► o moo $ 7. 100.00 vz . 000 b. Operating Cost: Sign replacement is estimated to be 10% per year and permits and administration at 50% of the initial cost. Enforcement was calculated on the basis of making one checks of the area per shift or three checks per day. Each check of the area will take 18 to 20 minutes (actual measurement of run) and does not include any time for writing citations. There is also no time figured for tali -outs on citizen complaints. The Police Dept, felt that twice this much time should be spent_ It is assumed the permit parking area is to be monetarily self-sufficient and, to recover the installation cost over a 10 -year period, 10% of the initial cost has been included as an annual operating expense. c. Revenue Per Year: The initial revenue from permits was estimated on the assumption of issuing 260 permits (two per dwelling) at $3 per permit. Ordinance No. 1158, Section 7, states, "The Finance Director shall collect a fee of $3 for each original permit and $1 for each renewal permit." ;ince the only revenue from the area will be from permits and citations, and if the area is to be self-sufficient, approximately 1700 citations would need to be issued per year to recover the annual Operating Cost. This does not appear to be a reasonable estimate of the number of citations to be issued, particularly when one realizes that the cannery, and the problem, only operates during a portion of each year. Four ways, or combinations thereof, exist to fund the district. 1. Make up any deficits from the general fund. This solution is • not recommended as being difficult to defend in today's tight money situation. 2. Raise annual permit fees. .While this appears reasonable, the actual amount of money obtained by increasing the fee from $l to $3 is insignificant in relation to the amount of money needed. If it is felt that residents should pay for the initial City costs, the permits would have to be raised to $3; each. n ' PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 4 1985` ANNUAL REVENUE 260 Renewal Permits @ $1.00 tafter Ist yr.) $ 260.00 too Citations - 500 @ $5.00 x 82% 2,050.00 3 s 4 0 3100 fl ►Z -ao ,c 'v2�1. TOTAL $ 2,310.00 t, NOTES a. Initial Cost: A block face, as used in the estimate, is assumed as '400 lineal feet of one side of a street. Studies and surveys were estimated at $30 per block face and permits and administration costs at $35 per block face. Signs were estimated at $100 each, with three signs to be installed in each block face. b. Operating Cost: Sign replacement is estimated to be 10% per year and permits and administration at 50% of the initial cost. Enforcement was calculated on the basis of making one checks of the area per shift or three checks per day. Each check of the area will take 18 to 20 minutes (actual measurement of run) and does not include any time for writing citations. There is also no time figured for tali -outs on citizen complaints. The Police Dept, felt that twice this much time should be spent_ It is assumed the permit parking area is to be monetarily self-sufficient and, to recover the installation cost over a 10 -year period, 10% of the initial cost has been included as an annual operating expense. c. Revenue Per Year: The initial revenue from permits was estimated on the assumption of issuing 260 permits (two per dwelling) at $3 per permit. Ordinance No. 1158, Section 7, states, "The Finance Director shall collect a fee of $3 for each original permit and $1 for each renewal permit." ;ince the only revenue from the area will be from permits and citations, and if the area is to be self-sufficient, approximately 1700 citations would need to be issued per year to recover the annual Operating Cost. This does not appear to be a reasonable estimate of the number of citations to be issued, particularly when one realizes that the cannery, and the problem, only operates during a portion of each year. Four ways, or combinations thereof, exist to fund the district. 1. Make up any deficits from the general fund. This solution is • not recommended as being difficult to defend in today's tight money situation. 2. Raise annual permit fees. .While this appears reasonable, the actual amount of money obtained by increasing the fee from $l to $3 is insignificant in relation to the amount of money needed. If it is felt that residents should pay for the initial City costs, the permits would have to be raised to $3; each. 3. Raise the fine from $5 to a figure which will, in fact, provide the necessary monies to make the district self-sufficient. 4. Decrease the amount of time (and money) spent on enforcement, particularly during off-season at the cannery. While: this is the most direct, positive, and controllable way, it does have the disadvantage of probably increasing the number of "call outs" from residents in the area and decreasing the number of citations issued. At the same time, it releases police officers for other work. Probably the best solution would be some combination of 2, 3, and 4 above. :� PROPOSED RES/DENT/AL ..... PERMIT A,A?,CA Pep ---, leNpz_oy'=_'6 eN7RAA1C,E ASPHALT LO7' WIPALLE75 MISSION Ap/_ 0 yzjff POPLAR is - NiL DARK/NG L 6) 77- I;y max,, Q, 1 T1 I CYPRESS 40 0 A_.-.. To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: City Manager Subject: Residential Permit Parking In accordance with the City Council's direction, this topic has been placed. on the agenda for the "shirtsleeve" session to be held Tuesday, August 27, 1985. Attached is information ccn piled for your review. Copies of the present ordinance, the proposed guidelines, the publication notice and a map of the area will be distributed to residents in the area Friday, August 23, 1985 along with a mew explaining the process. J, 10.28.200 their enforcement of the provisions of this division. The removal. obliteration or concealment of any chalk mark or other distinguishing mark or object used by any police officer or other employee or officer of this city in connection with the enforcement of the parking regulations of this chapter shall, if done for the pur- pose of evading the provisions of this chapter, constitute such interference or obstruction. (Prior code § 14-84 (part), (a). (b). (c). (e)) 10.28.210 Violation—Infraction. The provisions of Chapter 1.08 of this code are inapplicable, and any )wncr or operator who violates or fails to comply. with this chapter is guilty of an infraction punishable by: A. A fine not exceeding fifty dollars for a first violation: B. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a second violation of the shine ordi,iance within one year; C. A fine not exceeding two hundred fifty doliars for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year. (Prior code § 14-84(d)) Chapter 10.32 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING Sections: 10.32.010 Statutory auth4: ity. 10.32.020 Zone designation_ 10.32.030 Permit required. 10.32.0.30 .application for permit. 10.32.050 Issuance of permit. 10.32:060 Term of permit. 10.32.070 Display of permit. 174 1032.080 Fee. 10.32.040 Exemptions. 1032.100 Violation—Infraction. 19.32.010 Statutory authority. The ordinance codified in this chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority con- tained in California Vehicle Code Sec- tion 2207. (Prior code 3 14-84.10) 10.32.020 Zone designation. A. The council may designate by ordi- nance certain residential streets or alleys or any portions thereof as a preferential parking zone for the benefit of residents adjacent thereto in which zone vehicles displaying a permit or other authorized indicia may be exempt from: parking pro- hibitions or restrictions otherwise posted. marked or noticed. B. No preferential parking ordinance shall apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. ( Prior code § 14-84.1) 10.32.030 Permit required. No person shall park or leave star_ding on such street or portion thereof any vehicle unless such vehicle has displayed thereon an appropriate permit issued by the finance director which entitles the holder thereof to pre{;.rentlal parking privileges on the street or p +r.: ;v thereof in question. (Prior cod,: -` 8' ) 10.32.040 :application for permit. Each applicaticri for a parking permit shall contain information sufficient to identify the applicant• his residence address on a street within the residential parking permit area. the license number R 10.32.040 of the motor vehicle for which applica- '_0.32.070 Display of permit. tion is main and such other information Permits shall be displayed on the left that may be deemed relevant by the rear bumper of the vehicle for which the finance director. (Prior code § 14-84.4) permit is issued. (Prior code § 14-84.6) 10.32.050 Issuance of permit. 10-32.080 Fee. A. Parking permits shall be issued by The finance director shall collect a fee the finance director. Each such permit of three dollars for each original permit shall state the license number of the issued and one dollar for a renewal per - motor vehicle for which it is issued. No mit. (Prior code § 14-84.7) more than one parking permit shall be 1032.090 Exemptions. issued to each motor vehicle for whicl'_ The provisions of this chapter shall not application is made. The finance director apply to any delivery vehicle, which vehi- is authorized to issue such rules and reg- cle is under the control of an individual ulations. not inconsistent with this chap- ter, governing the manner in which providing service to property located on a persons shall qualify for parking permits. street in a residential permit parking B. Parking permits may be issued for area; aor to any emergency motor vehicle motor vehicles only upon application of including, but not limited to, an a legal resident of property adjacent to a ambulance, fire engine or police vehicle. street within the residential permit park- (Prior code § 14-84.8) ing area who has a motor vehicle regis- 1032.i0Q Violation—Infraction. tered in his name or who has a motor Pursuant to Government Code Sec- Sec - vehicle for his exclusive use and under his control. tion 36900. violations of this chapter are C. Proof of residency and motor vehi- designated infractions. (Prior code § cle ownership or vehicle use and control 14-84'9) shall be demonstrated in a manner deter- mined by the finance director. (Prior code § 14-84.3) - Chapter 10.36 ABANDONED, NVRECKED AND 10.32.060 Term of permit. INOPERABLE VEHICLES Permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall remain effective for a period ofe4re-lh+rfle Sections: calendar y4or fraction thereof, or so 10.36.010 :nuisance. long as the applicant continues to reside 10.36.020 Definitions. in a qualified dwelling unit for such per- 10.36.030 Exemptions. mit or until the preferential parking zone 10.36.040 Provisions for which such permit was issued is elimi- supplementary. nated. whichever period of time is less. 1036.0-50 Enforcement—Right of (Prior code § 14-84.3) entry. 175 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department TO: City Manager City Attorney FROM: Public Works Director DATE: August 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Residential Permit Parking For your information, i have attached the following information: 1. Copy of the City Code outlining the residential permit parking requirements. 2. A memo, dated March 19, 1979, to the City Council recommending that guidelines for preferential parking be adopted. To my knowledge,this has not been acted upon by the City Council. 3. A memo from the City Attorney outlining the parking problem in the area of Pacific Coast Producers and discussing the residential permit parking ordinance that is adopted. As 1 indicated in my memo of March 19, 1979, 1 still feel strongly that guide- lines for preferential parking should be approved by the City Council. It is felt that a good way to continue moving ahead on the PCP parking problem is to take the attached guidelines in their present form to the Council for discussion and final approval. Once the guidelines have been adopted, the procedures for moving ahead on this problem should fall into place. As we discussed at our last meeting o;: this subject, it appears impossible to implement permit parking in the cannery area this summer in order to benefit the citizens this year. This is due to the fact that it will probably take two Council meetings to implement the Residential Permit Parking in the cannery area and it will then take a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks to obtain the special signing required for the proposed preferential parking. Please conta me if you need any additional information. Jack L. Ronsko Pubi is Works Director Attachments J LR/eeh March 198 -11 IM Preferweal lancing RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council d4cuss and take the appropriate m.*iexs ;2tjj respect to ift' gtddelinsea fa preferential parking. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: :,sed on the request mode at the last sf►kWaova an 9 Tuesdays March 13, i9n, via am presenting the following inforasations ® The existing fine esst "IsW by the court for this type oF parking infmiction Is $5.00 per citation. Of this omount, the City receives 826. Attoctwxl is a communication from ,loge �5aibly regarding posxible Increases In tits arxwd. o Tire existing Ordinance *1158, Section 7, acetas, 'The f=inance Director shall collect a fee of f$3 for each original permit and $1 ke- each permit renewal. ft Is rocommoxied that the City Council consider increming the original permit fee to help awe*~ the Initial coats of the program and that the Council also consider an Incase in the renewal fee. Tress charVas would require an ardinar:ce mvisian. a It Is also recmwaw-ded that the City staff prepare fa farm petition which can be used to obtain slgnattow. in this way, eat person signin<j the petition would hove access to all of the information needed to decide whether he/she wed preferential parking In their neigF6oc4aod. Comments from the police Department on these proposed guidelines have already been received verbally by the Counci i . lack L. Ronsko Public W=ks Director l ncloaxe JLR:dt r chavibers of Judgit 3. Qmmas SEihlg March 16, 1979 Mr. Jack Ronsko Department of Public Works City of Lodi City 11-111 Lodi, Ca. 95240 RE: Ii:PACT OF RESIDE?dTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROG W1 Dear Mr. Ronsko: MUNICIPAL_ COURT LODI JUDICIAL DISTRICT 230WEST EL -M STREET LODI• CALIFOFi NtA 98240 TELEPHONE 1200) 365-6627 In response to the request of Mr. Marvin Davis for imput cor:cernint7 the..impact on the Lodi 2lunicit3,al Court as a result of invleri.-ntation of the City of Lodi's proposed Residential P,,2r,--it 11. r tinct Program you shoulci he ay.are of the following: 1. -he current $5.00 parking violation fee figure is generally considered sufficient to deter violators and is in fact higher than in neighboring jurisdic- tion. 2.. Implementation of such a program would in itself increase the number of citation filings and corres- pondingly the work of the Clerk's Office of the Court. 3. An increase in the amount of fee per violation would result in an increase in workload and expense, in addition to -the mere filing and handling, in the following areas: a. Court time - as the fee increases, the per- centage of persons wishing formal arraignment will increase. It becomes economically feasible for a person to come to Court in hopes that the fine would be lowered by the Judge because of some mitigating factor not amounting to a defense. b. Police time - as the fine increases and more persons are willing to come to Court, you can expect more of the matters to be set for trial. This results in City employees involvement as witnesses and leads to costs of time, overtime, etc. In general, it is recognized that a prohlem exists in parti- cuiar areas of. the City and it appears that thePro?Ios�cl program r., l solve th-a problem. it is, however, c1o11btf u1 that the proclram r-n„lri he made more economically feasible Lv an increase of bail. Page 2 u ruly I �. J Tll riA ROBERT F . ioner COUNCIL COMMUNICAT-`)IN TO: THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: pacific Coast Producers - Parkinc DATE I NO_ September 1, 1982 For the benefit o= the new Council members, I thought that 1 would discuss the parking problem. near Paci-fic Coast Producers, and the one solution o= having permit parking, and use this situation to show some of the thoughts which must go into determining wether or not to put a oarticular ordinance into eifec- Since the City does have within the Lodi City Code, Section 1484°1 et seq. dealing with permit parking, it would seers 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 Der_mi t parking only. Section 1484.1 et seq. requires that :ae 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 Engineering 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 area that the Engineering Department determines is the proper area, must take into account that�the vehicles might then park on other streets, so that Engineering would be required 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 Department 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 resid-ents' guests are going to park. The Ordinance has no provision for guest parking, so then, either the Engineering Department. or the Planning Department must determine the nul-tber of driveways and other areas available where additional oeople could park if this 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 oermit. It is not merely selling the permits that becomes involved - each resident must bring in nroof of and motor 'ii c-? e in order to have permi' controi. If Yie aro going to have this ordinance, then we must have enforcement and the Police 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:. It has also been suggested in lieu of doing this permit parking, perhaps we might consider doing a limited time parking. Again, we Aust consider the cost of signing the area; we must determine the driveways in the area which again, would involve the Planning and/or Engineering Department; 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 M. STE114 City Attorney RMS:vc MEMORANDUM, CITY OF LOD), COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Ron Stein, City Attorney FROM: David Morimoto, Planning Department DATE: August 30, 1982 SUBJECT: .F.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 vehicles must be parked on the street. DM/ns Attachment OP .7 T. s Mp -➢? aCo a v �-iD tZ3 am C4� 6n aL. Qui aIN QiD cT � c• TO KAY 6 I 1 • v 4 M z , �(1z t Aq +1 z tJ !tea 2 0 + RE6Wv F _ 000 3 w� c9;cmi¢=� c� crls�c>5 ..•+o r � � 3 '-- J 2 Z(2J2 3 e '2—Z 3 i E19 i I: 1• —C i t I a 1 1 aeQ r _ z z s z e• z; x i G z, J1! 2 a� 1, n a!s. 'Coil Q-0 v . •tin .T Y3'� - ----.... ------ - - - ' MAPLE :12 , 2, �+aZ tZb�ctZ aT>I.� ntn �•7 cM, E � �fia ,;�,t cc a .. _ J,.�2_ _perp CHERRY - ST. ' ca z [— rso a o ;cD� Q m cma 7 av I O �, �' r Qom, ! z ! t � 1<,:.x•... � 6'� z f zi I Ii:ol ac>'a.,,imy f t ST. = r VINE -3 c9 za j G z. i 1 R j ,3 I 1 r • s - A_ I = ter crw QZD rni WATSON o q c>� a <m ® ara arm <m ¢+n czb sat � z x T t r ®' -:m am ar> arD cav CH> 7- ain aan cia a IMISSION r PAR K /IPPPON, eARkiNG cn NO. OF DIrIrS7-R6err9Rkl �. „ ami wn aaa ats No. OF DWFLUNG-S CONCC _ 0 3 r ( „ r amu/ t UA)l r _____________ __ __�_-___ a• q i a 26 -gam 1 POPLAR : : i CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM The general objective of the preferential parking program is to provide on - street parking for residents in their own immediate neighborhoods, to the exclusion of non-resident parking on the street. The specific social and environmental objectives to be considered in the exclusion of non-resident parking are the reduction of air pollution, exces- sive noise, traffic hazards and litter, the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood, and the provision of access for residents to their homes without unreasonable burden. ORDINANCE The City Council has enacted an ordinance that will provide the legal basis for the pr ogr aria. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRICTED PARKING NEIGHBORHOODS Qa,r'c e a. _Petition: At least 60% of the in a reasonably sized neighborhood shall sign a petition requesting residential permit action. A reasonably sized neighborhood is generally defined �'►���as onecomplete bloc , including both sides of each block (eight block faces) with a minimum of 50 residents. b. Council Referral: Then City Council may direct the Engineering Division of the Public Works Depairtment to conduct surveys and studies to determine the eligibility of the neighborhood for which the petition is submitted. c. Scope of Surveys and Studies: The surveys and studies by the Engineer- ing Division shall include: On -street parking space supply. 2. Off-street parking space supply and accessability. 3. On -street parking supply vs. demand. 4. Non-resident vehicles vs. residential vehicles during peak hour occupancy. 5. Percentage of non-resident vehicles that could use off-street parking spaces. 6. Average vehicle turnover per on -street space. d. Report, Recommendation and Council Decision: Upon completion of the surveys and studies, the Engineering Division will submit a written PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 2 report, together with recommendations, to the City Manager. . The City Council, at a regular meeting, will decide whether or not to designate the area for residential permit parking program. t�So2��bK e. Permits: If the City Council, by ard.Aaa-c+c�, designates a preferential parking zone, the application for permits, issuance of permits, duration of permits, display of permits, fees, exemptions, penalties, and other conditions shall all be in accordance with Qrdinance No. 115$ of the Lodi City Code. f. Regulation: The permit vehicle will be exempt from the area's signed parking regulations, and all other parked vehicles (except those specified in Sec. 8, "Exemptions") will be in violation of the ordinance. g. Fines for Preferential Parking Violations: The fine for a parking viola- tion in a preferential parking area should be set so that it is prohibitive to the extent that it prevents enough violations to meet the primary objective of the program, yet in a range that generates some revenue to pay some of the cost of the program. A fine of at least$ is recommended for the reasons mentioned above. , - r t �t. �ou.r;►�g +•� e. •�'a:�io►�s c,�o ►e s¢ � wa✓iC. - DISCUSSION A preferential parking area will, most certainly, create problems for the residents of the area, residents of the surrounding area, enforcement officers, and other citizens of the City. Some of the problems that can be anticipated are: a. Some residents of the area will be opposed to paying a fee to park in front of their own homes. b. Some residents will object because visitors to their homes will not be able to park on -the street. C. Some non-residents will contend they are being denied what they consider their rightful access to public streets and complain of inconveniences to them. d. Since no arrangements are anticipated for visitors to the area, residents will have to make their own arrangements for visitors by parking in the street to allow visitors to park in their driveway or garage. e. Fraudulent use of permits will be difficult to control. it will be easy for a resident to resell permits at a profit. Detection of this kind of violation will be difficult. Counterfeit permits, false proof of residence, resale of resident permits - these are some of the many problems inherent in this kind of program. t Y - PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 3 f. In some areas, commuters will walk the extra distance and park on streets just outside of the program area. This will create new parking problems in areas that are now unaffected. It may require preferential a parking in areas where there are no parking problems to begin with. �pd referential parking are unknown prior to Some problems caused by p ,Y�� 2 9 ifiplementation of the program since some neighborhoods will have unique RSA characteristics in terms of traffic and Narking not yet realized. COSTS Q�` SSR own on costs and revenues Attached is a preliminary rund. For the purpose of that all costs relating to the project are to be this report, it is assumed borne by those in the benefit area. it is highly recommended thatrevenues be set to accomplish this. Z INITIAL AND PERMIT P&RKI 14G - AREA (CANNERY AREA) OST AND ESTIMATED REVENUE PER YEAR �® jh� typical district would be bounded, approximately, by the north side of Tokay Street, the east side of Washington Street, the south side of Vine Street, treet as shown on the attached map� and the west side of Stockton S oxTmatelea consists of the equivalent of 24 block faces and would affect app he Y 130 residents. ►985 `vet S INITIAL C0ST ----"— SO O "� Studies & Surveys $ 700.00 C ,(�. Permits & Administration 800.00 80o Signs (including labor, material and equipment) 7 200.00 +� gc-)oo TOTAL 0 $ 8,700-00 ANNUAL OPERATING COST Sign Maintenance (10% Replacement) $ 7 00.00 Permits & Administration (50%) 400-00 4 oD Enforcement - 365 hours $14.09 -3tob h✓' Q �3o/h✓ C.o'-Lct,. �vt� •� 5,100-00 n }98-$8 �'" TOTAL $ 7,100-00 1 Z , ooc7 PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 4 ANNUAL REVENUE 260 Renewal Permits @ $1.00 (afterlst yr.) $ Citations - 500 @ $5.00 x 82% 2.050.00 sfno V vZ.00 x vim'/, 1c)8-5 as 4r 260.00 A -Ltov TOTAL NOTES $ 2,310.00 -Z,S4o �3'8oa a. initial Cost: A block face, as used in the estimate, is assumed as 400 lineal feet of one side of a street. Studies and surveys were estimated at $30 per block face and permits and administration costs at $35 per block face. Signs were estimated at $100 each, with three signs to be installed in each block face. b. Operating Cost: Sign replacement is estimated to be 10% per year and permits and administration at 50% of the initial cost. Enforcernent was calculated on the basis of making one checks of the area per shift or three checks per day. Each check of the area will take 18 to 20 minutes (actual measurement of run) and does not include any time for writing citations. There is also no time figured for call -outs on citizen complaints. The Police Dept. felt that twice this much time should be spent. It is assumed the permit parking area is to be monetarily self-sufficient and, to recover the installation cost over a 10 -year period, 10% of the initial cost has been inciuded.as an annual operating expense. c. Revenue Per Year: The initial revenue from permits was estimated on the assumption of issuing 260 permits (two per dwelling) at $3 per permit. Ordinance No. 1158, Section 7, states, "The Finance Director shall collect a fee of $3 for each original permit and $1 for each renewal permit." Since the only revenue from the area will be from permits and citations, and if the area is to be self-sufficient, approximately 1700 citations would need to be issued per year to recover the annual Operating Costa This does not appear to be a .reasonable estimate of the number of citations to be issued, particularly when one realizes that the cannery, and the problem, only operates during a portion of each year. Four ways, or combinations thereof, exist to fund the district. 1. Make up any deficits from the general fund. This solution is not recommended as being difficult to defend in today's tight money situation. 2. Raise annual permit fees. While this appears reasonable, the actual amount of money obtained by increasing the fee from $1 to $3 is insignificant in relation to the amount of 'Honey needed. If it is felt that residents should pay for the initial City costs, the permits would have to be raised to $33 each. PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 5 3. Raise the fine from S5 to a figure which will, in fact, provide` the necessary monies to make the district self-sufficient.. 4. Decrease the amount of time (and money) spent on enforcement,_ particularly during off-season at the cannery. While this: is the most direct., positive, and controllable way, it does 3. have the disadvantage of probably increasing the number of "call outs" from residents in the area and decreasing the number: of citations issued. At the same time, it releases police ' officers for other work. Probably the best solution would be some combination of 2, 3, ant' 4 above. womm AA D: o -n E� Checked App.oved By public Works Director RCE 17509 EIVIVIE-17111MAIN T &RYII (=S RZ UtA'E. 5-T l3UY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING TIM ADOPTION OF . POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION AS PER,= PARKING ONLY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ADJACh'gT TO THE PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS CANNERY ON SOUTH STOCKItON STREET, LCD!, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 4, 1985 at the hour of 7:30 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Indi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 211 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to seek community input regardijig the adoption of policy guidelines for the designation as permit parking only of the residential ar::a adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers Cannery on South Stockton Street, Lodi. The subject area would involve all properties within and having frontage on the streets bounded by Tokay Street on the north, Washington Street on the east, Vine Street on the south and Stockton Street on the west, except those properties fronting the west side of Stockton Street. Information regarding this item including copies of -ordinance No. 1158 An Ordinance Amending Lodi City Code Chapter 14, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" by Adding a New Section Thereto Relating to Permit Parking on Designated Streets" may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk or the Public Works Department at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views on this matter. Written Statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be :Wade at said hearing. Dated: August 7, 1985 By Order of the Lodi City Council ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK i R, E 51D C) V TIA r L PARKING AREA eNTRANCE ,--I ASPHALT L-07 WIPALLE7-5' PCR . c EWP4 0 YjElff I M. alp 1:,.w jal . PARKING LOT '00 TI CYPRESS 2 9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LODI MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, C11AP= 10.32 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL. SECTION 1. This ordinance amendrrent is enacted pursuant to the authority contained in Title 10, Residential Permit Parking, Chapter 10.32, Section 10.32.010 of the .Lodi Municipal Code and California Vehicle Code Section 2-2507. SECTION 2. Title 10, Chapter 10.32 - Residential Permit Parking, Section 10.32.020(A) Zone Designation is amended to read as follows: "A. The council may designate by resolution from time to time, certain residential streets or alleys or any portions thereof as a preferential parking zone for the benefit of residents adjacent thereto in which zone vehicles displaying a permit or other authorized indicia may be exert from parking prohibitions or restrictions otherwise Posted, marked or a noticed, for such periods of time as designated in the SECTION 3. Section 10.32.050(A) Issuance of Permit is amended to delete the requirement that permit shall state the license number of the motor vehicle for which it is issued as follows: - 1- "A. Parkir:g permits shall be issued by the finance director. $NrX 4UY-0- aO- UO -OAU Al t rlt 00 VV��V 0,X41 It X� 14�,ANl No more than one parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle for which application is made. The finance director is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, governing the manner in which persons shall qualify for parking permits." SECTION 4. Section 10.32.080 Fee, is amended to read as follows: "The finance director shall collect a fee for each original permit issued and for each renewal permit issued in an amount to be determined from time to time by resolution of the city council. Fees are payable for three calendar year periods of time only and fees will not be prorated for lesser periods of time." SECTION S. A new section is added to read as follows: "The permit parking shall be effective for periods of time as designated on the sign giving notice thereof," -- 2_ A new section is added to read as follows: "No vehicle for which a permit has been issued hereunder shall be parked upon any street or alley in the city in violation of any part of this municipal code or in violation of the California Vehicle Code". SECTION 7. Section 10.32.060 Term of permit is hereby amended to read as follows: "Permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall remain effective for a period of three calendar years, or so long as the applicant continues to reside in a qualified dwelling unit for such permit. or until the preferential parking zone for which such permit was issued is eliminated, wILichever period of time is less. Said permits are not transferable." SECTION 8. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be published one time in the "Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect thirty days from and after its passage and approval. Approved this day of - 3- MAYOR Attest: ALICE M. REIMME City Clerk State of California County of San Joaquin, ss. I, Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print at a regular meeting of said Council held by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Nees: Council Mmnbers - Absent: Council Members - Abstain: Council Members - I further certify that Ordinance No. was approved and signed by the rlayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published pursuant to law. Approved as to Form RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney - 4- ALICE M. REIIICIE City Clerk S HEARING TO SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT ON ADOPTION OF POLICY GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATION OF PERMIT PARKING ONLY IN RESIDENTIAL AREA ADJACENT TO PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS CANNERY AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE Jeff Weisz, says in accordance with instructions given by the City Council of the City of Lodi, he distributed a hearing notice and in- formation packet to all residents/tenants in the cannery area (see attached map). The said distribution was completed on the 22nd day of August, 1985, prior to the date of hearing, whereupon he made and filed this affidavit. Signed: Jef isz Pu is Works Tern Subscribed and sworn to be before me the V:ut day of August, 1985 Li?`SC�_ fMLc i�L_ Alice M. Reimche City Clerk of the City of Lodi, CA. mi�rr, rt MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Pubiic Works Department TO: City 'Manager r' _ City Attorney FROM: Public Works Director DATE: August 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Residential Permit Parking . For your information, t have attached the following information: 1. Copy of the City Code outlining the residential permit parking requirements. 2. A mema, dated March 19, 1979, to the City Council recommending that guidelines for preferential parking be adopted. To my knowledge,this has not been acted upon by the City Council. 3. A memo from the City Attorney outlining the parking problem in the area of Pacific Coast Producers and discussing the residential permit parking ordinance that is adopted. As t indicated in my mem of March 19, 1979, 1 still feel strongly that guide- lines for preferential parking shorid be approved by the City Council. It is felt that a good way to continue moving ahead on the PCP parking problem is to take the attached guidelines in their present form to the Council for discussion and final approval. .,Once the guide]ines have been adopted, the procedures for moving ahead on this problem should fall into place. As we discussed at our last meeting on this subject, it appears impossible to implement permit parking in the cannery area this summer in order to benefit the citizens this year. This is due to the fact that it will probably take two Council meetings to implement the Residential Permit Parking in the cannery area and it will then take a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks to obtain the special signing required for the proposed preferential parking. Please contact me if you need any additional information. 'Jack L. Ronsko Public Works Director Attachments JLii/eeh 4 `l Ma":h 19, 19" wa—lodal Parking RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Cowell discm and take the opp vpriate actiam d to garldellrees for prefertiMal parking. BACKGROUND INFO TION: &mW on the regaW a de at the test shirblemm ;;;;Ion R Tuesdayl March 13, 979, we am presenting the foliavving Infornia6an: o The extoing fine establls6d by the court for this type of parking I€efr%x*Ion Is $5.00 per citation. Of this amount, the City recelves 82%. Attached Is a comminication frm .,fudge Seibly regarding possible huweases M this amount. a The existing Ordinance 01158, Section 7, datas, 'Ma Finance Director shall oolle�ct a fele of F$3 for each original permit and $1 far each percent remw+al . It Is d®d that the City Council consider Irecreeasing the original permit Fee to holp reemw the Initial casts of the program and that the C uncll also molder an ins In the renewal fee. Thew charms would require an ssrdirmwe mvislan. e It Is also reammuenadEd that the City staff ptapum 6 foam petition which con be used to obtain slgreQtterea. In this way, each person signing the petition would hags access to all of the information needed to decide Mwther heA6 wanted pmferential parking In their nelgNwfv)od. Comments from the Police Departrinnt an thele proposed gvldelines hates already been received verbally by the CAunci l . Jack L. Ransko Public Works Director Eaeclaome 3LRx1t a 31mg>r . Qmaas figihlg March 16, 1979 Mr. Jack Ronsko Department of Public Works City of Lodi City 11-111 Lodi, Ca. 95240 RE: I: PACT OF RESIDENTIAL PER11IT PARKING PROGW.1 1 Dear Mr. Ronsko: MUNICIPAL COURT LODI JUDICIAL DISTRICT 230WEST ELM ITREET LODI• CALIFORNIA 952AO TELEPHONE (209) 366-6627 In response to the request of Mr. Marvin Davis for imput concerning the impact on the Lodi Municipal Court as a result of imploric-ntation of the City of Lodi's proposed Residential T'-2r7".i.t P arh incl Program you shouIrl he aware of the following- The ollowing: They current_ $5.00 parking violation °ae figure is ge;;eraily considered sufficient to deter violators and is in fact higher than in neighboring jurisdic- tion. 2. Implementation of such a progran would in itself increase the number of citation filings and corres- pondingly the work of the Clerk's Office of the Court. 3. An increase in the amount of fee per violation would result in an increase in workload and expense, in addition to the more filing and handling, in the following areas: a. Court time - as the fee increases, the per- centage of persons wishing formal arraignment will increase. It becomes economically feasible for a person to come to Court in hopes that the fine would be lowered by the Judge because of "some mitigating factor not amounting to a defense. b. Police time - as the fine increases and more persons are willing to come to Court, you can expect more of the matters to be set for trial. This results in City employees involvement as witnesses and leads to costs of time, overtime, etc. In general, it is recognized that a problem exists in parti- cuiar areas of the City and it apne<-irs that the proposed program r+a solve the problem. It is, however, doubtful that the program could be made more economically feasible by an increase of rail. Page 2 u ruly. J Tl l 1 iA�t� aL ,lull e unRPRT F_ BAYN�.R, Commissioner COUNCIL TO: THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE COi11:1 UNICATIOti SUBJECT. pacific Coast Producers - Parkinc DATE NO. September 1, 1982 For the benefit of the new Council members, I thought that I would discuss the parking problem near Pacific Coast Producers, and the one solution of 'paving permit parking, and use this situation to show some of the thoughts which must go into determining wether or not to put a particular ordinance into effect. Since the City does have within the Lodi City Code, Section 1484:1 et seq. dealing with per -mit 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 permit parting only. Section 1484.1 et seq, requires that ..e 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 Engineering 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 araa that the Engineering Department determines is the proper area, must take into account that the vehicles might then park on other streets, so that Engineering would be required 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 Department would be required to gee 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 park. The Ordinance has no provision for guest parking, so then, either ttie Engineering Department_ or the Planning Department must determine the numaer of driveways and other areas available where additional people could park if this 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 ;ging In nroo'L o= re -s -i denc.y and motor -. er3I-: in order to have permit control. If pie are going to have this ordinance, then we must have enforcement and the Police 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. It has also been suggested in li--u 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 Department; and we ;rust also consider the cost of enforcement of a 4, 5, 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. RMS:vc RO, ALD M. STF.Itd City Attorney MEMORANDUM, CITY OF LODI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Ron Stein, City Attorney FROM: David Morimoto, Planning Department DATE: August 30, 1382 SUBJECT: P.C.P. Cannery, Or: 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 vehicles must be parked on the street. DM/ns Attachment ei '3AV E I,@ i $` "wa�t�ri`bMdi}�i a ipS73�Mliii�Aj>d4iF. ea``b '12,': 'i Ltgi5J:�1i'iz:�viic.�ns9iv2iiN.+�ti.YJ�c.-t r�r a.c2�yg a..r c'._«e�;;. dt, .»..y.•R,,: . - of ii•: r>►r. r., :.•b l"�wi>*ir ;`� c C1S� it1tID cT'C f:JLm (7L� � U 7— ' _VT- OILI ,� cm c® 1 *� 11A)l aVF t 4„ , Hy ,—% 1 , — �1.7..iT C1li? •tl fl '1�1 — ...[%' If' ..a M ae 1VT $ : S T. Y VINE ~(313 >7.,. '_ i sn,/p, �' : .,u Qd114, ` r ' 707• I a't�,j• aA. •. 1 71 377 Y �s I> 4fdoR >..e 1 �j / 1 1 11 E /+ • IA � � cau cram am l�� crlb csa u?� � � C c ! _ WAIS O N 1 >e '31 4M (M am cm (M ¢ta MD " em.cg ctu'ri C moc go x z x z _x.I �l � 1 I I I l 1 i • � � II! cm 2Yo (M ¢MT) OD cITD (m T c! h cm cm a I :f MISSION R PAR K No of 0CONCC ulvlr POPLAR CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM PREFERENTIAL PARKING The general objective of the preferential parking program is to provide on - street parking for residents in their own immediate neighborhoods, to the exclusion of non-resident parking on the street. The specific social and environmental objectives to be considered in the exclusion of non-resident parking are the reduction of air pollution, exces- sive noise, traffic hazards and litter, the preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood, and the provision of access for residents to their homes without unreasonable burden. ORDINANCE The City Council has enacted an ordinance that will provide the legal basis for the program. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF RESTRICTED PARKING NEIGHBORHOODS a. Petition: At least 60% of the residents living in a reasonably sized neighborhood shall sign a petition requesting residential permit action. A reasonably sized neighborhood is generally defined as one complete block, including both sides of each block (eight block faces) with a minimum of 50 residents. b. Council Referral: Then City Council may direct the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department to conduct surveys and studies to determine the eligibility of the neighborhood for which the petition is submitted. c. Scope of Surveys and Studies: The surveys and studies by the Engineer- ing Division shall include: I. On -street parking space supply. 2. Off-street parking space supply and accessability. 3. On -street parking supply vs. demand. 4. Non-resident vehicles vs. residential vehicles during peak hour occupancy. 5. Percentage of non-resident vehicles that could use off-street parking spaces. 6. Average vehicle turnover per on -street space. d. Report, Recommendation and Council Decision: Upon completion of the surveys and studies, the Engineering Division will submit a written if PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 2 report, together with recommendations, to the City Manager. The City Council, at a regular meeting, will decide whether or not to designate the area for residential permit parking program. e. Permits: If the City Council, by ordinance, designates a preferential parking zone, the application for permits, issuance of permits, duration of permits, display of permits, fees, exemptions, penalties, and other conditions shall all be in accordance with Ordinance No. 1158 of the Lodi City Code. f. Regulation: The permit vehicle will be exempt from the area's signed parking regulations, and all other parked vehicles (except those specified in Sec. 8, "Exemptions") will be in violation of the ordinance. g. Fines for Preferential Parking Violations: The fine for a parking viola- tion in a preferential parking area should be set so that it is prohibitive to the extent that it prevents enough violations to meet the primary objective of the program, yet in a range that aenerates some revenue to pay some of the cost of the program. A fine of at least.$5 is recommended for the reasons mentioned above. DISCUSSION A preferential parking area will, most certainly, create problems for the residents of the area, residents of the surrounding area, enforcement officers, and other citizens of the City. Some of the problems that can be anticipated are: a. Some residents of the area will be opposed to paying a fee to park in front of their own homes. b. Some residents will object because visitors to their homes will not be able to park on the street. C. Some non-residents will contend they are being denied what they consider their rightful access to public streets and complain of inconveniences to them. d. Since no arrangements are anticipated for visitors to the area, residents will have to make their own arrangements for visitors by parking in the street to allow visitors to park in their driveway or garage. e. Fraudulent use of permits will be difficult to control. It will be easy for a resident to resell permits at a profit. Detection of this kind of violation will be difficult. Counterfeit permits, false proof of residence, resale of resident pernits - these are some of the many problems inherent in this kind of program. PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 3 f, In some areas, commuters will walk the extra distance and park on streets just outside of the program area. This will create new parking problems in areas that are now unaffected. It may require preferential parking in areas where there are no parking problems to begin with. g. Some problems caused by preferential parking are unknown prior to implementation of the program since some neighborhoods will have unique characteristics in terms of traffic and parking not yet realized. COSTS Attached is a preliminary rundown on costs and revenues. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all costs relating to the project are to be borne by those in the benefit area. It is highly recommended that revenues be set to accomplish this. PERMIT PARKING AREA (CANNERY AREA) INITIAL AND ANNUAL COST AND ESTIMATED REVENUE PER YEAR This typical district would be bounded, approximately, by the north side of Tokay Street, the east side of Washington Street, the south side of Vine Street, and the west side of Stockton Street as shown on the attached map. The area consists of the equivalent of 24 block faces and would affect approximately 130 residents. INITIAL COST ",Aa t Studies & Surveys $ 700.00 4 SO O Permits & Administration 800.00 800 Signs (including labor, material and equipment) 7,200.00-+-14 gcoo TOTAL $ 8,700.00 q,�CJ ANNUAL OPERATING COST Sign Maintenance (10% Replacement) $ 700.00 8co Permits & Administration (50%) 400.00 4 otD Enforcement - 3 5 hour S@ $14COA.ce.i,ve 5,100.00 o ovo +.� o ; 900. E) TOTAL $ 7,100.00 1 Z , o"o INITIAL REVENUE 260 Permits @ $3.00 $ 780.00 80 PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 4 ANNEAL REVENUE 260 Renewal Permits @ $1.00 (after Ist yr.) $ Citations - 500 @ $5.00 x 82'6 2;050.00 3t.,o $1 sZ .0o k :vz'Io 260.00 TOTAL NOTE S $ 2,310.00 t9BS -t to U 54CD 43Sraa a. Initial Cost: A block face, as used in the estimate, is assumed as 00 lineal feet of one side of a street. Studies and surveys were estimated at $30 per block face and permits and administration costs at $35 per block face. Signs were estimated at $100 each, with three signs.to be installed in each block face. b. Operari ng Cost: Sign replacement is estimated to be 10% per year and permits and administration at 50% of the initial cost. Enforcement was calculated on the basis of making one checks of the area per shift or three checks per day. Each check of the area will take 18 to 20 minutes (actual measurement of run) and does not include any time for writing citations. There is also no time figured for call -outs on citizen complaints. The Police 'Dept. felt that twice this much time should be spent. It is assumed the permit parking area is to be monetarily self-sufficient and, to recover the installation cost over a 10 -year period, 10% of the initial cost has been included as an annual operating expense. C. Revenue Per Year: The initial revenue from permits was estimated on the assumption of issuing 260 permits (two per dwelling) at $3 per permit Ordinance No. 1158, Section 7, states, "The Finance Director shall collect a fee of $3 for each original permit and $1 for each renewal permit." Since the only revenue from the area will be from permits and citations, and if the area is to be self-sufficient, approximately 1700 citations would need to be issued per year to recover the annual Operating Cost. This does not appear to be a reasonable estimate of the number of citations to be issued, particularly when one realizes that the cannery, and the problem, only operates during a portion of each year. Four ways, or combinations thereof, exist to fund the district. 1. Make up any deficits from the general fund. This solution is not recommended as being difficult to defend in today's tight money situation. 2. Raise annual permit fees. While this appears reasonable, the actual amount of money obtained by increasing the fee from $1 to $3 is insignificant in relation to the amount of money needed. If it is felt that residents should pay for the initial City costs, the permits would have to be raised to $33 each. a e PREFERENTIAL PARKING Page 5 3• Raise the fine from S5 to a figure which will, in fact, prc>vide the necessary monies to make the district self-sufficient. 4. Decrease the amount of time (and money) spent on enforcement. particularly during off-season at the cannery. While this is the most direct, positive, and controllable way, it does have the disadvantage of probably increasing the number of $1 call outs" from residents in the area and decreasing the number of citations issued. At the same time, it releases police officers for other work. Probably the best solution would be some combination of 2, 3, and 4 above. CITY O LODI nl lni �/`\!//'1n VC rlCnA nT.t C'>.IT r ulvs � ARM-- TOKAY .y • t� .m �7t '• rr a .j ► •its �. .;tl> •tt+ rs! - .kb sSs � � , , •m C �7y b= � amoz CHERRY ST_ tr (4s— V -t _ t Q OT+ •ss VINE ___-- D,c.vn t , �Q No I Revised By Approved By Checked Dore �r"�Cj Public Works Director RCE 17509 t r Continued August 7, 1985 Hcwever, ttie code is quite specific in this area. It provides: "she Council may designate by ordinance certain residential streets or alleys or any portion thereof as a preferential parking zone for the benefit of residents adjacent thereto in which zone vehicles displaying a permit or otl'zer authorized indicia may be exempt from parking prohibitions or restrictions otherwise posted, marked or noticed". City Manager Peterson suggested that it would seem prudent that prior to the adoption of an ordinance to establish permit parking, that a public hearing be held on the subject. It was also suggested that the proposed preferential parking policy which was developed by the Public Works Director several years ago be reviewed. Mr. Peterson expressed his concern regarding the amount of time required for this process and the fact that it will take us well beyond this years canning season but indicated. that he feels the citizens will be appreciative of the fact that the problem does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution but by taking this more deliberate route not only will provide the Council with maximum public input, but may save us from having to later undo or redo an action which would only confuse all involved. Following discussion, with questions being directed to Staff, COancil, on nation of Council Member Pinkerton, Snider second, directed that this matter be placed on the agenda for the Informal Informational Meeting of August 27, 1985 and set the hatter for Public Hearing for the Regular Council Meeting of September 4, 1985. RECEIVED 85 JP L,� C Q ALICE M. RE114"HE 0TY CLERK � } �Y OF LODI -u r�tt tiu L' C�1�t.cvJ r ry U r% U 19y� U7 t¢. w F, _ZfL Z/u e- C�Cvrur��v co Pbor LO (37 C, C, CO i ` _-�.fi�ZR�'%_.-GL�'C..! �'�'..at.:G'-z= GLf.-�C'Gc.•,[:<u<L% �.iL�--'L-' L aA /`=Ic.ti•;i�.. `�ii...d 'f"�•-`�=''�-'�� .... '_ I ....a. j..__.,L6'-7".i.u-��.:�� _'_��_'-.._L G`'t`:.�r... ►--Gc-�-z.-t_a.cz�L.= .L-�� ,cc.<.L�c.__ _ ALL' 1L%2..�� / ':sic*• �_2.e_ti.� - .� c c ?�'Li;���� G=?Z' �L *i�� -"'� . I , 4� �I u vi ate* �- i z. u RECEIVE;_ _ - 1985 A 17' ALC M. REIMI-HE x ,.,. s a 1: WFJL - + F <H A.x v Wvwl',�.L J �>z'..'12�F'�i¢ rG£�„•n `Y+"�''._ w��3-.vi�'�is.u�a.,. �....�. h'...'i..... . � ...7h':. ,4 ..�.. � _,- -. . .-” .. _, ., - ,,,., ..f_ _. ...,� _-. y � _ •; ,mss i.�' p V f � _ f r �. co 27 _ -1 Mm 2 Co �:.. rn i p 41 .3+ RECEIVED ALICE M. RENCHE CITY CLERK x �oCt` ca e�C� T tib We hd.v�, lrs �',tl5 ��,rc r'cl o n ) Kz nl ,� 4-k r b u-+ how e p PC• U A 5 vptnioln In _- Qjoi' c?� �hr2.:piopos YOU dJ.t. . 77 _731 Ln C!D "J5 _731 Ln C!D I Ot cc ov- cC l x- -f -wVA —�Z-, `c t c,v�d c=���titiur- cc aC( Vie. Loa. --1 p wc�o c� Ori �V-t Y:�n�. �rc� t�5a��n,Sv1CRd tivl a,vzc� a, CS v -D �v�a �LA A-Ov-VA ao VVLl V1 C Y jR� tri C. c vl� " iz) tz5 ltc \j SCA � �tt� ip OV-) ry_ �3 ao toad t -4ve � pC c' i� `S G1c9�1 t�ulC�c� VIOL") en CNN ; Vti o , -16at'ab -rJ � a IVA = _•;:c.. ., ,:� ... � ..�. . w t'�""...... .. s .... . . ... .. .. .. ... .,��. .�.. �.... ... u....a.�.. , . ..., ,.z .- .ei-��...._.a. .. c.,,..�rf .r�;-.,.:wzz��,s. �...`z:. _ n':` .- We the undersigned residents of the proposed one-way street system, in the cannery ---.area, do protest the proposed plan! NAME ADDRESS i n 333 � 97so � S- -- I v RECEIVED DATE: 71�V/8o ALICE M. REIMCHE DATE t? 7_�9-r- - We the undersigned residents of the proposed one-way street system, in the canr:ery area, do protest the proposed plan? ADDRESS 30�' _Ss ('6V] 3 3 c- vim-- F45 .5 -- 1 t e':e V', C' - (va a RECEIVED DATE: 1/04/9" ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK CITY OF LODI i DATE 71 -�_ 2-._ �� 02 Pf -7 We the undersigned residents of the proposed one-way street system,.in the cannery .. area, do protest the proposed plant a ..'4 rimi 40 ADDRESS 3/6 E A)C Laol i DATE Z_ .,2-4_ 3ze) L:,. V114L- 7 d�_ C-16, 7-.2Y-8�- Z 7, �2_ a s IF-'. UA;',.Q � 71- 0,V- Y-Voz_- �q 4s� vl-" A vo 7 - 2 Y'E'S .­'COUNCIL COMMlJNICATI- TO THE C:TY COUNCIL FROM, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING - CANN_RY AREA. DATE August 7, 1585 RECONZ1ENDED ACTION: That the City Council review and consider for adoption policy guidelinYs for the designation of a residential Rrea as permit parking only. BAC-GlUUND MIMPM BION: At the regular adjourned City Council meeting of July 24, 198-1 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the designation or one -,ray streets in the residential area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers cannery on South Stockton Sweet. In the course of that hearing, the Council received testimony not only in opposition to the designation of one-way streets, but a request for same type of parking regulation th-it would best serve the interests of the residents of the area. Street pa -:king in this area by cannery workers not only causes considerable inconvenience to the residents of this neighborhood, but also severly affects the normal traffic flow there because of the narrow street widths. Counci7me ber Pinkerton suggested that the area be designated for permit parking only, w4_th permits issued only to residents of the area in accordance with a Council -adopted program. Staff has met on several occasions since that Council meeting.in an attempt to bring to the City Council a plan of action to resolve what has been an on-going problem for man,,, years. The good news is that the staff has developed a recommendation that addresses t-te issue hopefully to the satisfaction of the majority of the residents of the area. The bad news is that it appears not to be possible to imple-nent the reconcnendation prior to the end of this year's canning season. It is recomrended that the City Council Iesignate that area for permit parking. Violators could either be cited -1nd fined, or towed away. California Vehicle Code Section 22651 providers that violators may be towed away provided such procedure is adopted by ordinance. We have no such provision in place at this time. Enforcement would perhaps best be accomplished on a complaint basis and limited patrolling by police officers and/or parking-nforcement assistants. However, the code is quite specific in this area. It provides: "The Council may designate by ordinance (emphasis added) certain residential streets or alleys or any portion thereof as a preferential parking zone for the benefit of residents adjacent thereto in which zone vehicles displaying a permit or other authorized indicia may be exempt from parking prohibitions or restrictions otherwise posted, marked or noticed" In the normal course of things, getting an ordinance introduced, adopted and in effect, takes about 45 days. That fact alone carries us past the NO. epd of the canning season. I would have trouble designating this as an urgency ordinance to be effective immediately since the problem has been with us .for so long. Additionally, we are advised that it will take about four weeks to get the actual parking permits from the printer, and six to eight weeks to obtain signs for posting the area. The last hurdle is particularly significant, because our Code also provies that: "No preferential parking ordinance shall apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed" It would seem prudent that prior to the adoption of an ordinance to establish permit parking, that a public hearing be held on the subject. While I am sure the majority of the residents would favor permit parking, there could be strong objections to it. Those persons should have the opportunity to be heard also. The Public Works Director, about five years ago, developed a reccmTended preferential parking policy which was not at that time discussed by the City Council. It is reconrended that we "dust off" these proposed permit parking policy guidelines and thoroughly review the proposal at the Council study session of August i3, 1985. Since our own Code imposes scene time constraints in the ultimate resolution of this matter, it would be in everyone's best interest to move in an orderly, thorough manner to have a system of preferential parking in place within the next three to four months. I am aware that takes us well beyond the canning season. However, I am advised by Pacific Coast Producers officials that there are some 270 to 300 people employed at the cannery year around. Thus, while the problem is diminished considerably in the "off-season" there is still some on -street parking by cannery employees. The employment figures are these: Currently 1,500 After August 26 850 After September 20 425 After October 1 270 - 300 (year around) These numbers raise another point for consideration: if i mlemented, should a preferential parking plan be limited to the canning season, some longer period, or year around? I believe the City Council would want to hear from the residents in this regard. While this whole process sounds frightfully bureaucratic, taking this more deliberate route not only will provide the Council with maximun public input, but may save us from having to later undo or redo an action wt -Lich would only serve to confuse all involved. While it appears we will be unable to respond quickly to the pleas of those who appeared at the last City Council meeting, I thank they will be appreciative of the fact that the problem does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution, and pleased that at an ultimate resolution to the problem is in process. The staff will be pleased to provide additional information and answer any questions Councilmenbers may have. Resfu�lly ' tted, Thomas A. Peterson City Manager NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI TO SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGNATION AS PERMIT PARKING aNLY OF TliE RESIDEN'T'IAL AREA ADJACENT TO THE PACIFIC COAST PRODUCERS CANNERY ON SOUTH Ss ,i N STREET, IDDI, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 4, 1985 at the hour of 7:30 Fan, or as soon thereafter as trie matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to seek ccm-,mity input regarding the adoption of policy guidelines for the designation as permit parking only of the residential area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Producers Cannery on South Stockton Street, Lodi. The subject area would involve all properties within and having frontage on the streets bounded by Tokay Street on the north, Washington Street on the east, Vine Street on the south and Stockton Street on the west, except those properties fronting the west side of Stockton Street. Information regarding this item including copies of Ordinance No. 1158 An Ordinance Amending Lodi City Code Chapter 14, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" by Adding a New Section Thereto Relating to Permit Parking on Designated Streets" may be obtained in the office of the City Clerk or the Public Works Department at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views on this matter. Written Statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: August 7, 1985 By Order of the Lodi City Council ALICE M. REIM=- CITY CLERK