[OldNorth] Paint-yer-own curb; G St is different

[Z Smith]

Re:

Painting your own red curb and/or delineating parallel parking spaces.  The 
enterprising owner of the Bookkeeper (6th & G St) has apparently painted 
parking spaces on the street herself.  I've also noticed that the residual / 
vestigial curb cuts on either side of  D street at around ~630 have what 
look to be home-painted curbs.   Yes, the City is opposed to vigilante 
curb-painting, but haven't seen them come out with sandblasters to remove 
them.

As to G Street being different because of its commercial tenants.  Let's 
work out a proposal.  The one that makes the most sense to me for the rest 
of the neighborhood is that each lot owner can get one and only one permit, 
and that it *is not* tied to a specific car.  This lets me hand it to the 
plumber and he can hang it on *his* rear view mirror and park directly in 
front of my house.    For a business on G street, this one floating space 
would guarantee that sign maker / attorney / etc with a business could just 
hand it to the one visiting client--they'd park, run in, get the permit, and 
place it on their rear view mirror.
     If a retired homeowner who doesn't have a car wants to obtain a permit 
and then rent it out for a little extra income, I personally don't have a 
problem with that, though others might.  I believe the City does have a 
problem with that, but I'm not sure.  Let's refine that...

Z


>From: Valerie Vann <valerie at vanngroup.com>
>To: "Old North Neighborhood Assoc." <oldnorth at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Parking Permit abuse
>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:41:14 -0700
>
>One thing I've pointed out several times but don't seem to be getting
>through is that the G Street blocks of Old North probably need to
>be treated somewhat differently than the rest of the Old North, because
>we are zoned for commercial uses and have about 50% or greater business
>use (or business in front, housing on the alley). Most of these businesses
>don't generate great amounts of traffic, perhaps one car at a time (sign
>maker, attorney, developer, real estate agent, architect, etc.)
>
>There are also two driveways on my block (mine and one other), and
>these are frequently parked across, especially since the markers
>on the street have been worn away, and the spot in front of my house
>is a short one.
>
>I would also point out that that F Street between 5th and 8th also
>has a few driveways, plus 3 bus stops, reducing the number of street
>parking spaces.
>
>I once requested that driveways be "red lined" or marked "No Parking"
>or with an X or something, the City said "No" and also said I it
>would be illegal for a resident to do that themselves.
>
>Valerie Vann
>
>sheryl lynn gerety wrote:
> >
> > Several weeks ago Z Smith, Steve Tracy and I sat down with the City 
>Planner, Jim Antonen, the City lawyer, and several folks from the police, 
>planning and traffic departments to try to work out a solution to Old North 
>Parking problems.
> > We did this because we, like others, were surprised to receive the 
>postcard poll asking if we wanted the standard parking district, the very 
>kind featured in the SacBee story on inner Sacramento parking problems. The 
>parking study request initiated by the ONDNA last year was always coupled 
>with the request we find a means of solving the residents' problems without 
>creating an exclusive zone like those found elsewhere in the City. Our 
>wishes to try something different somehow were lost to standard procedures.
> > In the meeting, we offered several possible solutions, including that of 
>reserving and marking one spot per property (i.e., there would be a spot in 
>front of my house, the street painted and with a sign, saying the 
>equivalent of "This parking space for the resident of 602 C Street only." 
>Everyone would get such a spot and the balance of street-side parking room 
>would be open to public use. Although not strictly illegal by any law that 
>could be located, the City attorney also could not find law suggesting that 
>such an approach was _legal_, and was unwilling to pursue it. Instead, she 
>offered and everyone found workable the following alternative:
> > We would create a restricted zone in ON, with spots equal to the number 
>of properties, within an otherwise unrestricted zone. So, for example, 
>there are twenty houses on the two sides of C Street between 6th and 7th. 
>Twenty spots, scattered along both sides of the street, would be painted 
>for a restricted zone; permits to be purchased for a fee like that of other 
>parking zones in Davis (approx. $10/yr). The balance of the spaces (another 
>20-30) would be unrestricted and could be used by residents who held a 
>permit, residents who did not hold any permit, or anyone else, including 
>downtown employees or students. Permit holders would not have rights to a 
>_particular_ space (that is the element that the City Attorney can not 
>accept, because it would privatize public domain), but would likely find it 
>easy to locate a zoned spot near their home and by convention, over time, 
>it would presumably be the one nearest their house.
> > A key feature of this system: a property could obtain at most one zoned 
>permit. Any other automobiles they wished to park on the street could go in 
>unzoned spaces.
> > This system would do several things: it would solve the melting 
>ice-cream/crying baby scenario in which ON homeowners can find no parking 
>within blocks of their houses mid-day when UC-Davis is in session; it 
>satisfies the city; it does not exclude downtown employees and others truly 
>in need of parking by emptying our streets of everyone but ourselves; it 
>does not even require residents purchase a parking permit to park 
>street-side in the neighborhood, including pakring adjacent to their home. 
>There are other problems it avoids that are associated with other schemes 
>(e.g., the number of signs required to effect enforcement).
> > Perhaps as interesting, it forestalls or, more accurately, severely 
>limits, abuses like those cited in the SacBee article: homeowners who 
>obtain and then derive hefty profit by selling their visitors permits to 
>non-residents.
> > It was quite a victory to get the diverse opinions and interests at the 
>meeting to agree on a solution, but this one found consensus and we will be 
>working on it with the City. Among the first steps is estimating the cost 
>of curb paint and signs. More information will follow when ONDNA meetings 
>crank up again later this month. The City will require a poll of the 
>neighborhood in which at least 67% respond and 50% are in favor, so we have 
>some work to do, an information campaign and neighborly lobbying. These are 
>hard numbers to achieve given low political participation by renters, 
>absentee owners, those on vacation, etc. But, we got the City to agree not 
>to poll until we had a chance to thoroughly explain the plan to the 
>residents of ON. Please stay involved and be ready to help with the details 
>are worked out.
> > Z and Steve. . .if I've missed something important here, please add your 
>comments.
> > Bruce
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>oldnorth mailing list
>oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth