Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2012 b1 parking restrictions address adverse neighborhood impacts long term parkingcounci lAacEnba Repot C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Steve Gesell, Police Chie f Robert Horch, Parking Manage r Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r Christine Dietrick, City Attorne y Prepared By :Steve Gesell, Police Chie f SUBJECT : CONSIDERATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO ADDRES S ADVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS OF LONG TERM PARKIN G OF VEHICLES AND USE OF VEHICLES AS HOUSING ON PUBLI C STREETS RECOMMENDATIO N Direct staff to develop amendments to the Municipal Code to : 1.improve parking enforcement regulations to complement existing parking and zonin g regulations ; an d 2.address the adverse impacts of long term parking and storage of large vehicles and use o f vehicles as housing on public streets and property . REPORT-IN-BRIE F During the regular City Council meeting held on March 20, 2012, the City Council voted t o accept the staff recommendation to establish a safe parking pilot program ("pilot program") fo r members of the City's homeless population that possess a vehicle and are participating i n Community Action Partnership (CAPSLO) case management services . Staff was directed to return to the Council in six months with a progress report . This program is consistent with th e San Luis Obispo Countywide 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness and furthers the City's "Othe r Important Objective" of Affordable Housing/Homeless Services by providing leadership in th e implementation of the 10-Year Plan . In the course of discussion of the pilot program, staff provided Council with informatio n regarding the City's current ability to regulate oversized vehicles and RV parking an d recommended that Council provide direction to staff to return with alternatives to achieve greate r enforcement effectiveness and clarity in parking regulation . Council did not feel that the prio r report notification sufficiently alerted the public to the discussion of potentially significan t parking regulation that will impact residents citywide . Thus, Council directed staff to return wit h a stand-alone report outlining current regulations, as well as additional regulatory options tha t Meeting Date 1 15—1 —1 2 Item Number D Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 2 Council may wish to explore either in conjunction with or independent of the safe parkin g program . This report summarizes : 1)existing City regulation of parking and storage of vehicles for extended periods of time in th e public right of way ; 2)existing zoning provisions prohibiting residential occupancy in vehicles on public and privat e property citywide ; 3)City practices related to enforcement of existing parking and zoning regulations ; 4)recent escalation in illegal activities and resident complaints that have led to increase d enforcement of existing laws ; 5)additional regulatory tools that may be desirable whether or not continuation and/or expansio n of the safe parking program is to be considered ; and 6)information regarding complementary regulatory approaches taken by two other cities tha t have implemented similar safe parking programs (Santa Barbara and Ventura). This report outlines the need to further evaluate changes in the Municipal Code, both in th e context of the safe parking pilot program and more broadly, to assist in addressing potential gap s between the City's existing regulation of parking and housing in order to effectively manag e community impacts of vehicle standing and storage, as well as illegal activities stemming fro m utilizing vehicles for housing . Lastly the anticipated fiscal impacts associated with Staff's recommendation are outlined . BACKGROUN D Zoning Regulations In 1995, at the urging of neighborhood residents, the Community Development Departmen t brought forward a package of proposed Zoning Code Amendments to "...to strengthen propert y maintenance provisions" (The Council agenda report is included as Attachment 1 withou t attachments ; the full report with attachments is available in the Council reading file). Included i n that package of amendments were provisions regulating the long term storage of RVs and the use of RVs as living quarters . At the time, the primary driver and focus of enforcement behind th e regulations were resident complaints about the aesthetic and neighborhood parking impact s created by storage of RVs in driveways and on the adjacent City streets . Some neighborhoo d residents testified that their neighbors' storage and use of recreational vehicles as housing wa s adversely impacting neighborhoods, resulting in "creeping blight ." RV owners at the tim e expressed opposing views, asserting that the proposed regulations impinged on their privat e property rights and that street storage restrictions would impose unfair commercial storage costs on RV owners . After extensive hearings, the City enacted zoning restrictions on the use o f vehicles as dwelling units outside of areas zoned for that purpose . Those regulations are codifie d in the City's Municipal Code in Sections 17 .08 .O10 .0 and 17 .16 .015 . In 2005, Section 17 .16 .01 5 was amended to clarify that the prohibition on living in vehicles included automobiles . Sectio n 17 .16 .15 provides : Recreational vehicle as a dwelling . "Recreational vehicle as dwelling unit . N o recreational vehicle, camper shell, automobile or similar device shall be used for living or Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 3 sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, o r campground, except as provided in Section 17 .08 .010(C)(4) et seq ." As an exception to the requirements of Section 17 .16 .015, that such housing use of vehicles may only occur in a "lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, or campground," Section 17 .08 .010(C)(4) provides, as follows : Recreational Vehicle as Temporary Dwelling . A recreational vehicle may be parked in a residential parking space or driveway for periods not to exceed seven days, for th e purpose of housing guests of on-site residents only . Such recreational vehicle shall not b e parked so as to prevent residents of any other dwellings on the site from using thei r assigned parking spaces, nor shall it discharge waste or sewage into the city's sewag e system . No hose, electrical cord, pipe, wire, or other device extending from the vehicl e may be permitted to encroach on any access easement or sidewalk . Since their enactment, these regulations have been regularly enforced, primarily in response t o neighborhood complaints relating to residential use of RVs located for extended periods i n residential driveways or on streets adjacent to residences . More recently, complaints of this typ e of activity have come with increasing frequency from businesses and their customers in th e City's commercial or industrial areas . Parking Regulation s In addition to the land use/health and safety regulations related to living in vehicles that ar e reflected in the Zoning Code, the City has also adopted parking regulations that are relevant i n this context, which prohibit long term parking of vehicles on public streets, effectively resultin g in the use of public streets for vehicle storage . Those regulations are set forth in Section s 10 .12 .090 and 10 .12 .100 of the Municipal Code, as follows : 10.12 .090 Removal of vehicles from street by police officers permitted when . Any regularly employed and salaried officer or designated employee of the polic e department of this city may remove or cause to be removed : A.Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing upon a street or highway fo r seventy-two or more consecutive hours ; B.Any vehicle which is parked or left standing upon a street or highway when suc h parking or standing is prohibited by ordinance or resolution of this city and signs ar e posted giving notice of such removal ; 10 .12 .100 Vehicles deemed in violation of Section 10 .12 .090 if not moved a minimu m of five hundred feet from initial parking place before being parked again . For the purposes of enforcement of Section 10 .12 .090,a vehicle is in violation if, once i t has been parked or left standing upon a street, it is not moved a minimum distance of five Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 4 hundred feet from the initial parking place before being again parked . (Prior code § 3202 .9) Like the zoning regulations, these parking provisions historically have been enforced primaril y in response to residential neighborhood complaints of extended standing or long-term stree t storage of vehicles that are bothersome to surrounding property owners . Most of the complaints over the last several years have been related to large vehicle storage impacting the availability o f parking in already congested residential neighborhoods and the visual impacts of the vehicles o n the neighborhood character . Also similar to complaints regarding living in vehicles, the City ha s experienced an increase in parking complaints coming from its commercial and industria l business owners, who complain of lack of availability of parking for their businesses, as well a s increasingly intimidating, anti-social and illegal behaviors of those reported to be living in som e of the vehicles . Community Problems Caused By On-Street Vehicle Storage and De Facto Campground s Though those residing in vehicles and concentrations of stored vehicles can be found throughou t the City, there are areas with higher concentrations . Last year, concentrations of vehicles and d e facto campgrounds increased along Elks Lane, near an area at the Elks Lodge . That activit y resulted in complaints to Police of trespass, vandalism, intoxication, illegal discharges from R V septic systems, threats and intimidation of pedestrian passersby, assaults, batteries and dru g dealing . Ultimately the escalated illegal activities were diminished after Public Works staf f posted the area as a no parking zone to address vehicles parked along the east shoulder forcin g North Bound pedestrians to walk in the travel lane . Although the reports of incidents to police i n the Elks area diminished after this no parking zone was established, the number of vehicles and individuals camping and storing large vehicles on Prado Road and the immediate area ha s significantly increased, as have the number of calls for police service in those areas . Several recent assaults, safety concerns from Prado Day Center staff, City of San Luis Obisp o Corporation Yard staff, citizen complaints, and written correspondence from three nearb y businesses enumerate the adverse community impacts and health and safety concerns . Similar to the activities previously reported along Elks Lane, reports in the Prado area include assaults , thefts, vandalism, trespassing, public urination, defecation, sewage leakage and intentiona l sewage discharge onto City streets . The health and safety impacts and complaints of thes e activities taken as a whole prompted expanded efforts by the Police Department to address th e behaviors in highly impacted areas via the City's existing zoning and parking regulations . Efforts to address the safety concerns have primarily centered on both education an d enforcement of the City's longstanding ordinances, outlined above, prohibiting living in vehicle s and storage of vehicles on public streets . Zoning Code enforcement has been utilized whe n occupants inside the vehicle are contacted and the illegal residential use can be observed b y officers and/or the occupant confirms the illegal use . Generally, violators are subject only t o citation and not to physical arrest for infraction violations . Where vehicles parked long-term o n City streets are not occupied, or the occupant cannot be contacted, parking enforcement i s pursued . The vehicles are tagged with a notice requiring the vehicle to be moved a minimum o f 500 feet within 72 hours . If the vehicle is not moved pursuant to the notice provided after 7 2 hours, the vehicle is towed and impounded at the owner's expense . Through enforcement of bot h B1-4 Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 5 zoning and parking regulations, the City seeks to mitigate the adverse impacts of concentration s of vehicles stored long term on public streets and the adverse health and safety and land us e impacts of illegal residential uses . Difficulties With Enforcemen t Both the zoning regulations and the parking regulations are useful tools in addressing th e aesthetic and parking issues that have been the subject of neighborhood complaints and th e illegal behaviors and adverse community impacts of those behaviors that have expanded to th e commercial and industrial areas . However, both the officers enforcing the regulations and th e community members lodging complaints of illegal behavior have identified deficiencies wit h enforcement approaches over the years . In the case of the long term parking regulations, enforcement often results only in moving the source of complaints 500 feet down the same road . Likewise, zoning regulation enforcement i s not effective to address parking concerns and is only useful to the extent that occupants o f vehicles can be contacted . As illegal occupancies and vehicle concentrations shift to new area s of town, some vehicle dwellers have engaged in behaviors that drive significant complaint s centering on fundamental health and safety matters, as well as reports of other illegal activities . In other words, where public streets become de facto camp grounds and storage yards, so follo w the complaints regarding adverse behaviors associated with the uses . Effective enforcement ha s been a perpetual challenge in the City's residential neighborhoods, as well as in the mor e recently impacted commercial and industrial areas . Considerations for Future Municipal Code Change s Parking Enforcemen t Uniform parking regulation is one of the most effective means by which to address advers e impacts of the storage and illegal occupancy of oversized vehicles on public streets . Parkin g enforcement regulates only the presence of certain types of vehicles, rather than uses or activitie s associated with the storage or occupancy of the vehicles . Due to ease in identifying and provin g parking violations, uniform parking prohibitions can avoid many of the enforcement difficultie s experienced with regulations like the City's current 72-hour parking regulations and Zonin g Code use provisions . Such parking regulation has been implemented effectively in other cities , some examples of which are listed below . In each instance, enforcement efforts and effectivenes s will vary . With the type of regulatory options outlined, there are permitting mechanisms to allo w for some parking of oversized vehicles for limited periods of time or for limited purposes, shoul d the Council be inclined to develop a permitting program . Changes to the Municipal Code to provide more effective parking enforcement measures coul d include the following : 1) Establish a City ordinance that prohibits overnight parking of recreational or othe r oversized vehicles on all City streets . Exceptions could be addressed through a permitting process by allowing parking for a limited number of days per year or a limited number of vehicles at a given time . Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 6 2)Establish two-hour or overnight parking limits surrounding areas impacted by vehicl e storage or overnight camping, such as Prado Road . 3)Establish a parking zone that prevents Recreational Vehicle parking within a certai n distance to specified locations, such as schools, parks, and shelters . The California Vehicle Code § 22507 provides cities with the authority to regulate the stopping , parking or standing of vehicles on streets, provided adequate notice of the regulations to th e public . This notice is most easily and frequently accomplished through signage . Thus, the City can regulate parking on city streets by adopting an ordinance prohibiting the parking of certai n types of vehicles that park in certain defined areas, and for specific times of the day an d providing requisite public notice of such restrictions . Santa Barbara, in conjunction with its off-street safe parking programs, prohibits overnigh t parking of trailers, semi-trailers, buses, mobile homes, and any vehicle with a 3/4-ton cargo capacity on any city street between the hours of 2 :00 a .m . and 6 :00 a .m . of any day . Sant a Barbara additionally prohibits overnight parking of recreational vehicles in a defined area nea r beaches between the hours of 12 :00 midnight and 6 :00 in the morning . Lastly, Santa Barbar a prohibits the parking of recreational vehicles within 500 feet of schools, churches, homeles s shelters, and parks . Ventura prohibits these types of vehicles from parking on public street s Monday to Friday from 10 a .m . to 4 p .m . in both residential and business areas . While Santa Barbara posts signs to regulate parking in specific areas or streets, other cities lik e Ventura post signs at all of the entrances to the city that indicate parking of oversized vehicle s and unattached trailers is prohibited on all city streets per its ordinance . These codes articulat e exceptions for commercial vehicles delivering goods or providing services . Many of thes e municipal codes use parking citations as the method of enforcing these regulations with fines o f $112 to $125 . In discussions with other cities regarding their experience with similar parking regulations , common issues were identified . First, neighborhood specific regulation often displaces th e parking problem the regulation was meant to address to another location . Once a parkin g regulation is posted in a certain location, the vehicles are moved to another street that is no t regulated . This results in having to expand the regulations to more areas or streets . This has caused cities to establish a citywide parking permit system to allow some on-street parking b y property owners and their tenants for oversize vehicles . Second, most cities enforce these regulations "by complaint only" due to limited resources or because of concerns from resident s or local business interests who believe the parking restriction was unnecessary . Third, som e cities have experienced legal challenges concerning their regulations from groups focused o n protecting the rights of the homeless population . Fourth, parking regulations require th e installation of signs to notify motorists of the parking regulations . Signage required to ensure the enforceability of City wide parking regulation is costly an d requires on-going maintenance . The current cost to purchase and install a signpost and sign by an outside contractor can be as high as $400 per sign according to recent City projects . Th e minimum requirement for posting of City wide restrictions would be at each and every entranc e coming into the City which could cost as much as $10,000 to $15,000 . Area specific regulation Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 7 or adding signage at locations other than entrances to the City would increase that cost . Conversely, using the minimum number of signs could result in visitors being ticketed an d claiming that they never saw a sign, increasing appeals and staff resource demands . The City can either change existing Municipal Code sections or establish new codes to addres s the stopping, parking, and standing of certain type of vehicles in San Luis Obispo . Both option s would likely require additional resources and funding to provide for public notice (signs). Moreover, dependent on the scope of new street parking regulations, additional staff may b e required for enforcement and additional permit programs may be necessary or desirable . If the City decides to establish a permit system that allows for limited parking of oversize d vehicles, trailers, or recreational vehicles, a process would need to be developed to issue, monito r and enforce permit violations . The City would need to determine uniform, objective criteria fo r the permit process, such as the length of time a permit is valid, where it is valid, and how man y times a year or days within a year a permit can be issued, as well as the bases on which permit s can be issued . Further analysis would be required to determine the precise amount of funding o r staffing augmentation that would be needed to implement an oversized vehicle permit program . If directed by the City Council, staff will evaluate parking programs and Municipal cod e amendments that could augment or replace existing zoning and parking regulations to bette r address concerns with sleeping in vehicles and storage of vehicles on public streets . In the course of developing a program, staff will evaluate all aspects of this issue, including th e following : 1)Should the City amend parking restrictions on public streets to limit the overnigh t parking of RVs and/or other oversized vehicles as other cities have done? If so, what ar e the parameters ? a . Staff believes an ordinance that limits the ability of RV parking on City street s could significantly mitigate overnight camping and the associated adverse healt h and safety impacts mentioned . This issue is present in the area surrounding th e Prado Day center, as well as other areas of the City . If an ordinance were create d to limit the ability to park RVs on City streets, it would reduce the number o f complaints within the City and reduce the need for 72-hour notice in many areas . Temporary permitting for short periods of time could be evaluated for visitor s utilizing RVs while visiting San Luis Obispo that do not have access to privat e property (e .g ., residential driveway). By limiting the number of permits and tim e associated with the permit it could help address the issue of long-term storage o f RVs on City streets and camping in RVs . 2)Should authority be given to the Public Works Director to restrict parking on a n emergency basis to address threats to public health and safety ? a. It may be advisable to consider allowing the Public Works Director upon advic e from the Police Chief to designate "No Parking" Zones if needed in extrem e circumstances similar to the current regulation that allows the Parks & Recreation Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 8 Director to close City Parks when illegal or dangerous behaviors warrant . However, this would be considered a temporary remedy for a defined area an d does not consider displacement to other areas of the City . 3) What is the appropriate avenue for public notification (i .e . signage) of these parkin g regulations ? a . This analysis would include an estimate of the type and number of signs that would be needed to make the new restrictions enforceable . The desire to regulate must be balanced with a signage and information program that 1) helps loca l residents understand why the focused regulations are needed ; 2) provide s adequate notice from a due process standpoint ; and 3) does not have th e appearance or effect of "trapping" unsuspecting motorists who may just b e visiting or passing through the City . The investment in signs and the ongoin g maintenance of those signs are significant costs, and the City should be prepare d for objections from residents who believe that stricter regulations are unnecessary . FISCAL IMPAC T Public Works, Community Development, City Attorney and Police Department staff time woul d be required to conduct research needed contingent on Council direction . Consideration of Work Program Impact s If Council decides to direct staff to revise the parking regulations in the Municipal Code, Publi c Works staff would need to consider which work items need to be reprioritized . The Parkin g Services staff is fully committed to existing work plan projects like the Major City Goal fo r Neighborhood Wellness, credit card meter project, Sunday parking implementation, Palm - Nipomo Parking Garage, Downtown Champion duties, new parking district implementation, a s well as several Parking Fund Capital Improvement Programs, just to name some of the highes t priorities . Staff is also processing one new residential parking district request for Highland Stree t and one expansion request for the Tassajara residential district . Staff believes that the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project is at a stage where some delay coul d be acceptable . New development Downtown continues to move forward at a slow pace, an d some opportunity exists to wait before proceeding into the environmental review phase of th e project . In addition, the processing of new parking district requests could be delayed if Counci l directs new regulation to become a priority . The revision to parking regulations within the Cit y could have an impact on the location and type of District requested ; therefore waiting to proces s new requests while Municipal Code changes are developed may provide some clarity and be o f some benefit . The Police Department has the capacity to conduct this research and analysis within existin g resources although some impacts may be realized . There will be limited impacts on departmenta l work plan items but there should be no significant impacts on the Department's ability to assis t or complete Major City Goals or Other Important Objectives outlined in the 2011-13 Financia l Plan . Consideration of Additional Public Street Parking Restrictions Page 9 ALTERNATIVES Take no action and utilize the existing municipal and state codes to address sleeping in vehicle s and camping . This is not recommended, as adverse health and safety impacts to the communit y will continue or intensify, threatening the welfare of both those using vehicles as dwellings i n addition to those experiencing impacts of illegal uses and behaviors in commercial an d residential areas . AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E 1 .Staff report with complete attachments for adoption of Ordinance No . Series) 1277 (199 5 2 .Prado Safe Parking Pilot Program Council Agenda Report 3-20-12 ATTACHMEN T 1995 Zoning code amendments and staff report . T:\Council Agenda Reports\2012\2012-05-01\CONSIDERATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERS E NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS OF LONG TERM PARKING OF VEHICLES AND USE OF VEHICLES AS HOUSING ON PUBLI C PROPERTY (Gesell-Horch)\Parking CAR 5-1-12.doc x Attachment 1~fp city of san Dais oBisp o ~COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE : .7 —7—9LITEM NUMBER :2 FROM: Arnold Jonas, ommunity Development Directo r BY :Judith Lautner sociate Planne r SUBJECT:TA 175-93 : Amendments to the zoning regulations to strengthen propert y maintenance provisions . CAO RECOMMENDATIO N Pass to print an ordinance concurring with the negative declaration of environmental impact an d amending the zoning regulations to clarify 'and expand existing regulations and to improve an d simplify enforcement procedures, based on findings listed in this report, as recommended by th e Planning Commission . Report-in-brief The City Council directed staff to draft property maintenance regulations, as part of a neighborhood enhancement program . A staff committee developed draft regulations, held a public workshop, and presented revised regulations to the Planning Commission on January 11 , 1995 . The regulations have been created primarily to address problems of visual blight i n residential and commercial neighborhoods, and include provisions to 1) regulate the use o f furniture, vehicles, equipment, and other items in street yards, 2) limit paving in front yards , 3) regulate the use of furniture and other equipment on roofs, 4) require maintenance of fences , 5) allow limited RV . camping in driveways, and 6) require maintenance of City-approve d landscaping . The Planning Commission held two meetings on the regulations, closing the public hearing a t the end of the first . Public testimony focussed on RV parking, paving restrictions, screenin g requirements, and the City's enforcement procedures . Many citizens objected to the prohibitio n of RVs in driveways, to the limit on paving in front yards, and to the complaint process . O n February 8, 1995, the Commission recommended approval of the regulations with amendment s to the RV parking provisions and the paving percentage, plus several minor word changes . Th e Commission preferred that the complaint process remain as is . DISCUSSIO N Backgroun d Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), a citywide neighborhood protection group , proposed a property maintenance ordinance in April 1992 . City staff held a public workshop to discuss the essence of that proposal and received a wide range of support from citizens , neighborhood groups, student groups, and property management businesses . The City Counci l has long expressed an interest in helping to maintain and improve residential neighborhoods, an d set a goal in both the 1993-95.budget and the 1994 Land Use Element (LUE) to adopt propert y maintenance regulations . 2 —1 B1-10 Attachment 1 Ia 1 ► city of san his osisp o IMMITA7gpUNCIL AGENDA REPOR T Property maintenance regulation s Page 2 Staff reviewed many ordinances, including the draft presented by RQN, prior to developing th e proposed regulations amendments . We met with interested groups several times and held a public workshop . The Planning Commission reviewed the regulations on January 11 and o n February 8, and at its second meeting recommended approval of the proposal with som e amendments . The Planning Commission-amended proposal is attached to this report . Data Summary Address :Citywid e Applicant :City of San Luis Obispo (City Council ) Zoning :Regulations affect all zones General Plan :All Land Use Element designation s Environmental status : Negative declaration with mitigation granted by the Director o n December 8, 1994 Project action deadline :No State-mandated deadlines for legislative action s Project descriptio n The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining of processing to make i t easier for the City to require maintenance of both commercial and residential property . The expansion includes the addition of a new chapter to the zoning regulations (chapter 17 .17) plu s modifications to several existing code sections . Primary elements of the regulations are : o Screening requirement .A requirement that any furniture, large vehicles, boats, trailers , and various materials, that are stored outside, be screened from public view, with som e notable exceptions . "Screening" means hidden from public view or behind a 6'-hig h fence or hedge, where otherwise allowed . o Paving limitation .A percentage limit on the amount of paving allowed in front yards . o Roofing storage limits .A limitation on what can be placed on roofs .- 0 Fence maintenance.A requirement that fencing be maintained in good condition . Visiting RV limits . A time limit on how long a recreational vehicle may "camp" in a driveway, while the campers are visiting the residents of the home . o Prohibition of RV as dwelling . A clarification that the use of recreational vehicles o r campers as permanent dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds or mobile hom e parks . o Landscape maintenance requirement .A requirement that yards with City-require d B1-11 Attachment 1mullcityofsan Luis oBisp o 111ftithROUNCIL AGENDA REPOR T Property maintenance regulation s Page 3 landscape plans be maintained in accordance with those plans . The proposed regulations also include new enforcement provisions, 1) making violations of th e regulations an infraction, and 2) allowing private parties to pursue a private cause of action t o remedy code violations . These provisions are intended to make enforcement simpler and les s expensive for the City . Evaluation 1 . The Land Use Element calls for property maintenance regulations . Goals in the recently-adopted Land Use Element include : 28.Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live ... 29.° Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as par t of a neighborhood pattern . 36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation an d other daily activities . These general goals are further developed in the programs . Section 2 .10 in the Land Us e Element lists these programs : 2 .10 Updating &Enforcing Standard s 2 .10.1 The City will review, revise if deemed desirable, and enforce noise, parking, and property-development and property -maintenance standards . Staff to adequately enforc e these standards will be provided . 2.10.2 The City will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations, focused o n proper enclosure of trash, appearance ofyards and buildings from the street, and storag e of vehicles . The regulations will be periodically reviewed and updated. The proposed regulations are part of the implementation of these programs . 2 .Fmdings can be made .To approve amendments to the zoning regulations requires onl y that the Council find that the amendments are consistent with the general plan and tha t they will not cause significant harm to the environment. The discussion under sectio n 1, above ("The land use element ...") indicates that the first finding can be made . The environmental initial study (attached) concludes that the amendments will cause n o significant harm to the environment . -3 B1-12 Attachment 1 ►:h~IN city of san Luis oBispo '7WUNCIL AGENDA REPOR T Property maintenance regulation s Page 4 3 . Why regulate these particular areas?The specific provisions were chosen becaus e a). The City receives numerous complaints yearly about conditions that are visibl e from the street (storage of furniture in yards, broken fences, boats in driveways) and tha t may pose health or safety problems (RVs camping in driveways,people living in campers). Current regulations make many of these neighborhood problems difficult an d time-consuming to solve . b)The intent is to get the most for the least . This means that an enforcement office r can 1) determine quickly if a violation exists, 2) explain the situation to -the violato r easily ; and 3) later determine quickly if the problem has been corrected . Focus was o n situations that most citizens would agree are detrimental to neighborhoods . 4 . What's included .Included in the package are the following specific regulations : a)Paving percentage limit.The regulations limit paved areas in front yards to n o more than 40% of the yard area . "Front yards" are specifically defined to include al l that area between residential buildings and the street property line, and are illustrated i n Exhibit A, Figure 1 . The paving limit includes area within driveways, sidewalks, patios , and any other impermeable surfaces . The intent of this regulation is to preven t residential yards from being completely paved over . However, because there are yard s with significant percentages of hard surfaces that are attractive and compatible, th e regulations provide a simple exception process . Exceptions may be requested an d approved by letter to the Community Development Director . Staff chose a percentage approach because it is easy to measure paved surfaces an d compare them with the front yard area . Staff initially proposed 50% as the maximu m amount of paving allowed . Representatives of a neighborhood group requested that the limit be set at 30% instead . The Planning Commission opted for 40%, after determinin g that 40% on a typical 50'-wide lot (minimum in the R-1 zone) would allow constructio n of a 16'-wide driveway and four-foot-wide walkway . Additional paving would requir e an exception . b)Screening requirement .The proposed regulations (see section 17 .17 .040) say that certain items, including motorhomes, furniture, and boats, must-be screened from publi c view . In residential areas, these items will be considered screened if they are not visibl e from a public right-of-way or are behind a six-foot fence or hedge "where otherwis e allowed". Six-foot hedges and fences are normally only allowed at the street setback lin e (20' from the street property line in R-1 and R-2 zones, 15' in R-3 and R-4). Thi s regulation effectively requires such objects to be outside of the streetyard and to b e screened from view . B1-13 Attachment 1 * 111IN D city of san LUI s OBI SPO OUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Property maintenance regulations Page 5 This means that these objects and vehicles will be allowed on residential lots, bu t generally not in streetyards and not unless they are behind a six-foot fence . Staff considered prohibiting these objects altogether, but felt that the preferred approach is on e that allows the citizen some use of his or her lot for storage, but mitigates the effects o f that storage to an acceptable level . Screening requirements such as this one ar e consistent with regulations in many other cities and might be considered "standard practice". Some citizens and Planning Commissioners felt that the screening requirement force s residents to fence each other off . However, as stated in the Feb . 8 PC report, the goa l is to screen outdoor storage . If a resident chooses to store items in view of a publi c right-of-way, those items should be screened . The screening requirement is an optio n available to residents who do not wish to store large items off their lots . The Planning Commission exempted recreational vehicles and trailers from the screenin g requirement, as long as they are currently registered and are parked in a driveway . Th e initial proposal to limit RV parking in driveways was the issue of greatest concern t o members of the public and to Planning Commissioners (see Jan . 11 and Feb . 8 minutes , attached). c)RV camping .The regulations will allow visitors of residents to park RV's in th e residents' driveways for up to three days (72 hours). Electricity and water connection s can be made to the residence, but such cords or hoses must not cross sidewalks. Thi s provision codifies a common practice, but provides standards and limits . At the Planning Commission hearing (January 11), citizens expressed concern with th e 72-hour limit, saying that this is too short a time for visitors from 'far .away (see Januar y 11 minutes). The Planning Commission concurred with staff that longer time period s would make enforcement more difficult and that travellers can make use of loca l campgrounds for longer stays . d)The 72-hour rule .All of the prohibited acts listed in the regulations becom e violations after 72 hours . The three-day period is intended to limit complaints to thos e violations that are on their way to becoming permanent . The period is short enough t o assure that violations do not become a neighborhood nuisance . At the Planning Commission hearing, citizens testified that enforcement of this provisio n could create a hardship for residents or property owners who are not in town when th e violation is cited . While the notice of violation may be sent only three days after a sit e inspection, the date set for any court hearing will be at least 30 days later, an d enforcement staff will make every effort to contact the responsible parties prior to a hearing . Therefore, it is unlikely that action will be taken on a violation without th e a-s B1-14 Attachment 1 14 1KIIlo§ city of san tuffs oBlsp o 1 UNCIL AGENDA REPORT B1-1 5 Property maintenance regulation s Page 6 knowledge of the property owner or resident .(See additional discussion in the Cit y Attorney office memorandum, attached .) e)Enforcement simplified .The proposal specifies that violations will be treated a s infractions . Currently, all violations of the Municipal Code that are not otherwis e specified are treated as misdemeanors . The misdemeanor process is longer and mor e cumbersome than the infraction process . The changes should allow faster action by th e code enforcement officer and therefore violations are expected to be corrected sooner . The proposal further allows ,for private actions to be taken by citizens who are dissatisfied with the City's process or order of priorities . At the Planning Commission hearing, citizens and Commissioners expressed concern about the City's enforcement process . Some felt that the complaint process "pit s neighbor against neighbor" and that complainants' names should be made public . Others felt that violations should be cited by enforcement officers acting on their own, rathe r than from complaints . The .City's complaint process is long-established and has met the need for cost-effectiv e enforcement . Complaints are part of the "random" process by which the City is mad e aware of code violations . Complainants' names are confidential to protect th e complainants from retaliation . The Planning Commission made no recommendation t o change this practice . (See additional discussion in the February 8 PC report and the Cit y Attorney memorandum, attached .) 5 . Some groups and citizens would like the regulations to go farther .Concerned citizens have indicated that they would like some provisions to be strengthened : a)Landscaping .Some citizens.would like the regulations to address a wider range o f landscaping maintenance concerns . The proposed regulations say only that thos e properties that have City-required landscaping must be maintained in accordance wit h landscape plans . Some citizens would like to see a way to require dirt yards to b e planted, to have grass mowed regularly, to have trees and shrubs pruned, and to hav e weeds removed . Staff considered ways to require regular yard maintenance of all property . However , without extensive, detailed regulations, subjective judgment is required to determin e when a yard is properly maintained and when it is not . Enforcement time on policin g yards could become enormous . Staffs review of regulations by other cities revealed tha t most cities rely on weed abatement provisions similar to San Luis Obispo's, and do no t address non-hazardous weeds, dirt yards, or slightly-tall grasses . Staff also has concern s about enforcing landscaping provisions that will result in additional water use, given th e drought-prone nature of the community . .2-6 4 Attachment 1 city of san La's OBI sp oDUNCIL AGENDA REPOR T Property maintenance regulations Page 7 b)Screening .Some citizens oppose the proposed "screening" rule, saying that larg e items would be visible above a 6'-high fence and should be required to be screene d completely or removed from the lot . Others feel that even rear yards should b e maintained so as to be attractive to neighbors . As noted above, staff's position is tha t the screening requirement is reasonable and should be satisfactory to most residents , while not creating an unreasonable burden on owners of boats or other large items . Maintenance requirements for back yards has been left out of these regulations becaus e of the emphasis on appearance from the street . c)Large trucks .Some neighborhood groups would like to see large trucks (over 6 tons ) prohibited from residential neighborhoods altogether . Staff is sympathetic to this request , and initially developed draft language to that effect . However, further research reveale d that the Municipal Code already prohibits night-time parking of such vehicles on streets (MC Section 10 .36 .150), and in some areas (the Laguna neighborhood) these large truck s are prohibited at any time . Further, State law requires that such laws be posted on al l affected streets, or on all streets not so affected, whichever is easier (the Laguna street s are posted in accordance with the State law). Creating and maintaining such signag e could become a headache for the Public Works Department . Because our curren t regulations should be effective in most large-truck situations, staff eliminated this ite m from the regulations . Now that staff has become aware of the overnight parkin g prohibition, enforcement of that code will be stepped up . ALTERNATIVE S The Council may, by motion, deny the amendments . The Council may continue action, with direction to staff . The Council may approve the ordinance with amendments . .FISCAL IMPAC T Enforcement of the proposed regulations is not expected to make additional demands on eithe r code enforcement or police personnel . Improvements in code language and enforcemen t techniques are expected to save time and money, allowing existing staff to handle a large r number of violations is the same amount of time . Attached : o Draft ordinance o City Attorney office memorandu m o February 8 Planning Commission report o Table 1 : status of existing codes o Environmental initial study o Letters from citizens and groups o Planning Commission minutes : January 11 and February 8,1995 B1-16 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO .(1995 SERIES ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT TO STRENGTHEN AND EXPAN D EXISTING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARD S (TA 175-93 ) WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to conside rthe zoning text amendment request TA 175-93, adding a new sectio nand amending various other sections of the Zoning Regulations ; an d WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings ; Findings :. 1.The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, an d specifically with policies for residential areas in the Land Us e Element . 2.An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by th e Community Development Department on December 8, 1994, tha t describes environmental impacts associated with the text changes . The Community Development Director, on December 8, 1994, reviewe d the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaratio n of environmental impact, with mitigation . The initial stud y concludes that the project will not have a significant advers e impact on the environment,and the City Council hereby adopts th e Negative Declaration and finds that the Negative Declaratio n reflects the independent judgement of the City Council . BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo as follows : SECTION 1 .Environmental determination .The Cit y council finds and determines that the project's Negativ e Declaration of environmental impact adequately addresses th e potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zonin g text change, and reflects the independent judgement of the Cit y Council . The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration . SECTION 2 . Chapter 17 .17 is hereby added to the zonin g regulations, to read as shown on Exhibit A, attached . SECTION 3 . Chapter 17 .04 is hereby amended to includ e the following definitions : ii:At~)F:T.~~••`•Sf:•.Y..!!!:rtST.w..~.r!:}iYJw .w};:5}}~.wrwMi.~!',0 • Attachment 1 Ordinance no .(1995 Series ) TA 175-93 : Citywid e Page 2 :arga :::v„t'!~'fi:~t57s:.a+:•-wR:s~~,r~i;Wr ~:~.y:M~w:?a:~t;M~:~yyMrt~w H:s:r • {:..~....ww .~.~w.y~• {w,tw .,~.,~w,,.iii:.w.Ap:?i:•:ww;.~a;.5; ~ ~...t..w.}w._.a....wn ~}:.:...{•}M~?.:{::•i:Y}}'Ctiv.,v : f:r}:4}•.{{•}}:}}}}}ri•}:%•i::.??.:}:ifr: \v}.:i}ii:•..v}::vi):~i:<~i ::}i}::i}}}:::fi}:vv:::::{Ktii•: i44 :•}}}}:Jx:.,V:;.vnAY???•:L4:?i?v:?v}kv :::::::i\A•.v.,•nv:.:v::i??ti?•:}:}}:•:: r:0n1\1::}:??6}:<t,.::•}4:v}:'::i4Y.?•}}}: }.bi::k :-:SY •:5:::~::>r.:< SECTION 4 . Section 17 .08 .O10 .0 is hereby amended t o include the addition of the following : SECTION 5 . Chapter 17 .16 is hereby amended to includ e the following addition : _.:.~ cif! ~ t~~aE`:::::>:` • t~'~_.:•::;<:z::d>;::<c ay~j :::~x : ::;::<, :} :~z y : :•,<~ : :I~ :.»j»»:z ::z •iiittii MkiS::~y:`~ :~..dd~~ :E2:~~;i w! !~~~w:.ia~::;:'.:':,({,,>:}}~•:.~~:::.{~~;yy;~;. •4 :. the,`{ice i? c<:?:}nyctir,.???:} -g,.,-+,»::w}c~ti}»my:;M!.yra:?:}w;,:;::}::}»•,.w•R Vew:••ww,x!.y,»}5}}:7 ..>:....:.::>f}5 :,::i}ir:iii}5:?.ii:}:?•}i>r :•}}::•;:}:?•::::::::i:•:;•}}:•}:{?.}:?.:,?•}}}}}}>:•}:?•>i}:?,: }>}:{•>:;•:?•:::. ...:.--.:...W.kW y..L51.LL.r ;,M(11:Y:.Ir:~:?~4?d<•~Yr?v o~}fit:}x .}};l{{{}n:•:;}~•,',{•y .1 (1 .•':::+1~':T:;M,Y,.},~,~,,,,.~,:i:}:17,.iF1FZFF:iM ::',y C ':'<'l ::` SECTION 6 .Section 17 .16 .020 .C .3 is hereby amended t o read : 3 .Allyardoshall be landooapcd ormaintained inan ordcr l :::~:y;;.`:::44R~'.:4+:i3•'•E'%y!!%:1 ::Rrli :'s'sCf Jt::SJ%~>i 7:.i::C•.ti,S,4T:,►~,;.!.~i~'':!.~.y!S;•:flE;jp[E7;3•.S~`::Jl{4x:,{,•#.~:..:.£Li .ateisii:Ep'sE:~.:..::t ;~i:::::::~:!~:: {...~:::: SECTION 7 . A summary of this ordinance, together wit h the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall b e published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage,in 410the Telegram-Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in thi s city . This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration o f thirty (30) days after its final passage . BI-1§2-9 Attachment 1 .Ordinance no .(1995 Series ) TA 175-93 : Citywid e Page 3 INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the Cit y of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of ,1995,on motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT : Mayo r ATTEST : City Cler k APPROVED : O • B1-19 .:2-/D Page intentionally lef t blank .