To: Lawrence City Commission

From : Patricia Sinclair, 331 Johnson Ave.

Re: Opposition to Consent Agenda Item 12 D and ordinance 9117

Date: May 26, 2015

I am writing to voice my STRONG opposition to approving this item and passing an ordinance based on the unsubstantiated complaints of a few neighbors and the recommendation of the traffic safety commission.

1. First, the submission to the Commission is filled with errors and took me a lot of time and several phone calls to even figure out what the current situation was and what was proposed. The Memo from David Woosley of May 7, 2015 states that “parking is currently prohibited” when, if fact it is currently permitted where stated. The map submitted shows double yellow lines for 24^th Place, 25^th Place, and Jacob, which indicate NO PARKING on both sides of the street. That is not what is being proposed.
2. This is a relatively new neighborhood which benefits from a large roundabout which serves them and the school and is designed to in a U shape to avoid drive-through traffic which is a problem on local streets in older neighborhoods.
3. The minutes state that Commissioner Rothrock stated that “It's a pretty narrow street and it's clear that there are some issues with getting larger vehicles through...” In fact, in a conversation with David Woosley this morning, he stated that this street is a standard width of 26 feet.
4. This development was done with sidewalks on only the inside of the streets, not on the opposite side of the street. This is common all over newer parts of Lawrence. Perhaps the city should no longer allow such designs and the home owners should not have bought in a neighborhood where their homes lack sidewalks. There are double garages and large driveways.
5. This development some restrictive covenants which are different than those throughout the city and appears to have most of the yards behind high fences.
6. If there is a problem with one or more neighbors having large trucks or other vehicles, isn't there another way for this issue to be addressed than to request that the city create an ordinance? Is this issue addressed in the covenant or other documents of this development?
7. There is not universal neighborhood agreement about this ordinance. For example, Nathan Bremer voiced his opposition to any more no parking in his email, stating that he wouldn't want his side of the street to be the parking side and that “this idea ...would address a non-issue by creating an annoyance for the residents on the side of the street with parking. He stated that “Parking is almost never an issue on these streets. The rare occurrence is when the school has a very large event, and that is only a few times a year.”
8. No evidence was submitted as to a problem with trash or emergency vehicles getting through.
9. It is Mr. Woosley's opinion that any neighborhood or group of neighbors who wants no parking should get it. I disagree. Should each development with a similar design request no parking?
10. I also feel that the efforts of the Commission would be better spent in looking at ways to protect local and other streets in the older parts of town.
11. Some years ago I drove around this set of streets one time. I observed a portable basketball goal set up at the south edge of the street on Gretchen Court so that basketball could be played in the street. This is the side that already has no parking. So, clearly, there was a planned use of the street for recreation,
12. Finally, although it looks as though his side of the street will wind up with the parking and his name is not shown as contributing to this idea, I feel that it is inappropriate for a prominent city staffer such as Brian Jimenez, the codes enforcement head, to be involved in a selective city privilege.