My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Admin Order 58-10-17
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Administrative Orders
>
2010
>
Admin Order 58-10-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 1:16:21 PM
Creation date
12/28/2011 3:25:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Admin Orders
Document_Date
2/8/2011
Document_Number
58-10-17
CMO_Effective_Date
2/8/2011
Author
CRO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SUNA Parking Zone Appeal <br />June 13, 2011 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />imposition of the district, the amount of vehicle cruising in the Fairmount <br />Neighborhood has dramatically decreased although it is understood that a portion <br />of the vehicle demand shifted to the SUNA. <br />8. The enforcement of parking restrictions is provided by personnel who mark a <br />vehicle's tire with chalk and then return to the same parking spot in a little more <br />than the length of the parking restriction; normally two hours. A person in a two — <br />hour parking space may have their tire marked near the end of a two hour period <br />and by the time the parking enforcement person returns the car, if it remains, will <br />have been parked for almost four hours. Thus, a three—hour parking restriction <br />would theoretically allow a car to be parked for up to nearly six hours and a four — <br />hour parking restriction would theoretically allow a car to be parked for up to <br />nearly eight hours, without being ticketed. <br />Procedural issues <br />The appeal by Mr. Bryant asserted that there is no popular desire or need for the <br />expansion of parking restrictions in his neighborhood. This assertion is directly relevant <br />to Administrative Rule R- 5.040 —F(d) which requires the consideration of "the desire <br />and/or need of residents of the area for establishment of permit parking zones." In his <br />April 12, 2011 Preliminary Decision on the Scope of Appeal, the Eugene Hearings <br />Official (Milo Mecham) opined that the appeal of the administrative order was not <br />confined to the residential blocks where the appellants reside but rather is relevant to the <br />validity of the order in its entirety. Accordingly, a hearing on the two appeals was <br />scheduled for June 3, 2011. <br />Justification for the Decision <br />This is an appeal of Administrative Order 58- 10 -15. This issue is one of whether the <br />administrative order is consistent with the regulation authorizing its action, Eugene <br />Administrative Rule R- 5.040, and not the legality of that administrative rule. In this <br />context, Eugene Administrative Rule R- 5.040 —C.2 provides: The Traffic Engineer may <br />establish a residential permit parking zone in an area for which no application has been <br />received providing: <br />1. Establishment of the zone is necessary in order to meet the objectives of the <br />policies setforth herein; <br />Administrative rule R -5.040 does not have any explicitly stated policies, and <br />Section R- 5.040 —B POLICY only notes that the " ...regulations govern the <br />establishment of or the withdrawal from residential permit parking zones within <br />the City." Administrative Order 58 -10-17 establishes the residential permit <br />parking zone within an expanded portion of the SUVA. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.