HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/12/09 Item 11• COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11
Meeting Date 12/9/86
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of amendments to Title 10 and
Title 19 of the hunicipal Code regarding the parking, storage
and repair of vehicles on public and private property -
PCA-86-7
Ordinance ~=~~~ ~ Amending Title 10 and Title 19 of the
Municipal Code regarding the parking, storage and repair of
vehicles on public and private property
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager f1~~~~~,; (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
In 1983, the City Council adopted a general community appearance policy and
program for the City of Chula Vista. The idea was to address aesthetic
enhancement by controlling where vehicles might park in the front yards of
homes and businesses both on public and private property. Vehicles included
• cars, trucks, boats, campers and camper shells, and recreational vehicles.
In 1985, the Council expressed concern as to whether current ordinances were
adequate, if any enforcement was occurring, and whether the program was
effective. Issues raised included cars and recreational vehicles.
Staff acknowledged that present regulations were in some cases vague,
inconsistent and/or difficult to enforce. As a result, several draft
amendments to the Municipal Code were presented to the Council and
subsequently referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and
recommendation. The Commission originally considered the proposed amendments
in workshop session on July 10, 1985.
On February 5, 1986, the Montgomery Planning Committee, by a vote of 6-O,
recommended that (1) the proposed amendments to Title 10, the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, be continued until the Committee could convene a workshop to
further consider their effect on Montgomery, and (2) the proposed amendments
to Title 19, the Zoning Ordinance portion of the Municipal Code, not be
considered for application to Montgomery until a specific plan is adopted for
the area.
As you may recall, until a specific plan is adopted for the area, the
I~ontvcsmery Community is subject to the County rather than the City Zoning
Ordinance (Title 19). The subject amendments to Title 19 would not apply to
the Montgomery Community, unless conflicts with County ordinances were created.
•
• Page 2, Item 11
Meeting Date 12/9%86
On February 26, 1986, the Planning Commission held a hearing of the proposed
draft ordinance and concluded that it was unacceptable as written. The City
Council subsequently continued the item and asked that a task force be
formed. The purpose of the task force was to work with City staff and see if
a compromise could be reached which might enhance community appearance and at
the same time be more acceptable to all factions of the community - vehicle
users as well as adjoining neighbors.
A workshop group of 15 citizens was appointed to review the draft, define and
discuss the issues and look at alternatives. As input, the Committee
considered the resident views expressed at the prior public hearing, the views
of those residents who monitored the meetings of the task force, and Planning,
Police and Traffic Engineering staff. The Committee has met twice a month
since the end of June. Each item of the ordinance was discussed and language
offered. Exhibit "A" attached represents the efforts of staff and the
Committee to reach an acceptable compromise ordinance. The Committee held a
public hearing of their own on September 22, 1986, before formulating their
final recommendations.
An Initial Study, IS-86-29, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project, was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on February 16,
1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and recommend that the Negative Declaration
be adopted. The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the latest draft
(Exhibit A) and again concluded that no significant environmental effects
would result, thus a recommendation to adopt the Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-29.
2. Enact an ordinance amending Title 10 and Title 19 of the Municipal
Code as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On October 22, 1986, the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-0 (3 members
absent) recommended the adoption of the amendment as listed in attached
Exhibit "A." Except the Planning Commission concluded that:
1. Commercial vehicles (cab portion) should be allowed in residential
areas if parked behind a 6 ft. high solid fence.
2. A no fee charge for anyone appealing the Zoning Administrator's
decision to the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
• The sections of the Municipal Code that relate to the parking of vehicles in
the front yard setback are found under Title 10 and Title 19. These sections
are presently confusing and difficult to enforce because they neither define
what constitutes a vehicle nor who (City staff, Planning Commission, Council,
or homeowner) may designate an area to be improved and used for parking.
• Page 3, Item 11
Meeting Date 12/9/86
The City Attorney has indicated that under current Code provisions, the
general definition of a vehicle as a "self-propelled conveyance" has to be
used. This would exclude boat trailers, camping trailers, etc. As an
alternative, the City Attorney recommends that rather than using the word
vehicle, that specific words like vehicle, boat, vacation trailer, camping
trailer, boat trailer, camper, recreational vehicle, etc. be inserted. In
addition, he suggests that the term "designated area" be changed to "area
designated and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Thus, the proposed amendments would more clearly define what may or may not be
parked or placed in front yard areas and the limits of such areas used for
these purposes. Trailers, boats, recreational and camping trailers, would be
permitted in such areas along with automobiles and recreational vehicles (see
parking synopsis attached for comparison with other agencies). On the other
hand, non-mounted camper shells would be prohibited from being stored in front
yard areas for more than 72 hours regardless of whether that area is paved or
not. These items would have to be stored within a garage or carport, in rear
or side yard areas (fenced exterior yards) or in off-site storage yards.
Another issue that has not been addressed previously, but that is equally
significant, is the parking of semi-truck tractors on residential driveways.
Until recently, it was generally believed that the Code did not prohibit
parking. However, the City Attorney has recently ruled that Section
10.52.090, which prohibits parking of commercial vehicles (with a gross weight
in excess of 10,000 lbs.) in residential areas for more than five hours,
includes parking on driveways. A proposed amendment has been added to clarify
a prohibition of vehicles in excess of 12,000 lbs. and used for commercial
purposes would be limited to 5 hours within a residential district.
It is also proposed that our zoning enforcement personnel be given citation
authority in order to make our enforcement of various regulations more
efficient. Citations could be issued 72 hours after warnings were given to
correct the violation. The current practice of giving repeated letters of
warning, followed by a formal complaint through the City Attorney's office, is
time consuming and inefficient. A number of cities in San Diego County
(Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, Vista, Santee, and San Diego) and
most of the cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties have instituted the
citation process and have founded it much more effective.
Finally, it is proposed that existing locational criteria which apply to the
repair of vehicles would also apply to other vehicles such as boats, campers,
trailers.
The following represents a brief synopsis of the present Code requirements and
proposed changes.
Section 10.52.040 Stopping, standing, or parking within or on parkways
pro ~ i to .
• Present ordinance permits parking of a vehicle but doesn't cover other private
property located within this public right-of-way area. Ordinance change will
clarify and prohibit such parking; no changes from original draft.
• Page 4, Item 11
Meeting Date 129/86
Section 10.52.090 Commercial vehicles parking in residential districts
prohibited when.
Present Code restricts commercial vehicles in excess of 10,000 lbs. from
parking in a residential district for more than 5 hours.
Since majority of trucks used for pleasure secure commercial license plates,
the Committee recommended the language be clarified to prohibit any vehicle
used primarily for commercial purposes. Note: Weight increased to 12,000
lbs. and exempt vehicles providing a service or loading/unloading.
Section 10.84.020 Parking prohibited on portions of private property.
Present ordinance requires a vehicle to be parked on a paved surface
designated for parking if located within front setback area.
Proposed ordinance adds trailers, boats and recreational vehicles to the
section but allows parking to occur on dust-free areas within 10 feet of a
paved driveway or as authorized by the City's Zoning Administrator. The
Section goes on to state that unmounted campers and camper shells may not be
placed in the front yard for more than 72 hours. The proposed amendment would
make it legal to locate several vehicles and/or boats/trailers within the
front yard or on adjacent to the driveway. Section 19.62.150 of the Municipal
Code limits the maximum area to be used to 50% of the lot width. Further, any
proposal to park on the opposite side of the drive would take separate site
plan approval by the City's Zoning Administrator. The significance of this
ordinance amendment is the prohibition of a vehicle parking lengthwise across
the front of a lot, or multiple vehicles parking indiscriminately on the
property, or the placing of unmounted camper shells in the front yard for any
extended period of time.
Section 10.84.030 Citation of vehicles parked in prohibited areas.
Citation authority expanded from issuing citations of vehicles on private
property to those parked within parkway area. Warning period extended from 24
hours to 72 hours.
Section 19.58.260 Repair of vehicles.
This section covers repair of vehicles on private property. Ordinance
expanded to include boats, trailer, campers. The present Ordinance restricts
repair to inside of a totally enclosed garage. Ordinance modified to include
carport and delete total enclosed garage plus clean up, simplify and
consolidate the language in this section.
Storage outside of garage or carport authorized for a 72 hour period.
•
•
Page 5, Item ll _
Meeting Date 12/9/86
Section 19.62.110 Limitations on areas to be used.
Section clarified by Ref. 10.84.020 and 19.62.150 with authorization specified
by the Zoning Administrator. This would allow the Zoning Administrator,
subject to review of a plot plan, to authorize without charge, parking of
vehicles on the opposite side of the lot. Vehicles otherwise in violation of
the Code would have to comply or apply for variance relief.
Section 19.62.150 Residential parking - front/exterior setback restrictions -
generally.
Clarification only, retain 50% maximum use of front yard or exterior for
parking.
Section 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter.
New chapter adds citation power to Zoning Enforcement Officers after 72 hour
warning issuance. This section will save the City considerable time and money
now spent by the City Attorney's office in trying to achieve ordinance
compliance. The citation procedure is used by a number of municipalities in
the county, including San Diego County.
Montgomery Area
• Earlier this year, the original draft ordinance was presented to the
Montgomery Planning Committee noting that Section 10 of the Municipal Code
would apply to Montgomery whereas changes to Section 19 (the Zoning
Regulations) would not apply since Montgomery is still governed by the County
Zoning Regulations.
Since that presentation, staff has had the opportunity to research the effects
of the proposed amendments to Section 19 and have found that they should apply
to Montgomery to avoid conflicts with existing County sections.
For example, Section 6799 of the County Zoning Regulations presently prohibits
the parking of commercially licensed vehicles in excess of one ton capacity in
residential zones and Section 6787(c) prohibits any parking in the front or
exterior side yard. The County presently has citation power. To avoid any
conflicts and to ensure consistent zoning enforcement on a city-wide basis, we
are proposing to repeal both sections and impose the City regulations in their
place (see copy of ordinance attached).
DISCUSSION:
After hearing testimony on the draft ordinance, the Planning Commission
proposed two amendments. The first involved recommending the adoption of
Subsection "C" to Section 10.52.090 which would allow an owner to park a
semi-tractor car on private property behind the front or exterior side yard if
• sc reened by a 6' high solid fence.
• Page 6, Item 11
Meeting Date 12/9j$S
The Planning Department is still opposed to bringing commercial vehicles into
the residential neighborhood for any permanent parking arrangement. The size
and noise of such vehicles is incompatible with residential living.
The second recommended change suggested by the Planning Commission was to
amend Section 10.84.020 (Subsection 4) to allow more discretion on the part of
the Zoning Administrator in arriving at alternative parking solutions. In
addition, a no-fee charge was recommended for any appeal of the Zoning
Administrator to the Planning Commission.
Staff is of the opinion that the added flexibility given the Zoning
Administrator will help resolve issues without going through costly and time
consuming public hearings; however, if appeals are not controlled via the fee
process, the process tends to be abused and costs to the City could be
substantial.
Implementation
With the passage of this ordinance it is the department's intent to meet with
Zoning Enforcement, Police Traffic Engineer and the Public Work Department to
coordinate and effectuate an implementation program.
It is staff's intent to use warning notices for the first 90 days of the new
• ordinance thus withhold citations until the public becomes fully aware and
familiar with the ordinance contents.
Ongoing enforcement beyond the initial 90 day grace period will likely be
conducted primarily on a complaint basis. However, enforcement officers in
the field will make every effort to achieve compliance of substantive
violations. The implementation program will also establish priorities and a
systematic method of achieving the community appearance objectives.
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendation by the Planning Commission for no fees on
appeals would cause the City to absorb costs for advertising, notification of
neigi~bors, and staff time. Most of the ordinance changes reflect either a
clean-up of language or an expansion of enforcement by staff which should
reduce processing time and dollars now expended by the City.
WPC 3360P
r~
!/ /~ (, ~ ~
by the City Co~~ncil of
Chula Vista, California
?°_~`-a'
~~-f? ~
by the City Council of
Chula Vista, California
Dated ~c1=~~~i