Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - OVERSIZE VEHICLE ORD MUNICODE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approi Item to be presented DATE: May 9, 2000 SUBJECT: OVERSIZED VEHICLE ORDINANCE - ADDING CHAPTER 12.94 TO THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE OVERSIZED VEHICLE ORDINANCE DEPARTMENT: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council conduct the public hearing and introduce for first reading an ordinance adding chapter 12.94 to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code regarding oversized vehicle parking regulations and pass to second reading. City Council adopt a resolution approving the negative declaration prepared for the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. BACKGROUND At the request of the Saugus Community Group and the Canyon Country Better than Ever Committee, the City held a public forum to discuss the issue of long term parking of recreational vehicles on public streets. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether this was an issue, and if so, whether it was an issue citywide or in just a few isolated areas. As a result of this request, staff has spent the past six months working with the community to resolve the issue. Attached you will find a report detailing the issues, the process, and the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance would regulate oversized vehicle parking on public streets Monday through Friday. The proposed ordinance allows owners of oversized vehicles an opportunity to apply for an Oversized Vehicle Parking Permit issued by the City, which allows owners, for a designated time, to park their oversized vehicle on the public street. It is recommended that the provisions of the ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of this ordinance to the City is estimated to be minimal. The cost of signs is estimated at approximately $1,000. The remaining cost factors include staff time and materials to issue permits. There is no expected increase to the Sheriffs budget for enforcement of the ordinance. Continued To: :,,z o oc)A Apnda ®/D OVERSIZED VEHICLE ORDINANCE- PUBLIC HEARING May 9, 2000 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Maintain the existing level of parking regulations — 72 -hour parking law. 2. Prohibit all oversized vehicles from parking on the public streets. 3. Allow parking of oversized vehicle for a limited time with no permit system, but with requirements to move the vehicle after the time is expired. 4. Enact the proposed ordinance with a 90 -day break-in period 5. Other action as identified by the City Council ATTACHMENTS Ordinance adding chapter 12.94 to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Report to the City Council on the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's reading file.) KS:js 5_9_00\59AGARV.DOC City of Santa Clarita Report to the City Council on the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance May 9, 2000 Introduction At the request of the Saugus Community Group and the Canyon Country Better than Ever Committee, the City held a public forum to discuss the issue of long term parking of recreational vehicles on public streets. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether this was an issue, and if so, whether it was an issue citywide or in just a few isolated areas. The meeting was advertised in the local papers, on channel 20, and on the City's web -site. As a result, over 115 people attended the meeting to express their views. It was apparent from those in attendance that indeed it was an issue, and that the issue was not isolated to a few areas, as residents in attendance represented each of the four communities within the City. Additionally, the Sheriff stated that they had received 486 complaints over the past 11/2 years regarding RVs parking on public streets. After listening to those in attendance as well as speaking with the Sheriffs Department, it was determined that there is currently no law that allows the Sheriff to enforce long-term storage/parking on public streets. The only law currently available is the 72 -hour parking or abandoned vehicle law, which is part of the California Vehicle Code. This law was enacted to address abandoned vehicles left on the public streets. Under this law, as long as a vehicle owner moves the stored vehicle, even an inch, they are not violating the parking regulations. Many vehicle owners are well aware of this loophole and use it to their advantage. Due to the lack of an enforcement mechanism the Sheriff will only respond to three calls before they consider it a neighborhood dispute. The current enforcement tool does not work. At the end of the meeting participants requested that the City assemble a community task force to look into the issue and work toward a resolution that everyone could live with. The Task Force Process In November 1999, the Task Force met for the first time. The Task Force was an informal group made up of between 50-60 residents. The process was open to whoever wanted to participate, as long as they were willing to be open and compromise. To establish a productive environment, ground rules and objectives were created. The objectives included: integrate the community into the process; gain a better understanding of the issues from each other's point of view; identify the issues; and, develop a resolution, if possible. At the first meeting, an extensive list of issues was developed and discussed. This list included both pros and cons of parking RV's on public streets. The list of cons included limited visibility due to the size of these vehicles, safety, large vehicles on narrow streets create traffic congestion, aesthetics, lower property values, trash build-up, people living in RVs, people parking their RVs in front of houses other than their own, and the avoidance of the 72 -hour parking regulation. The list of pros included: available in emergency situations, disabled residents use them for convenience, they pay taxes and should be able to park where they want, the cost and availability Of storage, specifically moved to an area without CC&R's to avoid restrictions, and some people use these vehicles multiple times per week. At this meeting, participants were also given a packet of information containing sample ordinances, as well as definitions of various parking regulations and existing laws. At the conclusion of this meeting, participants were asked to review the information they were given, consider the issues they heard that night, and come to the next meeting prepared to provide and discuss recommendations. In December 1999, the Task Force met for the second time and began an in-depth discussion of each issue and recommendations were made on how best to address them. Unfortunately, participants could not agree on the majority of the recommendations. In fact, the only two recommendations that were agreed upon included exemptions for the disabled and that the ordinance should be enforced on a complaint basis only. In order to extract as much information as possible, two lists of recommendations were created that encompassed reasonable scenarios for each side. Some of the recommendations provided by the Task Force were not able to be included in the Proposed ordinance due to legal constraints. For example, a recommendation was made to create an ordinance that required the permanent removal of RV's from a public street after five different complaints were received from five different residences. Other recommendations included requiring residents to utilize the California Penal Code, which in some cases requires the involvement of the District Attorney. These were both recommendations of the RV owners. Although, staff did not utilize these recommendations because of legal constraints and feasibility issues, much of the Task Force's input was utilized to develop the proposed ordinance. Additionally, staff from Traffic Engineering, Code Enforcement, City Attorney's Office, City Manager's Office, and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department met and reviewed the Task Force recommendations and various ordinances from other cities in order to create the proposed parking regulations. At the third meeting of the Task Force, the proposed ordinance was presented to the group for comments. At that time, it was stated that changes to the ordinance would be made by consensus only. In other words, the group had to come to an agreement if they wanted to change a particular section of the proposed ordinance. Although the group raised a few issues, no changes were made at that meeting. However, as a result of some feedback and additional research, staff did make a few minor adjustments. These adjustments were made to clarify the intent of a particular section such as changing the term temporary to 24 -hours, and adding an appeals process. Below You will find a description of the proposed ordinance. Proposed Oversized Vehicle Parking Ordinance The following information provides an overview of the proposed ordinance as well as the process for enforcement. Definition An oversized vehicle is defined as any motor vehicle, boat or trailer, which meets or exceeds at least two of the following criterion, exclusive of fixtures, accessories, or property: 1. 23 feet in length 2. 8 feet in height 3. 7 feet in width To be considered an oversized vehicle, a vehicle must meet at least two of the above measurements. Vehicles that would fall within these measurements include very large and medium sized motorhomes, large boats and large trailers. Conversely, vehicles such as sport utility vehicles, vans, small boats or trailers, and trucks with smaller campers would not fall within these measurements. The Task Force recommended this definition. Additionally, it is consistent with measurements from other city ordinances. The definition addresses the vehicles that appear to receive the majority of complaints. Most of the vehicles that do not fall within these measurements, although may park on the public streets, are not as commonly stored on the public streets. Regulations The parking of oversized vehicles on the public streets would be regulated Monday through Friday. These vehicles would not be regulated on weekends and national holidays. The purpose of these regulations is to address the issue of parking versus storage. These vehicles would not be completely prohibited from parking on the public streets, even Monday through Friday. The ordinance provides flexibility for those who need to park on the public street for a designated amount of time. An oversized vehicle could park on the public street Monday through Friday, for up to 24 -hours. If more time was needed, an owner could receive a parking permit for up to 72 -hours. Vehicles would be given up to three 72 -hour permits in any 90 -calendar day period. In other words, a vehicle could park on the public streets for up to 9 -week days, plus weekends and holidays every 90 -calendar days. The Permit System Any person could apply for and receive an oversized vehicle parking permit by filling out and submitting an application with the City. Permits would be available at City Hall. Additionally, the City is evaluating the possibility of making permits available on-line through the City's website. There is no fee for the permit. Again, a vehicle could receive up to three 72 -hour permits every 90 -consecutive days. Enforcement It was the recommendation of the group that any ordinance be enforced on a complaint basis. In other words, if parking is not a problem in a particular neighborhood, then the Sheriff should not enforce the provisions of the ordinance in that situation. Although such a provision can not be placed in the ordinance, it is staffs recommendation that the Sheriff only enforce the ordinance in that manner. This recommendation received significant support from both sides of the issue. Many of the participants felt comfortable with the ordinance once this recommendation was reached and agreed upon. To briefly explain how the process would work, if the Sheriff received a complaint, a deputy would respond to the location and place a red tag on the vehicle. The red tag would notify the owner that there is an ordinance that requires the use of a permit for parking Monday through Friday. The warning would provide the owner with 24 hours to either move the vehicle or get a permit. If the owner refused to move the vehicle or get a permit, a citation would be issued. The violation would cost the owner $50. The ticketing process would be handled like any other parking ticket, including the appeals process. Potential Impact of the Ordinance Based on a 1997 study conducted by the University of Michigan for the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, one in ten households own an RV (number includes some vehicles not covered by ordinance, such as vans and folding tent trailers). Based on this study, it is estimated that there are less than 5,000 recreational vehicles within the City of Santa Clarita. The number of large boats and trailers is unknown; however, based on information provided by the Sheriffs Department problems with these vehicles are negligible. Based on survey data, staff estimates approximately 75 percent or 3,800 of these vehicles are currently parked in storage facilities or on private property; approximately 20 percent or 1,000 vehicles are parked on the public streets; while the remaining 5 percent or 250 vehicles are stored in a combination of the above. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department provided complaint data that showed they had received 486 complaints regarding RV parking; however, of those complaints there were approximately 263 vehicles that received multiple complaints. Therefore, based on the data available, it appears as though the ordinance will most likely impact at least 263 oversized vehicles, but could extend beyond that number. In March 2000, staff conducted a survey of storage facilities within the Santa Clarita Valley. According to the survey results, there are approximately 3,050 storage spaces within 20 storage facilities. The average cost was approximately $56 per month. Current spaces available exceed 400. Additionally, two separate developers have approached the City regarding plans to add 500- 1500 storage spaces in the near future. Therefore, if the ordinance is enacted it does not appear that storage space would be a problem. If the proposed ordinance were enacted, the City would be required to post signs notifying residents and visitors of the new parking regulations. Signs would only be placed at off -ramp locations throughout the City. Public Input This ordinance is the result of significant public input. In addition to the community task force, staff has received approximately 200 phone calls, letters, emails, etc. The majority of those involved believe the ordinance is a compromise. In many cases, owners of these vehicles can live with the ordinance because it does provide flexibility, such as the 24-hour time limit, and the recommended enforcement on a complaint basis. Additionally, in October 1999, a question of the week was posted on the City's web page that asked, "Do you think the City should enact an ordinance prohibiting RV parking in the neighborhoods?" Of the 308 responses 59 percent said yes. Other Cities A survey was conducted of all 488 cities in California to determine how many regulated RV or oversized vehicle parking on public streets. Currently 148 or approximately one-third of cities have enacted parking regulations. Additionally, 10 cities are currently in the process of developing such ordinances. A few examples of these cities include Simi Valley, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Conclusion After evaluating the data available and working with the Community over the past six months, it appears as though the proposed ordinance represents a reasonable compromise on the issue. Although, the Task Force did not agree by consensus on the proposed regulations, based on the feedback received, many feel they can live with the proposed ordinance. Additionally, the Sheriffs Department has been involved and provided feedback throughout the process and feel that this ordinance would provide the necessary enforcement tool to address the problem. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held May 9, 2000, continued a public hearing on 10. OVERSIZED VEHICLE ORDINANCE — ADDING CHAPTER 12.94 TO THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE OVERSIZED VEHICLE ORDINANCE — At the request of the Saugus Community Group and the Canyon Country Better than Ever committee, the City held a public forum to discuss the issue of long term parking of recreational vehicles on public streets. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether this was an issue, and if so, whether it was an issue citywide or in just a few isolated areas. The meeting was advertised in the local papers, on channel 20, and on the City's web -site. As a result, over 115 people attended the meeting to express their views. It was apparent from those in attendance that indeed it was an issue and that the issue was not isolated to a few areas, as residents in attendance represented each of the four communities within the City. to September 12, 2000. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 10' day of May, 2000. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on May 10, 2000, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. -contph SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California