Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 PKG RESTRIC'S 02-03-86OLD BUSINESS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PARKING RESTRICTIONS DURING HOURS OF STREET SWEEPING RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of February 3, 1986, approve the current practice of regulating parking during hours of street sweeping with the addition of the six policies that would regulate that practice. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of January 6, 1986, staff was requested to provide a plan to implement the installation/removal of parking prohibition signs during hours of street sweeping without presenting each individual request to City Council for their final action. In July, 1985, staff investigated three options pertaining to parking regulations during the hours of street sweeping. At that time, Council elected to maintain the current program of addressing each request as an individual Council action after each affected resident had been sent a questionnaire letter regarding the implementing of any parking prohibition. DISCUSSION: Staff is again proposing the' following policy be implemented with regard to requests for parking regulations during the hours of street sweeping. That the current pPactice be continued as each individual request for parking regulation is received. This current practice should be regulated by the following policies: ae All restrictions should be placed on a block by block basis only for most residential developments, except where a development is located on a large parcel of land with one ownership such as an apartment complex or a Homeowner's Association. The resident(s) initiating said request should be required to submit a petition signed by a minimum of 2/3 of the total number of residents on any given block that are in favor of the requested on-street parking restrictions. c. Only one signature per dwelling unit should be utilized for attaining the 2/3 count. JANUARY 22, 1986 PAGE 2 de Staff would review the request and/or petition and implement the action if the 2/3 signature requirement was met. Otherwise, if the signature requirement was not met, staff would deny the request. e. Appeals by the requesting party could be made to the City Council. f. Request the sign removals would require a petition signed by a minimum of 2/3 the total number of residents on any given block. Staff would review the request and/or petition for removal and implement the action if signature requirement was met. This practice would require the residents of any given block to communicate with each other regarding the matter when assembling the petition and would eliminate the need for City Council action on each individual request. In the event Council felt 2/3 count is too high, the count could certainly be lowered to a simple majority or 51%. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr