PC 6-24-2025 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
6:45 PM
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do
so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and
www.Cupertino.org/webcast
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to
address the Planning Commission may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall:
a. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the
agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment
period for each agendized item.
b. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card . While completion of Speaker
Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments , it is
helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
c. Speakers must wait to be called , then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into
the microphone when recognized by the Chair.
d. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2
minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum .
e. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect
any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a
document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may
do so in one of the following ways:
At the overhead projector at the podium or
E-mail the document to planning@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will
Page 1
1
6-24-2025
1 of 18
Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 2025
advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2) E-mail comments to the Planning Commission at planningcommission@cupertino.org as
follows:
a. E-mail comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to
be forwarded to the commissioners before the meeting.
b. Emailed comments received following agenda publication but prior to, or during, the
meeting, will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
3) Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register
in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_6bwwlZypTKixQAySjdSifQ
Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about
joining the webinar.
Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once
recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully:
One can directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in
their internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date
browser, such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari
7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
b. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join
the meeting as follows:
i. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 838 1278 0704
ii. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone
number.
c. Via an H.323/SIP room system:
i. H.323 Information:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 874 9247 0140
ii. SIP: 83812780704@zoomcrc.com
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
2
6-24-2025
2 of 18
Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 2025
Recommended Action: Approve the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
1 - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the
public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
STUDY SESSION
2.Subject: Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking
restrictions in the public right-of-way.
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit),
Section 11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized
vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal Code, to
enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more than
seventy-two (72) hours on any public street.
Staff Report
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 limits the distribution of copyrighted
material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view
plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under Government Code Section 65103.5 may make an
appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to
planning@cupertino.org. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the
proposal.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for staff to provide any updates on matters pertinent to the
Commission and for Commissioners to report on any Commission related activities they have taken part
in since the prior regularly scheduled meeting.
Page 3
3
6-24-2025
3 of 18
Planning Commission Agenda June 24, 2025
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the Chair or any two Commissioners to propose a future
agenda item within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A proposal to add a future agenda item shall be
brief and without discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed
to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said
appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 during normal business hours and in
Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100, written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 4
4
6-24-2025
4 of 18
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14079 Agenda Date: 6/24/2025
Agenda #: 1.
Subject: Approval of the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Approve the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/18/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™5
6-24-2025
5 of 18
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners David Fung,
Steven Scharf and Seema Lindskog. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the May 27, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the May 27, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Kosolcharoen moved and Scharf seconded to approve the May 27, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jean Bedord spoke about permit costs, delays in the permitting process in the city due to
staffing shortages and turnover vs. multiple incomplete submittals by applicants.
CONSENT CALENDAR- None
PUBLIC HEARINGS –
2. Subject: Consider a Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and
Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit to consider the construction of a 59-unit
townhome condominium development. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and
provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): DP-2024-002, U-2024-007,
TM-2024-001, ASA-2024-005, TR-2024-024; Applicant(s): SummerHill Homes, LLC;
Location: 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 359-08-025, -026, -027,
and-028 (partial).
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolutions
recommending that the City Council:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
6
6-24-2025
6 of 18
2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166) and
3. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2024-002) (Attachment 1);
b. Use Permit (U-2024-007) (Attachment 2);
c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-005) (Attachment 3);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-001) (Attachment 4); and
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-024) (Attachment 5).
Assistant Director of Community Development Connolly introduced Senior Planner
Sugiyama.
Senior Planner Sugiyama gave a presentation.
Chair Rao opened the floor to Ex Parte disclosures.
Commissioners Fung, Scharf, Lindskog, and Kosolcharoen and Chair Rao shared Ex
Parte communications.
The applicant gave a presentation.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Rajiv Chamraj
• Lynne
• Jennifer Griffin
• Jean Bedord
• Gill Doyle – it was determined he was speaking on a non-agenda item
• Ravi Kuman
• Luis Marante
• Vivek Sagdeo
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Commissioners asked questions and made comments.
MOTION: Lindskog moved and Fung seconded to approve the staff recommendation.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf,
Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
OLD BUSINESS – None
7
6-24-2025
7 of 18
NEW BUSINESS – None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Assistant Director of Community Development Connolly reported that the Upland way
six-unit project from Builder’s Remedy was found to be incomplete after the 90 day
review period. It has been deemed inactive and is no longer a project. He also reported
that City Council had the first reading for the ordinance to adopt the Calfire Fire Hazard
Zone Maps. City Council went with Calfire’s Recommendation, therefore, no additional
properties were added to the list. There will be a second reading before it is formally
adopted.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:34 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
8
6-24-2025
8 of 18
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14081 Agenda Date: 6/24/2025
Agenda #: 2.
Subject: Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions in the
public right-of-way.
Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend
Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit), Section 11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010
(definition of oversized vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the
Municipal Code, to enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more than
seventy-two (72) hours on any public street.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/18/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
6-24-2025
9 of 18
1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 24, 2025
Subject
Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking
restrictions in the public right-of-way.
Recommended Action
Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit), Section
11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized
vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal
Code, to enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more
than seventy-two (72) hours on any public street.
Executive Summary:
Staff was directed to bring this item to the Planning Commission to consider
options to update the City of Cupertino’s oversized vehicle parking restrictions
on public rights-of-way. The current regulatory framework is problematic due to
the 72-hour parking restriction being easily avoided, hence allowing oversized
vehicles to remain parked on public streets for extended periods and creating the
opportunity for vehicles to congregate in certain sections of the City.
On April 22, 2025, staff brought this issue before the Planning Commission. At
that meeting, staff was asked to return with a more detailed report for further
discussion. Based on that further study and analysis staff is proposing three
options for the Planning Commission’s consideration, that are briefly
summarized below and fully described on pages 7 - 8.
Recommended Option 1: Require a City-issued permit to park an oversized
vehicle within any City public right -of-way for a maximum of 72 hours,
including residential streets, with certain exceptions. Add signage at City
entrances.
10
6-24-2025
10 of 18
2
Alternative Option 2: Allow only City residents with a required City-issued
permit to park an oversized vehicle on City public right-of-way including
residential streets for a maximum of 72 hours, with certain exceptions. Add
signage at City entrances.
Alternative Option 3: Require that all vehicles be moved a minimum distance of
1500 feet after 72 hours of being parked on any City street, and remain at least
1500 feet away from the original location for 72 hours. Add signage at City
entrances.
Background
Currently, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 11.24.130 prohibits the parking of
any vehicle or trailer on any public street for more than a consecutive period of
72 hours. The City is now considering updates to the City’s parking requirements
to provide more efficient enforcement, balance the needs of residents and
visitors, close enforcement loopholes, and prevent long-term parking on public
streets.
Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22507, a city is authorized to
“prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles…on certain
streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day.”
This provision allows cities to regulate the parking of vehicles, including
oversized vehicles, on city streets.
Towards this end, on April 22, 2025, the Planning Commission discussed a
proposed ordinance amending Sections 11.24.130, 11.24.200, 11.28.010 and
11.28.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to restrictions on
oversized vehicle parking (a) on public streets, (b) in residential districts and (c)
near customer-facing retail establishments. During the meeting Commissioners
questioned the purpose and scope of such an ordinance. Specifically, they
requested that staff clarify the problem and provide available data, including the
number of citations issued, enforcement efforts and whether such efforts have
been effective.
Members of the public also shared concerns. Several residents expressed
opposition to a blanket ban on oversized vehicles in residential neighborhoods,
explaining that many Cupertino residents rely on being able to park their RVs at
home while preparing for or unloading from travel. Additionally, one
Commissioner noted that some residents may host visitors traveling in RVs and
suggested that a permit program be considered.
11
6-24-2025
11 of 18
3
Based on these discussions and community feedback, staff determined that a
study session would be helpful to explore policy options and gather further
input from the Commission before presenting options to the City Council for
consideration of formal ordinance amendments.
Current Practice
Cupertino’s enforcement of its oversized vehicle parking restrictions is currently
complaint-driven. When a complaint is submitted or when a City staff member
observes a potential violation, Code Enforcement staff conducts an inspection. If
warranted, the City places a warning tag or sticker on the vehicle, documents its
location, and marks the tire using a paperclip or other marker to monitor
movement. After 72 hours, Code Enforcement reinspects the vehicle. If the
marker has been disturbed, it is presumed the vehicle has been moved and no
citation is issued. If the marker remains, the City issues a citation.
Presently, Code Enforcement staff tags at least five vehicles per week. Staff
estimates that 85-90 percent of these vehicles move only a few feet, remaining in
the same general area. Per every 115 tags, there are approximately four (4)
citations issued, about 3.5% of all tagged vehicles.
The low citation rate is largely due to common strategies used by oversized
vehicle owners to avoid enforcement. These include moving the vehicle only
slightly to reset the 72-hour clock, temporarily relocating the vehicle for
approximately 24 hours before returning to the same spot, as well as
coordinating with other vehicle owners to rotate parking spaces, effectively
keeping vehicles in the same area while technically complying with the 72 -hour
movement requirement.
Annually, the City receives approximately 200 complaints related to oversized
vehicles. A common concern relates to oversized vehicles that either have not
been moved or have moved a minimal distance after 72 hours.
The current restrictions limiting vehicle parking on the City’s streets are
inadequate to prevent oversized vehicles such as RVs from parking for extended
periods of time and congregating in certain areas of the City. A coordinated
effort by certain RV owners has been witnessed by staff, where they moved their
RVs by one vehicle length with the first moving to the last position every few
days, such that no vehicle is required to leave the area, and thus avoiding
violation of the current ordinance’s 72-hour rule.
One area where this frequently occurs within the City is from Alves Drive to
Saich Way (Steven Creek), behind the Target store, where numerous RVs are
12
6-24-2025
12 of 18
4
“camped” in the public right-of-way. The table below describes the common
locations where citations have been issued in 2024 and 2025.
Year Frequency Location in the City of
Cupertino
2024 3 Foothill/ SCB
2024 2 Blaney/SCB
2024 1 McClellan/Bubb Rd
2024 6 Stelling/Rainbow
2024 1 Homestead/85
2024 8 Alves Dr/Bandley
2025 2 Alves Dr/Bandley
2025 1 S. De Anza/ McClellan
2025 1 Rancho Rinconada
Staff’s Proposal at the April 22 Planning Commission Meeting
On April 22, staff suggested the following proposed ordinance, which included
three components: 1). Any vehicle parked in the same location for 72 consecutive
hours must be moved at least 1,500 feet away from, and cannot return to, the
original spot for at least 24 hours after leaving; 2). A complete ban on parking
oversized vehicles in residential districts; and 3). A complete ban on parking
oversized vehicles within 100 feet of commercial zones.
The proposed ordinance aimed to establish a minimum distance that vehicles
must be moved to ensure they do not simply relocate to nearby spots or moved
only a few inches away.
The ban on oversized vehicles in residential districts was intended to prevent
these vehicles from shifting from commercial to residential neighborhoods, when
the 72 hour was amended to require that vehicles move 1500 feet from their
current location for 24 hours. The ban of oversized vehicles within 100 feet of
commercial areas was intended to protect the City’s retail establishments from
the impacts of RVs parked for extended periods of time near their customer
facing operations.
As noted above, members of the public shared concerns about the blanket ban on
oversized vehicles in residential neighborhoods, explaining that many Cupertino
residents rely on being able to park their RVs at home while preparing for or
unloading from travel.
Staff’s Current Proposal
13
6-24-2025
13 of 18
5
Options 1 and 2 Require City-Issued Permits
Options 1 and 2 require a City-issued permit to park an oversized vehicle in a
City right-of-way. There are various benefits to requiring permits. It allows City
staff to track where oversized vehicles are parking, ensures the City is informed
of how long each vehicle is expected to remain, and provides advance notice to
support effective monitoring and enforcement.
All Three Options Allow for Limited Oversized Vehicle Parking in Residential
Neighborhoods
All options allow residents to park their oversized vehicles near their residences
for 72 hours. They may remain parked longer, as long as the vehicle is moved
every 72 hours. Under options 1 and 2, the residents would be required to obtain
an additional permit for each 72-hour period.
Benefits of Posting Regulations
Posting parking regulations through signage improves enforcement. However,
the cost of installing signage in residential neighborhoods is prohibitively high.
The Public Works Director estimates that creating and installing one parking sign
costs approximately $513. If the City were to install signs throughout its
residential areas, which consist of about 93 linear miles, it would need to install
approximately 372 signs, resulting in a total estimated cost of nearly $200,000.
The recommended options presented in this staff report recommend applying a
uniform, citywide regulation, instead of having different regulations that apply
to residential and commercial areas. A single, consistent citywide regulation
would allow the City to post signs at only City entrances, which will significantly
reduce signage and installation costs. The City of Redwood City has a uniform,
citywide regulation regarding oversized vehicle, and has only posted signs on
City entrances. So far, the City of Redwood City’s oversized vehicle regulation
has not been legally challenged. Under the scenario of posting signage at city
entrances, we estimate that the City of Cupertino would need to install
approximately 50 signs at an estimated total cost of only $25,000. This is a cost-
effective approach.
Estimated Additional Program Costs
Our current suggestions also entail the use of City issued permits, which adds
cost. Staff estimates that the issuance of a permit costs the city approximately
$46.50 to cover the estimated staff time and use of City resources. Staff
anticipates receiving 3 to 4 permit applications per week. If the volume increases,
additional personnel may be needed.
14
6-24-2025
14 of 18
6
While the City continues to enforce existing ordinances, there is a staffing
shortage and the City is actively working to fill vacant positions. Once filled,
Code Enforcement will have the necessary staffing resources needed to support
an updated ordinance.
This past fiscal year, the City collected approximately $180,000 in citation fees
related to parking violations.
Legal Analysis
There can be legal risk associated with imposing regulations that impact
unhoused communities, like the regulations being considered here. For instance,
in 2019, the City of Mountain View adopted local regulations restricting parking
of oversized vehicles on streets adjacent to certain bikeways and on narrow
streets, which included more than half the streets in the Mountain View. A
public interest group representing unhoused people sued Mountain View
claiming the regulations violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory
rights. Eventually the parties settled whereby Mountain View agreed to amend
the ordinance to change the process of ticketing and towing for oversized
vehicles, preventing the immediate towing, and reimbursing the plaintiffs’
attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
Separately, the City of Redwood City passed regulations implementing their new
RV parking ordinance in 2020. To reduce the risk of a lawsuit, they opened a safe
parking area for RVs that would otherwise have been forced out of the city. They
operated the safe parking area for approximately three years until they left the
City or moved on to other arrangements. The city’s program has not been legally
challenged.
However, both Mountain View and Redwood City instituted their heightened
standard before the US Supreme Court decided the seminal case, City of Grants
Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024). The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion, which had held that citing homeless people for camping on
public property was “cruel and unusual punishment” unless alternate shelter
was available. In so doing, the Supreme Court rebalanced the scales.
Approximately 30 days after the Grant Pass ruling, Governor Gavin Newsom
issued an executive order requiring state and local agencies to address
encampments of unhoused persons.
It is also important to note that the Mountain View’s ordinance focused on
towing oversized vehicles as the first step in enforcing the municipal code,
whereas the City of Cupertino’s approach relies on citation as the first step.
15
6-24-2025
15 of 18
7
The risk is further minimized if the City refrains from adopting a citywide ban
on oversized vehicle parking. Allowing such vehicles to park under certain
conditions reduces the potential for legal challenges.
Moreover, The Prince of Peace Lutheran Church offers a Rotating Safe Car Park
(RSCP) that allows guests who are living in their cars to sleep, stabilize, recover,
and gain access to social services. The RSCP services West Silicon Valley,
including Cupertino. This is an additional option for those with oversized
vehicles to secure a parking location.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
Based on the research above, staff recommends a couple of options to discuss
and consider.
Option 1: Requires a Permit to Park an Oversized Vehicle within any City Public
Right-of-Way
o Prohibits the parking of oversized vehicles city-wide unless the owner
obtains a City-issued permit to park the vehicle for 72 hours within the
City. With such a permit, the owner may park in the public right of way
under the following conditions:
o The vehicle must be moved a minimum distance of 1500 feet every
72 hours, unless it is parked on private propert y.
o Only five (5) permits per month for any vehicle may be issued.
o Daytime Parking Exception: Oversized vehicles may be parked on
public streets for up to two (2) hours during the hours between 6:00
am and 8:00 pm, regardless of whether the City-issued permit has
been obtained.
o Nighttime Parking Exception: Oversized vehicles may be parked
on a public street for up to one (1) hour between the hours of 8:00
PM and 6:00 AM, regardless of whether the City-issued permit has
been obtained.
o Add signage at City entrances.
Analysis: Staff recommends this option, which allows an owner to park their
oversized vehicle within the public right of way for up to 72 hours with a valid
City-issued permit. For any vehicle, the owner is allowed up to five permits per
month for their vehicle, which equates to approximately two weeks, although the
vehicle must move to a new location after each 72-hour period. The ordinance
also accommodates vehicle owners who may be simply passing through town by
allowing short-term parking for two hours during daytime hours and one hour
during nighttime hours.
16
6-24-2025
16 of 18
8
Option 2: Requires a Permit to Park an Oversized Vehicle within any City Right-
of-Way, but Permits will only be issued to Residents of the City, or under an
existing alternate option currently available at the City for Commercial vehicles.
o Same as Option 1, but only residents of the City may obtain the necessary
permit.
o Current City regulations would remain effective that allow certain
commercial vehicles to park in the public right-of-way for longer periods
of time.
o Add signage at City entrances.
Analysis: This option requires all oversized vehicles owners to obtain a permit
from the City to park their oversized vehicle within the public right-of-way for
up to 72 hours. For any vehicle, the resident owner is allowed up to five permits
per month for their vehicle, which equates to approximately two weeks,
although the vehicle must move to a new location after each 72-hour period. As
in option 1, the ordinance accommodates vehicle owners who may be simply
passing through town by allowing short-term parking for two hours during
daytime hours and one hour during nighttime hours.
Option 3: Requires that All Vehicles be Moved after 72 hours of Being Parked in
any City Public Right of Way
o Prohibits the parking of oversized vehicles in the public right-of-way
unless:
o the oversized vehicle is moved a minimum distance of 1500 feet
every 72 hours. After moving, the oversized vehicle must remain at
least 1,500 feet away from the original location for 72 hours.
o Add signage to every City entrance.
Analysis: This option allows for oversized vehicles to park on the public street for
up to 72 hours without a City-issued permit. To prevent vehicles from moving
only a short distance or immediately returning to the same location, this option
establishes a 1,500 foot radius around the original parking location. Once an
oversized vehicle has vacated a location, it is prohibited from returning to that
area for at least another 72 hours.
Staff recommends the 72 hour return restriction which would align with the
City’s existing enforcement process. When a complaint is received, staff clocks or
marks the vehicle and re-inspects it after 72 hours to determine whether it has
moved. If it has not moved, a citation is issued. Usually, many vehicle owners
wait until the seventh day to move their vehicles.
17
6-24-2025
17 of 18
9
However, if the ordinance only requires the vehicle to stay away for 24 hours,
code enforcement would be facing recurring violations. A vehicle could leave
briefly and return the next day, restarting the enforcement cycle. The 72 -hour
distance and return requirement ensures that enforcement cycle does not restart
every week and complaints are not repeated weekly.
Fiscal Costs and Implementation
Sign installation: Signage would costs approximately $513 per sign. Placing signs
only at the entrances to the City is more cost-effective, as only about 50 signs are
needed to cover all entry points. The total estimated cost for this approach is
approximately +$25,000.
Permit cost: It costs the City approximately $46.50 to process an application,
based on estimated staff time and use of City resources. Staff anticipates
receiving 3 to 4 permit applications per week. If the volume increases, additional
personnel may need to be hired due to current staffing shortages.
The City could impose a permit application fee that would defray some of the
permit costs.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
City Work Program Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Vrunda Shah, Deputy City Attorney
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager
18
6-24-2025
18 of 18