Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 4 ST SWEEPNG PROG 08-05-85TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of August 5, 1985, adopt either Option No. 1 and its six policies or Option No. 3 requiring an advisory vote of the general public with the implementation of Option No. 1 during the interim period. BACKGROUND: Several months ago, the City Council requested staff to investigate various options with regards to prohibiting on-street parking during the hours of street sweeping. Over the past few years, the City has received many requests to restrict on-street parking at various locations throughout the City and has authorized these parking restrictions when the majority of residents for any given block responded in favor of the action. Recently, two requests have been received to abolish these parking restrictions on two different streets. These locations are Marshall Lane and California Street. These two requests for removal of the parking restriction represent a very small percentage of the total locations throughout the City. DISCUSSION: Staff reviewed the following type options with respect to restricted parking: 1. Continuance of the'current practice on an as requested basis. 2. Restriction of all on-street parking one day per week during street sweeping hours throughout the entire city. Restriction of on-street parking on one half of a street for a given period of time, two to three hours with the remaining one half of the street being available for parking. Once the first half of the street was swept,.the restrictions would reverse to the other half Of the street for completion of the sweeping operation. Two of these options, No. I and No. 3, appear to be feasible to implement. Option No. 2 would impose too much of an adverse impact in apartment complex areas and in some single family residential areas where one residence may house three or more vehicles. JULY 30, 1985 PAGE 2 If Option No. I is to be implemented, certain policies should be established as follows: 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. 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. Appeals by the requesting party could be made to the City Council. Request for sign removals would require a petition signed by a minimum of 2/3 the total number of residents. This option 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. Option No. 3 would allow for an almost uninterrupted street sweeping operation and could result in cleaner streets by not omitting areas where vehicles are parked. This option could be accomplished with the City's current manpower and equipment level, but would require additional staffing and equipment purchase if any appreciable quantity of curb miles were added to the inventory. In order to implement Option No. 3, the entire City would require signing at an estimated cost of $45,000.00 to $50,000.00 and the employment of an enforcement officer who would be utilized about six hours per day. It is envisioned that the signing would consist of a minimum of one 18" X 24" sign for each block throughout the City. Current City practice provides for the street sweeping operation to follow the solid waste refuse pick-up by one day. Implementation of Option No. 3 would eliminate this practice in some areas of the City. Additionally, if a holiday fell on a street sweeping day, the sweeping operation would have to be omitted for one week due to the time and day restrictions on the signing. In the event Option No. 3 is selected for implementation, it is suggested that the item be presented to the public as an advisory vote, similar to the presentation for the prohibition of fireworks. This type of action would provide the City Council a direction from the entire community prior to finalizing formal plan. It is anticipated that this advisory vote could be scheduled for either June or November, 1986. JULY 30, 1985 PAGE 3 In the interim, it is suggested that City Council adopt the six policies of Option No. 1 and direct staff to proceed with the implementation of Option No. 1. Following are requests for either sign installation and/or removal which should be processed under current policy. These items will be presented to City Council at the second meeting in August. Cloverbrook Dr. (Installation) Mimosa Ln., Roseleaf Ave., Vinewood Ave., Pacific St. (Installation) West Main St. (Installation) Marshall Lane (Removal) Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr