Loading...
26.Parking recreational vehicles� r 9s s • OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3212 - FAX: (408) 777 -3366 davek @cupertino,org STAFF FLEPORT Agenda Item Number -Z& Agenda Date: May 4, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. /Q� ,L00 adding Section 11.24.250 to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking recreational vehicles in excess of ten days on public streets. BACKGROUND Section 11.24.130 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is intended to limit parking of vehicles on the streets to no more than 72 consecutive hours. While this code section is effective for the majority of automobile parking issues, many people have taken to storing recreational vehicles on the street in excess of this time limit. Staff has found it difficult to enforce the code provision as applied to recreational vehicles because individuals often claim the vehicle has been moved but then re -park it in the same location. Sometimes people simply move the vehicle a few inches in one direction or another. Recreational vehicles typically consume a larger area than automobiles which may contribute to shortage of parking in residential neighborhoods. Further the size of recreational vehicles can create sight distance problems when parked near corners, raising safety issues. With the proposed restriction on parking recreational vehicles on the street in excess of ten (10) days, staff believes this will accommodate the loading and unloading for planned trips and the occasional visit by family members who ovrn recreational vehicles while prohibiting long- term storage vehicles on the street. RECOMMENDATION Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10 --- A6 adding Section 11.24.250 to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking recreational vehicles in excess of ten days on public streets. Respectfully submitted: ;eZ4 David W. Knapp, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Recreation Vehicle Ordinance 26 -1 /4 #G-Atmad A ORDINANCE NO. 10-2060 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING SECTION 11.24.250 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESTRICTING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Code Amendment Section 11.24.250 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby adopted to read as follows: Section 11.24.250 RV Parking Restricted A. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in 11.24.130, it shall be unlawful for any person to park, other than for its immediate loading and unloading, any recreational vehicle (as defined in Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code), on the residentially zoned streets of the City of Cupertino. Such recreational vehicles may be cited, towed to, and stored at, an impound facility at the owner's expense. B. An exception to the restriction shall be granted for each recreational vehicle, up to one time per calendar year for a period not to exceed ten (10) consecutive days. Any person requesting a parking exception hereunder shall provide an application to Code Enforcement staff on a form provided therefor. Said application shall be signed by staff and thereafter displayed in the driver's window for the duration of the parking exception. C. In the event special circumstances exist which may require parking longer than ten (10) consecutive days or an additional term of parking in the calendar year, the owner may submit a request to Code Enforcement staff detailing the special circumstances and the amount of time requested for parking the recreational vehicle. In the event the request is denied, the request may be resubmitted to the City Manager whose decision shall be final. Section 2. Statement ou�ose This Ordinance is intended to restrict recreational vehicles from parking on residential streets for periods over ten (10) days in a calendar year. In the absence of such a rule, recreational vehicles could be stored indefinitely on the residential streets occupying valuable parking spaces used by residents and creating quality of life challenges for Cupertino residents. These vehicles can impede traffic flow, affect public safety, and cause blight and neighborhood disputes related to residential vehicle parking. While restricting long term street storage of recreational vehicles, this Ordinance allows for the occasional parking by out of town guests and immediate loading and unloading of a recreational vehicle. 2s -2 Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 Section 3. Severability Should arty provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 369:33, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 4th day of May and ENACTED at a regular meeting of be Cupertino City Council the day of 2010 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST Y &PROVED : City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 26 -3 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Linda Lagergren From: Bruce McFarling [brucemcf @corncast.net] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:02 PM To: City Council Subject: Proposed RV Parking Ordinance on agenda for May 4th Council Meeting Dear Council Members, My name is Bruce McFarling. I have lived in Cupertino since 1975. If I am able to make it to the council meeting, I will be late, so I am writing this E -mail. It appears that the impetus for the proposed RV parking ordinance is the difficulty of enforcing existing code. The proposed solution would adversely affect the majority of citizens who abide not only with the letter but also the spirit of the existing code. An insidious side effect will be that all RVing friends of Cupertino residents will instantly commit a misdemeanor if they stop to visit friends in Cupertino. The proposed ordinance is unlike any I am aware of, and I doubt many Cupertino residents will even be aware of it enough to seek prior permission for their visiting friends - -even if they are able to anticipate the visit. Towing and /or citing an out -of town visitor (who is rather unlikely to be a "long- term - storage problem" is not the sort of welcome that I would like my city to offer! Somehow, it seems inappropriate to harm the majority to make it easier to control a small minority who flout existing law. I believe there are multiple ways to achieve the desired results without the overly restrictive code proposed. would be happy to discuss this further with you. Please contact me if you have any questions at: H: 408 - 255 -1429 C: 408 - 529 -8131 brucemcf@comcast.net 10680 La Roda Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Thank you, Bruce McFarling P.S. (How this would directly affect us adversely.): 1 We often come home late at night. In the past, I have parked on the side street, fallen into bed, and dealt with putting the RV away over the next day or two. The proposed ordinance would prohibit that, and mean that I must put the RV away in the dark. (A bit more dangerous to fence, roof overhang, and RV.) It also means running the RV more late at night possibly disturbing my neighbors. (Though am sure no current neighbors would complain — they're pretty great.) Then I'll have to get it back out to dump the wastewater tank, fill the gas tank, take it for a tune -up, etc. More "unnecessary" horsing around, fuel use, noise to disturb my neighbors, etc. made necessary by the restriction against parking. I suppose one might suggest that I plan my arrival home for earlier in the day. That would be nice, in a way, but when we're close enough to home to make it —even late —it is really great to be home. 2 c� l Linda Lagergren From: Bruce McFarling [brucemcf @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:56 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Comments re. proposed RV Parking ordinance scheduled for hearing May 4th Dear Councilman Mahoney, I will probably not be able to make the Council meeting on May 4th, but I am troubled by the RV Parking limitation item on the agenda for that night. Please consider our personal situation, as I am sure there are others who, like us, would be adversely affected by the proposed ordinance: My wife Diana and I bought our RV because we like to be spontaneous when we travel. We travel with our dog, don't smoke, and Diana is dependent on her wheelchair. Before we had our RV, we often had to go to 4 or more motels to find a wheelchair - accessible, pet - friendly, non - smoking room on the ground floor. (And I couldn't find a rental RV with those attributes, either.) So we bought our wheelchair - accessible RV in 1999, not long after I retired. As Diana's condition (Multiple Sclerosis) has deteriorated, the RV has become more and more a "life - support" system for her while we are on the road. For example, we now carry a Hoyer Lift so I can get her back up off the floor if 1 drop her in a transfer. Also, supplies we need on a daily basis are too bulky to carry in a car for an extended trip. We have put about 60,000 miles on our RV, including two cross country trips. Our primary objective has been to visit dozens of friends and family (though we have also enjoyed visiting spectacular parts of our country). When visiting people rather than parks, there was seldom an alternative to parking in front of their houses. (We never told our friends more than a day or two in advance that we were coming, to maintain our flexibility, so they would have often been unable to seek advance approval for our visit.) Our longest trip was 110 days —and every night we slept in our RV. Few homes are wheelchair - accessible. Had any of our friends lived in cities with overly restrictive ordinances like this, it could well have made it infeasible for us to visit them. I would be happy to provide further arguments against this ordinance. Please contact me if you have any questions at: H: 408 - 255 -1429 C: 408 - 529 -8131 brucemcf@comcast.net 10680 La Roda Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Thank you, 1 Bruce McFarling P.S. (How this would directly affect us adversely.): We often come home late at night. In the past, I have parked on the side street, fallen into bed, and dealt with putting the RV away over the next day or two. The proposed ordinance would prohibit that, and mean that I must put the RV away in the dark. (A bit more dangerous to fence, roof overhang, and RV.) It also means running the RV more late at night possibly disturbing my neighbors. (Though I am sure no current neighbors would complain — they're pretty great.) Then I'll have to get it back out to dump the wastewater tank, fill the gas tank, take it for a tune -up, etc. More "unnecessary" horsing around, fuel use, noise to disturb my neighbors, etc. made necessary by the restriction against parking. I suppose one might suggest that I plan my arrival home for earlier in the day. That would be nice, in a way, but when we're close enough to home to make it —even late —it is really great to be home. 2 C j5 - - /c to Linda Lagergren From: Luiz Peregrino [Ieregrino @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:42 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Cc: Luiz Peregrino Subject: Parking Agenda item: 26 Agenda date: May 4, 2010 Attachments: ParkinglnCupertino.doc Orrin Mahoney, omahoney@cupertino.org Concerning the Staff Report (attached) Agenda item: 26 Agenda date: May 4, 2010 Signed by: David W. Knapp, City Manager This Background section implies that only RV owners move and re -park their vehicles; car owners don't do it! Concerning moving the vehicles only a short distance can be easily resolved by requiring a minimum distance from the initial parking location to re -park the vehicle and it should be applied to every vehicle not just RVs. The vehicle locations can be precisely determined using a GPS locator. Concerning taking up too much space then we should limit the number of vehicles each owner can park on the streets of Cupertino. What is the actual space used by all the RVs parked on Cupertino streets that is causing a parking space shortage? We should apply being too big and blocking the view to the cement trucks from driving in Cupertino. These big trucks block the view while moving or while stopped. To me it is obvious that a group with connections don't like RVs. For the record I like to know who created this biased Staff Report. I appreciate your response. Luiz Peregrino 22871 Longdown Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1peregrino(a yahoo.com http: // cupertino .granicus.com /MetaViewer.php ?view id =13 &event id= 336 &meta id =45237 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber May 4, 2010, :5:00 pm / OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL �5c.r9s� 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3212 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366 CUPERTINO davek @cupertino.org STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number 076 Agenda Date: May 4, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. /O-200 adding Section 11.24.250 to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking recreational vehicles in excess of ten days on public streets. BACKGROUND Section 11.24.130 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is intended to limit parking of vehicles on the streets to no more than 72 consecutive hours. While this code section is effective for the majority of automobile parking issues, many people have taken to storing recreational vehicles on the street in excess of this time limit. Staff has found it difficult to enforce the code provision as applied to recreational vehicles because individuals often claim the vehicle has been moved but then re -park it in the same location. Sometimes people simply move the vehicle a few inches in one direction or another. Recreational vehicles typically consume a larger area than automobiles which may contribute to shortage of parking in residential neighborhoods. Further the size of recreational vehicles can create sight distance problems when parked near corners, raising safety issues. With the proposed restriction on parking recreational vehicles on the street in excess of ten (10) days, staff believes this will accommodate the loading and unloading for planned trips and the occasional visit by family members who own recreational vehicles while prohibiting long- term storage vehicles on the street. RECOMMENDATION Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10-,1Djpadding Section 11.24.250 to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking recreational vehicles in excess of ten days on public streets. Respectfully submitted: David W. Knapp, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Recreation Vehicle Ordinance Orrin Mahoney, omahoney(&,,cupertino.org Concerning the Staff Report Agenda item: 26 Agenda date: May 4, 2010 Signed by: David W. Knapp, City Manager This Background section implies that only RV owners move and re -park their vehicles; car owners don't do it? Concerning moving the vehicles only a short distance can be easily resolved by requiring a minimum distance from the initial parking location to re -park the vehicle and it should be applied to every vehicle not just RVs. The vehicle locations can be precisely determined using a GPS locator. Concerning taking up too much space then we should limit the number of vehicles each owner can park on the streets of Cupertino. What is the actual space used by all the RVs parked on the Cupertino streets that is causing a parking space shortage? We should apply being too big and blocking the view to the cement trucks from driving on Cupertino. These big trucks block the view while moving or while stopped. I appreciate your response to my comments Luiz Peregrino 22871 Longdown Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 Iperegrino@yahoo.com Gc: /y % Linda Lagergren From: Debi Chessen [schessen @yahco.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:17 AM To: Kris Wang Subject: Vote against item 26 modification of ordinace #102060 Hi Kris, Please Vote against item 26 Tuesday nite, modification of ordinance #102060. The current law which is 72 hour parking is currently ok and is the same for surrounding cities; San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Altos Hills and Saratoga. Would the city have to post signs to note Cupertino is an exception? Why does Cupertino have to be different? Code enforcement can't control 72 hours maybe they should look at other cities on what they are doing. This would stop visitors who would want to pari< to shop like at Target (no time limit in the modification of ordinance and their vehicle can be towed). We have neighbors who get visitors at least twice a year who stop and visit going to there vacation spot and return a few weeks later returning (this would put them in violation since it would be over the 10 days). Why should the city setup more administration costs when the city should be saving money? How would you monitor this? Call in and check every 10 day variance doesn't sound very efficient? Some vans are considered a Class B RV and some people drive these daily, but would have to stop. If you do a google earth search there are less than 10 RVs in the city on the streets. There has been no notice to the public. There is no available rental space available (only under 20 feet) in the City of Cupertino. I would have to rip up my native plant garden and put the RV on the side of the house (which my neighbors didn't like). My RV is mainly used for emergency and public service (example: Relay for Life at De Anza). The RV has generator, water, Area for first aid and toilet. If this modification of this ordinance passes I will have to sell my RV. Please have the city work on items that can save the city money or bring in new income properly. Thank you for reading this. Stuart Chessen 10571 N Portal Ave Cupertino 2006 Crest Award winner Block Leader (50 homes) CERT Leader CARES Assistance Emergency Coordinator Santa Clara County Mutual Aid Communicator 1 - 4 1 cc: /g06 y -la t} 6 Linda Lagergren From: Ruby Elbogen, Editor /Publisher -The C Magazine [rgelbogen ©aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:28 PM To: City Council Subject: R.V. Street Parking Cupertino City Council Members: I feel the proposed Cupertino rules for R.V.'s is Draconian, and will cost Cupertino a great deal of money. There was no explanation of why this regressive rule is proposed. Many people in Cupertino have visitors who drive here in R.V.'s. Where are they supposed to park? We have an R.V., and while it is occasionally used for getaways - -it is our designated home and office in case of an emergency or disaster. Our R.V. is the neighborhood Block Leader base, and has emergency food and supplies in case of a disaster. We also use it at the AC5 Relay For Life and other events for Emergency Services. When we parked it, legally, on our property, neighbors complained that it blocked their views and so we park it either in front of our own home, or in places where it is not intrusive; and move it according to the current rules. If this new overly- repressive R.V. rule is passed, we would have to pave over our beautiful water tolerant garden, which is a place that neighbors admire; and once again park where it intrudes on our neighbor's view -shed. Bringing forth this repressive rule will force the city to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on signage for each pole in Cupertino that has the rules listed (parking 3 -11, no parking 11 -3, etc.) Changing an existing rule, residents have based purchasing decisions upon - -which in the case of R.V.'s is a huge expense - -is ludicrous. An R.V. is a vehicle, not unlike a van and should be treated as such. Cupertino's rules should make sense for residents and good fiscal sense for the city - -they should also match those of our neighboring city's in this regard. None of the city's around us have a rule like this. And, there is no R.V. storage facility in Cupertino. This rule would also take up the City Manager's time with residents asking for exceptions to the rule, which is allowable according to what I have react. Please vote NO. Thank you, Ruby Elbogen Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor /Publisher The C Magazine Cupertino - News.com