HomeMy WebLinkAbout042198 CC/PC Jnt. AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-
6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title
II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 21, 1998 - 8:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ron Roberts presiding
Councilmember Stone
Councilmembers:
Planning Commissioners:
Comerchero, Ford, Lindemans, Stone,
Roberts
Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and
Fahey
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda,
a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak"
form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a
five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council/Commission on matters not on the agenda
will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to
these reports.
R:\Agenda\042198 1
CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 Review of the City's Built Environment
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive the staff report and provide direction.
2 Temporary Sign Enforcement Program
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Authorize a proactive Temporary Sign Enforcement Program.
Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive the staff report and provide direction.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular City Council meeting: April 28, 1998, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Next regular Planning Commission meeting: May 6, 1998, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda\042198 2
ITEM
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROV~,/,/~--'--
CITY ATTORNEY I/yvv~
DIRECTOR OF FINA ,l~E.v ~
CITY MANAGER ..~;f /
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director'
April 21, 1998
Review of the City's Built Environment; How are we doing?
Prepared By:
RECOMMENDATION:
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
The Planning Department recommends that the City Council and
Planning Commission receive staff's presentation and provide
direction.
BACKGROUND
City staff has been implementing the new General Plan and
Development Code for several
years now. We would like to take this opportunity to review with the Council and Commission
how well we (staff, Commission, and Council) are doing with respect to shaping the City's built
environment. In other words, which projects have turned out well and create a desirable and
liveable community, and which projects have not been as successful has we would have hoped.
Staff hopes to receive comments and direction in the following areas:
· Architectural styles within the City;
· Landscaping issues;
· Project presentation to the street;
· Site layout; and,
· Overall community quality.
Photographs of a number of projects will be presented for your review and comment. Staff
expects to use the Council and Commission's feedback in the City's development review
process to continue to implement our long range goals.
R:\STAFFRPT\HOW ARE.CC1 4/13/98 dwb 1
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
FINANCE OFFICEI~~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council/Planning Commission
Anthony J. Elmo'~
Chief Building Official
April 21, 1998
Temporary Sign Enforcement Program
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council of the City of Temecula authorize a proactive
Temporary Sign Enforcement Program as described in Exhibit "A".
BACKGROUND: During the period of time between July 6, 1992 and October 27, 1992,
the City Council and the Planning Commission considered and subsequently adopted Ordinance
92-16, which modified Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, and the standards which govern
the display of temporary signs. Ordinance 92-16 was again amended by Ordinance 93-12 in
1993, amending a certain subsection which deals with promotional, grand opening and interim
signage. In 1994, further amendments were made to make Ordinance 92-16 and 93-12
consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan and to reduce the regulation of temporary window
signs.
DISCUSSION: The Code Enforcement Division of the Building and Safety Department is
responsible for the enforcement of temporary signage. Code Enforcement operates, generally,
on a reactive basis in all its enforcement responsibilities. Temporary sign enforcement is
handled the same way. Staff responds to complaints about alleged illegal temporary signage
use which are generally received from businesses competing for the same customer market.
This typically creates the "1'11 do it if they also have to do it" syndrome. This reactive
approach, only provides staff with limited effectiveness dealing with temporary sign violations.
The city is experiencing a proliferation of temporary sign usage amongst the business
community. Staff feels that a comprehensive temporary sign abatement program, designed to
deal in a fair and equitable manner with all businesses, is necessary to be effective. Staff is
proposing a proactive sign abatement program, "Exhibit A", to accomplish this task. The
proactive approach is a departure from the current reactive approach policy and is, therefore,
being brought before you for your consideration and support.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staffing is currently adequate to implement this program. At this time, no
additional staffing, or funds, are necessary for this program.
R:\BROCKMEI\AGENDA\TEMPSIGN.WPD 4/13/98 cb
EXHIBIT "A'
Temporary Sign Abatement Program
1. Advertisement - Staff will notify the Chamber of Commerce and the news media to request
their assistance in notifying the business community of the proposed Temporary Sign
Abatement Program.
2. Workshops - Two (2) advertised workshops will be held, in two (2) consecutive weeks, for
the business community to go over the temporary sign regulations, and for staff to answer any
questions regarding this program.
3. Survey - Staff will systematically survey the city and record businesses that are displaying
temporary signage without benefit of the required permits, or approval.
4. First Notice - Written notification will be given to each business owner found to be
displaying temporary signage in violation of city regulations. An abatement period of ten (10)
days will be provided for permitting of signage, or its removal, to occur. This "written warning"
will include an outline of the types of temporary signage that is prohibited, as well as those
types that are allowed, with the issuance of a permit. An application for a temporary sign
permit will also be included in the notification.
5. Notice of ViolRtion - A reinspection will be performed at the end of the ten (10) day
abatement period. A Notice of Violation will be issued to the business owner for any temporary
signage that remains in violation at that time. A further abatement time period of five (5) days
will be provided for the business owner to abate any remaining temporary sign violations. The
business owner will be advised that abatement of temporary sign violations, at this time, will
avoid an Administrative Citation to be issued and a fine levied.
6. Administrative Citation - A reinspection will be performed at the end of the five (5) day
abatement period. An Administrative Citation will be issued for temporary signage that remains
in violation at that time. An additional citation will be issued for each day that the temporary
signage continues to be displayed.
R:XBROCKIVlE1XSIGN.EXH 4/13/98 cb
ITEM 3
APPR ~i~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN/C,E
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
April 21, 1998
Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department recommends the City Council and
Planning Commission:
Receive the Staff Report and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the
Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
BACKGROUND
At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested staff prepare a report
discussing the issue of recreational vehicle storage in residential districts. Staff brought this
report before the Council on September 23, 1997. At that meeting the City Council directed
staff to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining to
recreational vehicle storage in residential areas. This Section, which intends to allow temporary
on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones states:
"Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or
authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard
abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time
not to exceed five (5) consecutive days."
Since deletion of this Section of the Development Code would require an Ordinance
Amendment, this item was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda for
Commission action. However, upon further consideration, the Council directed staff to conduct
additional research on this matter. At the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting,
staff requested this item be continued to the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission hearing.
Staff then requested this issue be continued off-calendar at the December 1, 1997 meeting
until the research was conducted.
Staff placed this item on the Commission Business section of the February 2, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting and requested that the Commission provide direction to staff regarding
three potential options (discussed below in the Analysis Section) for recreational vehicle storage
R:\STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 1
in residential zones. After reviewing the options and receiving public testimony from seventeen
residents, the Commission unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Soltysiak was absent)
recommended that the existing Development Code provisions remain in effect and be enforced
with the existing penalties. They also recommended that additional staff resources required for
effective enforcement be considered by the Council. It should be noted that of the seventeen
residents who spoke at the Commission hearing, sixteen were in favor of enforcing the existing
provisions of the Development Code.
This item was tentatively scheduled for the March 17, 1998 City Council meeting; however,
staff was directed to remove this item from the that meeting's agenda and not bring it before
the Council until after a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop could be held to
discuss the item.
ANALYSIS
Options Presented by Staff
Staff presented three options to the Planning Commission at their February 2, 1998 meeting
based upon the research conducted on this issue.
Option No. I o Utilize Current Code Provisions: Prohibition
This option would be to direct staff to utilize the current provisions contained in the
Development Code to prohibit long-term parking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards
of residential zones. Recommendations received in letters from residents include: increased
enforcement by the City and the inclusion of significant penalties for infractions.
Increased enforcement would require additional staff resources. Enforcement of the Code has
been primarily driven by complaints received from residents. According to Code Enforcement
staff, enforcement of this item has required approximately 30-40% of their staff hours and
would require the same if they were to pro-actively enforce the Ordinance. In order to
effectively enforce these regulations, one-half of a Code Enforcement staff person would be
required at the current time. The cost to the City (in 1998 dollars) would be $27,259.00
annually. This figure would likely be higher in future years. It should be noted that, if an
additional staff member is not added, other areas of code enforcement will be impacted. In
addition, with the current residential growth in Temecula, at approximately 700 new homes per
year, the limited staff resources would be stretched even thinner.
Option No. 2 - De/ere Section 17.24.020(D)(l)(f) of the C/t¥'s Development Code: No
Regulation
This option would delete the current Development Code language, and result in the City not
regulating recreational vehicles on private property in residential zones. This option, which
would result in the same condition which existed before the adoption of the Development Code,
would place the burden for enforcement upon the individual Homeowner's Associations
(HOA's), and would result in no regulation in areas of the City where HOA's are inactive or do
not exist. According to several residents who have served on the Board of Directors for a HOA,
enforcement is expensive, time consuming and ineffective. Correspondence from several
residents (see Attachment No. 1) indicates that they are not in favor of this option, while one
resident was in favor of this method of regulation. At the request of the Council, staff
R:\STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 2
contacted the City of Irvine and was informed that they leave the enforcement of this
regulation with the HOA's.
Option No. 3 - Modify Section 17.24.020 (D) of the Development Code: Prohibition with
Exemptions for Special Circumstances
Several cities (Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Poway) allow parking/storage of recreation
vehicles in a front yard, if it is not possible to store them in either the side or rear yard or a
separate garage. These cities allow a recreational vehicle to be parked in a front yard if the
area is paved. Palm Springs and Palm Desert require the owner to receive a permit to park the
recreational vehicle in the front yard area. To receive a permit, the Planning Department of
these cities provides written notice to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed location
of the recreational vehicle. Should a written objection be received or should the Planning
Department determine not to issue the permit, then the matter is referred to the Planning
Commission which holds a noticed public hearing with respect to the issuance of a permit.
This option would require additional staff time to process the applications. An application fee
would be assessed to the homeowner to offset staff time, materials and postage for the public
hearing. Code Enforcement staff would also be required for violations. Given the current
interest in stronger regulations to prohibit the storage/parking of recreation vehicles on-site in
driveways, and the additional time requirements placed upon the current staff, this option does
not appear to achieve that objective.
On-Street Storage/Parking
The issue of on-street storage/parking of recreational vehicles was raised by several residents
and was also discussed by the Commission. The residents understood that on-street parking
is regulated by the California Vehicle Code; however, they stated that the intent of this
regulation was being circumvented by people who regularly move their vehicles within the
prescribed 72 hour period. Their concern was that if the City were to strongly enforce the
existing Development Code regulations, then there would be a proliferation of on-street parking
of recreational vehicles. Some residents stated they would like to see the City involved in
stronger on-street parking regulations.
City of Fullerton RV Code Provisions
At the direction of the City Council, Staff contacted the City of Fullerton and received a copy
of their Zoning Code which regulated recreational vehicles in residential zones. This is included
as Attachment No. 3 to this Report. Based on their code, recreational vehicles are allowed in
residential zones if all of the following conditions are satisfied: the vehicles are not used for
living purposes, the vehicles are limited to those owned by the occupant of the dwelling unit
and they are not parked or stored whereas to constitute a "clear and demonstrable vehicular
traffic hazard, or be a threat to public health or safety." In addition, the recreational vehicle
cannot be stored within the front yard where there is an existing driveway or other access
leading to the rear yard of the residence that can accommodate such vehicle. Lastly, parallel
parking to the front property line is prohibited except where a curved or circular driveway
exists. In those cases, suitable screening of the recreational vehicle shall be provided.
R:\STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 3
Correspondence Received
Correspondence received regarding this matter which has been addressed to the City Council
has been distributed to the Council as they have been received by Staff. Correspondence
received prior to March 17, 1998 is included as Attachment No. 1. Any correspondence
received since then, but prior to April 21, 1998 is included as Attachment No. 2 to this Report.
Attachments:
Correspondence Received Prior to March 17, 1998 - Page 5
Correspondence Received Prior to April 21, 1998 Workshop - Page 6
City of Fullerton RV Storage Ordinance - Page 7
R:\STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR TO MARCH 17, 1998
R:\STAFFRFI~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 5
SANDRA L. RUMSEY
30845 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO
TEMECULA, CA 92591
909-676-6946
cc: Ron Bradley
Gary Thornhill
March 16, 1998
The Honorable Councilmen
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Honorable Councilmen;
I am writing concerning an issue to be discussed on
your March 17, 1998 agenda, the parking of R.V.'s on your
property.
Why are R.V.'s that are maintained any worse than
corrals with horses, goats, etc.? I have neighbors with
animals and that is their right, but so is an R.V. A well-
maintained R.V. is a sign of fluency for an area. Many of
the residences of this area bought their property for the
purpose of being able to park their R.V.'s, boats, etc.
and have animals on their property. Many of these people
have lived in the area for 15-20 years and now you say
they possibly can't park their R.V.'s next to their homes.
Have you taken into consideration that many of the R.V.'s
have cost more than many homes cost? As I drive around our
area, I have not seen many R.V.'s that were not maintained
and had an unsightly area around the R.V.
First, I must state that I don't like an association
dictating what I must do on my property. What has happened
to the individuals property rights that were written about
in the Constitution. We have individuals that walk the
neighborhood to find the R.V. parked on the home owner's
property. They then sight these individuals. It is rather
rude not to attempt to contact the homeowner, but a formal
letter from their attorney arrives and says that you have
x amount of days to correct the infraction. Though I
disagree with the association actions we were able to
finally come to an agreement on screening our R.V., but it
was not without problems, as we had only weeks before
taken photographs and taken them to the association and
asked their approval. No, we did not have this approval in
writing, but felt a verbal approval was adequate as it had
been in the past. We also felt that the request they made
was unsafe for pulling out of our driveway. We also are
located on both the Edison easement and the Eastern
Municiple easement and can't put permanent structures in
these areas. We did finally agree on plants. Even though
we agreed to the associations demands, I feel that it is
not the place for the association or city council to
mandate R.V. parking on a persons property. I know if I
were to move I would not purchase a home with an
association nor would I consider moving to a city that has
these mandates. Are we losing our freedoms and becoming a
de pot to the environmental activists? Of course, these
freedoms need to be within a reasonable realm. I am
reminded of a letter sent to "The Californian" a few years
ago. A gentleman was saying, and I paraphrase, a friend
that was a former Temecula resident had moved to an area
north of Dallas, Tx., going in for permits to build his
home. They had no regulations but ask if he wanted to
build a house that did not have proper plumbing, correct
electrical, and was going to fall down. He said no, they
'then say that enough was said. The regulations of local,
state, and federal governments are preventing freedom of
our people. Yes, some regulations are required, but the
regulations are becoming oppressive to these freedoms.
To conclude, I wish to again state that I am not in
favor of the City Council taking action on R.V. parking. I
always thought that this country was formed as a
democracy, but are we becoming a country of the few ruling
the many as in a de pot or totalitarian government. Are
these few causing harm to the freedoms of our people?
Sincerely,
Sandy ~Rdms~ey
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589-9033
30300 Churchill Court
Temecula CA 92591
March 11, 1998
SUBJECT: City Council Discussion Regarding Parking/Storage
of RVs in Residential Zones
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Since I have spent 6 straight years as the President of the
Villages Home Owner Assoc. which includes some 1000 members,
I applaud the City Council in taking up a discussion of parking
and storing RVs in residential zones.
I would ask that the discussion be broadened to include RVs,
trailers, boats, and commercial trailers. (example; concrete
mixers, searchlights, landscapers' trailers, etc.) We should
also include the parking of commercial vehicles in excess of
20 feet.
The action by the above people has turned parts of our fair
city into zones of blight. They are not concerned about property
values or quality of life, to say nothing about the danger to
children who dart out from behind these vehicles into the street.
Almost all HOAs have CCRs against the above actions, but
unfortunately they are almost unenforceable. If they are in
the street, the hands of-~he HOA are tied, according to 2 law
firms from whom we have requested legal advice. If they are
parked on private property, there are months of warnings, then
fines, and finally the courts .... at great expense and time.
Meanwhile the homeowner or renter continues to ignore the rules.
If they are parked on the street, they merely move it a few
feet or across the street for another 72 hours.
Some suggestions; no parking an any street or in front of a
home on private property without a permit. Permits will be
issued by the city for visitors up to 4 days, all others for
24 to 48 hours to clean, load, or unload. NO REPAIRS ALLOWED.
A simple call and the permit will be mailed or picked up at
City Hall. The window permit would have an expiration date.
Initially, there would be a 30 day warning period city wide,
after that the vehicle will be ticketed or towed.
The largest amount of commercial vehicles are found on the
weekend, so there must be a planned drive-by enforcement. There
is now and will be more adequate storage areas. Although this
is an inconvenience it is hardly a hardship.
Any way that I can be of help, please feel free to call or write.
Sincerely,
David Mic~heal~'~
676-7220 ~
P.S. My wife would like me to tell you of our experience in
Naperville, Illinois. We stayed at a cousin's there while we
were traveling with our RV, and all it took was a call to the
city to advise them where we were and hhow long we would be
visiting, and they kept a computer printout for the police.
They were very warm and hospitable about it, and it made for
a very pleasant experience for us. I would like for visitors
to Temecula to have that same sort of hospitable experience.
40847 Ca!!e Medusa
Temecula, CA 92591
March 10, 1998
Temecula City Council
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Re: RV Parking On Private Property.
We recently received a flyer regarding the above and would like to voice our opinion
on this matter.
We have a motorhome on our property. We bought our house because it has a large
side yard which could accommodate our motorhome. We went through great expense
to cement the side yard in order to park our RV as far back into our yard as possible
and installed a six foot gate in front of this. The motorhome is barely visible from the
street.
We sympathize with people who do not have room for their motorhomes on their
side yards but also realize that it is not very appealing to a neighborhood if the RV
is constantly parked on the street or in the driveway.
If this was our problem we would definitely rent a space at a storage lot since we do
not think it would be considerate of our neighbors and most of all it could also be
a safety hazard.
We love our RV as I'm sure most people that own one do. We hope that the few who
do not complv with street or driveway parkin.q do not spoil it for the rest of us who have
gone to great expense and trouble to conceal our RV's as best as we can on our own
property.
Hope that this matter can be fairFy resolved for all concerned.
~ncerely, __~__.
/ J/oselSh & Sylvia Santos
~,(/909) 694-1854
cc: Matthew Fagan
Planning Dept.
Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore
42733 San Julian Place
Temecula, Ca 92592
Phone: (909)676-6355
RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Our concerns relative to the issue of Parking and Storage of Recreational
Vehicles in Temecula's Residential Zones stems from the recommendation of
the City Planning Commission to the City Council to strengthen and vigor-
ously enforce the existing ordinance,which we feel has serious flaws in it,
as well as Legal and Constitutional implications.
The Commissions ~ommenH~tion if accepted by the City Ceum'2i! wc',~ ..... .umb
to the dictates of the Anti-Rv'ers with little recognition for the Legal
Residential Parking Rights of the great numbers of Recreational Vehicle
Owners in Temecula.
Without question this is one of the most controversial issues presently
facing the Temecula City Council.There are two sides to this issue and
both deserve to get serious consideration.
The Anti R.V. group havelegitimate complaints about dangerous and careless
Recreational R.V. Parking on Public Streets deserve relief. Where flagrant
abuse of safte~ regulations exist and can be proven, the parties responsible
should be held accountable.
Demands that ALL Recreational Vehicle owners in Temecula should be penalized
and punished along with the few law-breakers is discriminatory,ludicrous and
grossly unfair.
IN CONCLUSION--FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
1) Motor Homes,trailers boats and Recreational Vehicles should be allowed to
be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or possible to park them
behind the fenced or screened area of such property.
2) It is important to note the fact that Recreational Vehicle owners in
Temecula are Voters,many pay Homeowner Association ~ues as we~ ~J _
Property taxes, costly~Vehicle,Gas and License taxes and deserve the
same considerations given to Automobile owners.
Respectfully,
Ed & Erie ~ali~ore
cc: Council Members
Mayor,Ron Roberts, Jeff Comerchero,Karel Lindermans,Steve Ford,Jeff Stone
City Manager, Ron Bradley
Assoc. Planner, Matthew Fagan
Jeri D. Witt
30321 Tradewater Court
Temecula, CA 92591
March 9, 1998
Matthew Fagan, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Parking/Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Thank you for your letter dated February 25, 1998 giving notice that the City Council
meeting has been rescheduled.
I will be unable to attend the meeting. However, I have enclosed several pictures of a
recreational vehicle belonging to a neighbor who regularly parks it on Tradewater
Court. The photos show the recreational vehicle parked in front of another neighbor's
home.
The owner of the vehicle avoids the Code, which stipulates no parking longer than 72
hours on residential streets, by moving the vehicle from one side of the street to the
other. This recreational vehicle has remained on the street for over a week at a time.
Unsightly
As you can see from the photos, the recreational vehicle is unsightly. It is out of place
in a residential community. It belongs in a RV park or an appropriate storage facility
designated for such vehicles.
Negatively affects Home Values
Because recreational vehicles are unsightly, they negatively affect the home values of
the neighborhood. A prospective home buyer would arguably turn.away from .living in a
Page -2-
Matthew Fagan, AICP
Recreational Vehicles
neighborhood which is accepting of the storage of recreational vehicles on 'residential
streets.
Furthermore, such action encourages other owners of recreational vehicles to emulate
the violator's actions. This opens the flood gates resulting in trashy looking
neighborhoods which cause decreasing home values.
Safety Hazard
As shown by the photos, Tradewater Court has a bend. The combination of the parked
recreational vehicle and the curvature of the street makes it unsafe for both motorists
and children playing in front yards.
It is difficult to see around the recreational vehicle while entering or leaving Tradewater
Court. This poses danger to drivers who do not see each other coming around the
corner. Moreover, this poses danger to children who dart out from behind the vehicle
into the street.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
?
All Councilmembers received
the same letter
March 9, 1998
Mayor Ron Roberts
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Dear Mayor Roberts:
cc:
R. Bradley
G. Thornhill
My husband and I moved here in May of 1995 from Anaheim. We selected this area because of
its cleanliness and beauty and low crime rate. We were dismayed when our neighborhood began
to look like a ghetto last summer. At one time, out of the first seven houses on our street (we are
the sixth house), there was a large boat on a trailer in one driveway, a camper shell jacked up in
another driveway; next door blocking our view was an older model 1970's truck with a large
camper ~1 on it parked in the front side yard and the other side of us was a burned-out shell of a
car in the driveway. Needless to say, we were heartsick that we had moved to what we had
considered a lovely neighborhood. One day the code enforcement officer appeared and cited the
homeowners. The offending objects disappeared within a few days. We were once again able to
enjoy the beauty of our neighborhood.
That didn't last long. When the Press-Enterpfise article appeared saying that the City Council
would no longer seek enforcement of that code, some of the blight reappeared. At the present
time, the old truck that won't pass a smog test and has an expired 1996 out-of-state license still
sits in the neighbor's front side yard blocking our view. We do not have a home owners
association. I believe it is the duty of the City to enforce and regulate a recreational vehicle
code.
As a former real-estate sales person, I know from experience that the property values of a
neighborhood are lowered when these vehicles are allowed to be stored in the yards, driveways,
and streets. Clients will not even look at properties for sale that have R.V.s, etc. parked near
them.
I hope the council will take a serious look at this concern. With the new dam and recreational site
being built nearby, we could be facing many more such vehicles and boats being brought to our
city. We need to have a code addlzessing this problem with strong enforcement and stiff penalties
for violations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Betty Condren
40741 Calle Katefine
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 694-0375
March 7, 1798
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
AND
TO THE HONORABLE CiTY COUNCIL:
PLEASE, PLEASE, as representatives oF the citizens oF
Temecula, we implore yow ko enact and ENFORCE laws/ordinances
restricting on-street and oFf-street parking oF boats, motor
homes and all manner oF vehicles, which are now cluttering our
neighborhoods.
Seven years ago our 2-story, 2600 sq.ft.P~bed~oem,
home was appraised at $285.000. Our home is pictured below.
Today, due in part to the rempant parking and storage oF numerous
vehicles in drivemays, on the street, and in some yards, the
value oF our home and others in the neighOorhood has greatly
depreciated in value. Our t~o cars are never le.ft parked in
the drivemay or street, but are kept in the garage.
!998
Foilowing is a recent photo of our short cul de sac. The photo
mar taken from the middie of the street in front of our home.
The photo does not even shom many of the vehicIes parked in
driveways. You mill observe two motorhomes along with various
pickups and trucks. Allowing this type of clutter to exist
has resulted in decreasing property values, is degrading to the
city's appearance, and is a h~a}d to children walWing in the
street, (We have no side~alks.)
-t is said that a picture speaks a thousand words. We hope that
by vieming these picture you will see "first hand" our serious
cluttering problem.
FIRST: We know that we do not need to remind you that the
City o~ns and has control over ils streets, and that it has an
enforceable parking ordinance, mhich has not been enforced.
We are informeO that the City's Code Enforcement OFficers,
mhen responding to a citizen's complaint about parking violations,
advises the violator that all he must do to comply with the code
is simply to move the offending vehicle a Few inches every 72
hours. This does not solve the problem of r@mpant street parking,
and we Feel certain this is not the intent of the lam. We must
have an on-street parking law that clears away the clutter,
and the law must be enforced.
SE~ONO: Increasingly, large motor homes and boats are parked
in driveways or other unsightly areas of the property in full view
of the street and neighbors. Also motor vehicles are parked
(never moved) in drivemays for months. It is anticipated
the accumulation of RVs and large boats with the completion
of tme Dominagoni Recreational Lake near Homer. We need to stop
this parking practice NOW.
Your agenda report states that the City's Code Enforcement
Officers "have met with resistance From property owners who have
nowhere else to store them. There are storage facilities (one
off Pala Road for instance). Also these offending vehicles may be
stored within an enclosed area on the owners' lots, but out of
view from the street and from neighboring land owners. If the
violators can afford $50,000 to $75,000 For RV's, thmy can surely
afford to place them in storage Facilities or build '~n enclosure
for them. They have a duty to obey the law (as do all citizens)
whether they like it or not.
CONCLUSION: We have the nucleus for a beautiful city. PLEASE -
let us all work together to ~elp it grow into a well regulated,
well maintained City.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. We
urge strict parking ordinances - and vigorous enforcement.
Sincerely~
·
MARIE DUNN
30156 La Primavote
Tomecute, Ca. 72~92
676-~059
cc: Ron Bradley
Gary Thornhill
Mr. Norman J. Taylor
30048 Via Velez Place
Temecula, CA 92592
March 6, 1998
I have been a resident of this great city for 18 years. My wife and I are newly
retired senior citizens wishing for a wonderful retirement life. Two years ago we
purchased a very small 19 foot RV which we dearly enjoy. I have been informed
by fellow RV'rs that the city is proposing a ban on having them parked in our
own driveways. As a senior citizen on a retirement and social security I cannot
afford the monthly storage fees. I can understand the elimination of the street
parking but having it parked in ones own driveway seems reasonable.
As I stated above I have a beautiful 19 footer, no longer than a large pick-up
truck or even a minivan. I went to every home owner on my street asking them if
having my RV in my driveway offended them all said ABSOLUTELY NOT. I am
asking you to consider not letting this proposal pass. In my case I would be
forced to sell my RV, the greatest joy of our lives.
Respectfully,
Norman J. Taylor
Copies sent to all councilmember
1998
City Council
City Ha]~l ,T~_mecul~a,C~.
cc: R. Bradley
G. Thornhill
Feb~r~r~ 6, !99~,
~ I'm happy to hear }h~t you a~'e getting tough on the peop/~e
that az'e paz'k, ing R¥'s ann tow trailers, c~mpe~ s~ells in drive w~ys
and on streets.~ in fz'ont of homes in z, esi~enti.~ az'eas. Thi~ makes
~e sick when I see this me~s that th~ neighbors are p~z'~ing in front
o£ my mail Ooseso 'aDd in~ front,~ of my house. Alsp these Basketball
loops that are parked out~ on ou~ street.why you arent taking. care
o£ this problem without~having ,someone report this to you, is beyond
me.I live in'Portifino_and put t~xes are really high, We paid almost
~180,OOO. for our house plus all our upgrames, block wall, hard
scape, etc. We have had a lot of repos in this neighborhood and it
brought down the value 0£-our home really bad. We have our home up
for sale right now for over 7 months. When people see this mess next
door to us , they just drive right by. Who wants to live next door
to that. We are having a hard t~me selling because of this.
Murrietta is having this same pro01em with the Hoops.
We had a wonderfull neighbor who was, or is a Cop in San Diego who
h~m pride of ownership ane kept that house perreck. They put him
on the Swat Team, so he~had to sell ann move to San Diego. This nice
family bought the house,z teen ~gers. But he owns a garage in Temeclua
and he brings those cars home with him and parks in front of our
house. They pull in the drive way where they have a camper shell parked,
a ' k in garage So they p~rk
there garage is full of crap, so the~a~a~ the .
on the side w~ik also. We can't walk up the side walk at night.
This is a disgrace. Somthing has to be done.
You keep saying we are a rich City, why can't you put on more people
to take care of these problems ??? Holden Circle is a mess. We live on
Deer Meadow Road. Many trailers are parken in afire ways in our neighborhobo
and I don't think this is fair to the other land owners. Why can't
they park in trailer parks? They have Security in those places.
My husband just haa 5 byepasses and a heart valve put in. He
can't get into arguements with the neighbors. This is your job, to
enforce the rules. Charging these people for permits to park isn't
helping the matter any. You will make more money and ee ~ill ~11 still
be very unhappy neighbors. This must be taken care of. They movem
into this house on Jan.3,199~, they shoula be unpackem by now,don't
you think so ? I do. Please help us out fast.
Two more things I w~nt to mention to you. I never elected sam pz'att
to speak for me. I wish someone wuula put that old Bastard in his place.
I want that Entertainment center Built in our City. We waited a long
time for it to come here. Ola Town will just die without it.people
want to close the moor on growth, az'ter they get into the city, they don't
want to let any on~ else in, Too ~ad, We need Ous4ness and jobs here. It
would be a shame if Murz'ietta stole this ae~ay -~'rom us. Figh~.h~rd i'or~ it.~.
The other thing I want t~ks~you, When are yo~u going to,~ open up
N.General Kearney Roan.????? It was ta~e,n o~I'£ the general plan. we in po~til'i~
need that road opened ups, that gives us a straight shot to the shopping Mall.
We are caught in a~ h~le here, only~way~ out is at~Chapperal scho,oi or
Calley Madusa. All the neighbors here want that street~ built.
Tha~nk you £8r your help, I will De w~it~ing to see iI' anything is 0eing
done aOout the campers ,Trailers anm RV's around here.
~Mrs. L.R. McNany
30165 Deer Meadow Rd.
Temecul~$ Ca.~
92591-16~7 -
909-699-417~
Continued ~om B-1
In an aaempt to minimize ask to
theci~,Mejiah~sen~odozen ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ o ~o ~ ,~ ~ ~ '.
notices, seeking volunm~ compli-
r~siden~. _
~esiden~ w~o refuse to comply~
face a ~flne for the flint infrao
tion and $100 for the second. A
third offe~ a misdemeanor~
Mejia says paren~ usually ar~e
that they are doing good by keep-
ing their kids at home, but even~-
ally comply with the dW by mov-
ing their hoop back to the drive-
"They ~y, 'We re keeping our
kids from loiterrig,'" Media ~id,
"but they don't weig~ the co~e-
quences of the a~ard they cre ......
ate." '
Mumetar~identValedeSmith '4~ ~BlCB' [~¢~ ¢~o ~, ,
moved her daughter's b~ket to ~e / ~ ~ k~ ~ . .
sidewalk when her daughter want- /
ed to increme the r~ge of her - ~ ~ o m ~ ~%~>~.,'~:;¢?:~ ..... - ·
sh0B, Smith didn't reallze she w~ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~.:.,..::.;...-~,~ ,:: .
violating a coun~ code at the time, ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ,.:::~.: :~ :~' ~.. ~.;~
and said she now will remove the
b~ket from the sidewalk before D ~ '~ ~ : ':-' "
the city gives her a notice.
~ ~mO -
~u~
~= m< ::~..
BILL GRAY
40414 YARDLEY COURT
TEMECULA, CA 92591
February20,1998
Mr. Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Ref: Permanem Parking Of RV's, Boats
etc. in Neighborhoods
Dear Mayor Roberts,
The purpose of this letter is to voice objections to the practice of permanently parking RV's, boats
and trailers in driveways and on our residential streets. I do appreciate you, Mr. Stone and Mr. Linder-
roans for recognizing the serious problem and agreeing to send it back to the Planning Commission for
evaluation and now bringing it back to the City Council.
I'm very pleased that the Planning Commission determined that the code, written several years
ago, that regulates driveway parking is a good law and very much needed. I appeal to you and other
members of the Council to reinstate this code, effective immediately.
The existing code that governs street parking is inadequate. Violators now avoid the totem of the
law by moving their vehicles a few feet after the 72 hour period. I suggest the City Council send this
Code back to the Planning Commission and then in turn ask Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner, or
other members of the staff to research this problem and determine how other municipalities effectively
address this issue. The revised code must include not only cars and trucks, but also RV's, boats, trailers,
farm equipment, etc. I would recommend that the practice of towing offending vehicles be eliminated as
that lends itseft to lawsrots against the City. I think unless the vehicle is abandoned, £mes similar to those
for driveway offenses is more practical and would be cost effective to enforce. The Code must be clear
and precise with no loopholes. The megsage to all citizens should be, if you break the law you will be
prosecuted.
The importance of these two laws are evident. They are needed to insure that our city remains
beautiful. They will prevent home values from further devaluation. They will curtail the unsightly and
junky appearance in our neighborhoods. They will correct a safety hazard that now exists when backing
out of driveways and children playing m their from yards. The laws will be in place as our city grows and
also will prevent an increase of more RV's and boats when the Domenigoni reservoir and the Vail Lake
Projects are completed.
I do think that people owning recreational vehicles should be allowed to park in their driveway or
street, for a determined period of hours, when servicing, preparing, or returning from a trip. The ooncem
for the vast majority of our citizens by our city governmere is commendable. We thank all of you for
providing the leadership that has made Temecula a desirable place to live.
With Regards,
Steven J. Ford, Mayor Pro-Tern
Jeffrey E. Stone, Councilman
Karel F. Lindermans, Councilman
Jeff Comerchero, Coumcilman
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
cc: Gary Thornhill
PAUL D. KNOWLE$
40760 CALLE KATERINE
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
92591
(909) 676-2653
February 19, 1998
City Council .._t ....... -
Attn: Ron Rob ~,'Mayor
City of T,em~u~la-'
4320_,.0-Business Park Drive
P__,~. Box 9033 -
/Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Roberts:
I am registering my concerns regarding front yard/street parking of RV, boat and other
extracurricular equipment.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on February 2, 1998 and heard both the
pros and cons of the issue. I am clearly on the pro side of enforcing the current code.
My concerns are included in my letter to the Planning Commission - copy enclosed.
I urge the Council to enforce the provisions currently in place, and/or to take the steps
necessary to make them appropriately enforceable.
Thank you for serving us,
/Paul D. Knowles
CO.'
Steve Ford,
Jeff Stone,
Jeff Comanchero,
Karel Lindemans,
Ron Bradley,
susan Jones;'-
Mayor - pro tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Manager
City Clerk
FEB ,~ 0 1998
Planning Commission
Attn: Linda Fahey
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
PAUL D. KNOWLES
40760 CALLE KATERINE
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
92591
(9O9) 676-2653
February 19, 1998
Dear Chairman Fahey:
I want to express my appreciation for the general tenor of the PC meeting on February 2,
1998 re: RV, boat and other objects 'd arte in our beautiful community.
I am hopeful that the City Council sees the thing as cleady. This is about keeping our town
a visually beautiful place in which to live. I have concerns for those whose recreational
pursuits require other accoutrements to accomplish, however they knew the restrictions
before they bought here, and if they didn't they should have done their homework!
In Mr. Fagin's report to you, I had this immediate idea. With all the retired talent of
professional law enforcement living in the Temecula Valley, the City could easily find a part
time Code Enforcement Official, have 1099 relationship with them. This could be done at
a cost far less that the 27+K figure quoted under option1. I also realize Mr. Fagin's charge
or place was not to make those types of recommendations to the Commission. Just a
thought of mine.
I trust your report to the Council bore out the concern of the majority of the people in this
matter. I will be an interested attendee to their meeting on March 10,1998 to view the
proceedings
Keep up the good work!
Best regards,
Paul D. Knowles
cc: Marcia Slaven
Rich Sottysiak
Ron Guerriero
Timothy Miller
Ron Parks
JACK LEATHERS
42623 REMORA STREET
TEMECULA, CA 92592
February 17, 1998
Mr. Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Ref: Parking of Recreational Vehicles
in Residential Areas
Dear Mayor Roberts,
It is my understanding that the Council will have the above named subject on their
agenda on March 10, 1998, for action. Since I will be out of town I want to voice my
opinion to you via letter.
I have attended the meetings of the Planning Commission concerning this subject
and testified in front of them. My friend, Mr. Bill Gray, and I have also met with Mr.
Matthew Fagen concerning this code, and expressed to him our feelings about this matter.
Many people are concerned about the increased parking of RXPs, boats, and house
trailers on driveways and in the street. We are also concerned why the code that already
exists has not been enforced.
I have been president of our Alta Vista Community Association for three years in
the past, and soon found that we had a problem with all these vehicles being parked on
driveways and in the street. We do have CC&R's that prohibit this unless they are parked
behind a fence in their side yard. The problem is the procedure that we have to go
through to enforce these rules. If the violator wants to be difficult it could take many
months to a year to get this resolved. Meanwhile the Association has had the expense of
an attorney, held many hearings, issued fines, and finally when the fines aren't paid placed
a lien on the property. As you can see, this could also cause quite a disruption in the
community. So I am saying to you that this route is not the answer!
The main reasons why I think these vehicles should not be allowed to park in
driveways and on the street are as follows: 1. Properties are devalued.
2. Safety when neighbors back out of their adjacent driveways
and are unable to see moving traffic and kids playing.
3. Undesirable views from one's home if you live nearby.
4. Ajunky appearance tends to develop not only around that residence
but also in the community.
5. Future development such as the East Side Lake will bring many more
recreational vehicles into this community, and the code will certainly be
tested. If we continue to have additional parking of these vehicles, the
communities will really look junky and property values will decrease.
I think that people owning recreational vehicles should be allowed to have them at
home long enough to service them and load them. A reasonable amount of time should be
allowed for this. Having a unit parked on the street, and moving it a few feet just to avoid
the Code being reinforced is not proper. This is a loophole that should be closed. If a
property owner has a friend visiting with an RV, a permit should be required for them to
park, for any considerable length of time.
As for as the cost of enforcing of the rules, I feel that the City cannot afford not to
get involved, and the cost whatever it is, should be allowed. If the fines are large enough
and the rules made known to everyone, it won't take long until the violations will be at a
minimum. If it takes an additional code enforcement officer, then so be it. We spend
money to make our parks look well kept and the appearance superior, so why not spend
money to make our total City look the same. It will be appreciated by most of the resi-
dents!
I want to thank you, the total City Council, the City Manager and all the staff for
all the work that has been done to make our City what it is today. We are proud of you
and of it. May your success cominue to grow.
CC~
Steven J. Ford, Mayor Pro Tern
Jeffrey E. Stone, Councilman
Jeff Comerchero, Councilman
Karel F. Lindemans, Councilman
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner~
~ ,,,.V~k~lY yours, Leathers
February 16, 1998
FEB t998
All Councilmembers received the
same letter.
Ron Roberts, Councilman cc: Ron Bradley
City of Temecula Gary Thornhill
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA. 92590
Dear Sir;
I have been a homeowner in this city since 1989. My wife & I are
retired and on a fixed income. We have a 25 ft. travel trailer
that we could keep in our driveway but we Day to have it stored at
Lake Skinner in their storage facility.
! am concerned about the downgrading in the appearance of our
neighborhood with the proliferation of motor homes, boats, etc.
that are being parked in driveways and on the street. Some are
being used as another bedroom as well.
! play by the rules - I expect others to do likewise or pay the
price - and ! expect the 'price' to be very high. If a person can
afford an RV, they can afford to store it in a storage facility.
! trust my city councilmen and ! trust that they will answer the
call and do their duty.
Sincerely yours,
F.H. OEYE~
40466 Cha~ncey Way
Temecula, CA 92591
February4,1998
Alta Vista Community Association
P.O. Box 890143
Temecula, CA 92589-0143
(909) 676-1465
cc: Gary Thornhill
Ron Bradley
City of Temecula
Attn: City Council
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Councilmembers:
RE: RV Parking and Storage
We are writing this letter on behalf of the Alta Vista Community Association.
We are located just north of Rancho Vista Road and east of Mira Loma Drive, by Vail
Elementary School. CC&Rs and Rules & Regulations govern our homeowners
association. These documents contain rules prohibiting the parking or storage of
recreational vehicles, including travel trailers and motorhomes, within the association
unless specific conditions are met. Despite the rules, we find that there is an ongoing
problem with RV parking. We have always appreciated knowing that the Cityof
Temecula also had rules regarding RV parking and that we could call on Code
Enforcement for support whenever our own efforts at enforcement became too time
consuming. Unfortunately, our process can take several months before a lawsuit can be
filed.
We would like to urge the city council to continue to enforce Temecula's existing
laws regarding RV parking and storage. If there is a problem with caseloads, perhaps a
part-time employee can be hired for this specific job. Alternatively, the law could be
enforced when cases were reported to Code Enforcement. Either way, I am sure that the
majority of Temecula's citizens, including those that do not have the benefit of an active
homeowners association would appreciate this.
Sincerely,
Vice-President Secretary
Helen Cappellia
Treasurer
3 February 1997
City Council
City of Temecula
c/o Temecula City Hall
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
FEB 0 4 1998
cc:
R. Bradley
G. Thornhill
Re: Parking of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Areas
Note: As used in our letter, "RV~' includes trailers, boats, csmpers, and
recreational vehicles of all kinds.
As you are aware, last-night the city Planning Commission voted to continue
the present code provisions concerning the subject vehicles.
Almost unanimously the audience in attendance (and there were many)
indicated their preference to continue the present code. Council member
Comerchero, who was present at the meeting, can attest to that. All four
commissioners present also indicated their interest in continuing the code.
Many of the commissioners indicated an interest in not only continuing the
code, but actually strengthening it, specifically in the areas of fines and length
of time allowed for temporary parking. Additionally, one commissioner
indicated an interest in adding provisions concerning on-street parking of those
vehicles. (As you know, the present code addresses parking of subject vehicles
on private property, but does not address parking of the vehicles on the city
streets.)
We wish to endorse those attitudes and provide the following rationale:
Fines and the Fine Structure: One commissioner asked if fines levied
against violators of the code could be a way of mitigating the added cost of
additional.Code Enforcement personnel. A representative of Code
Enforcement answered, indicating that it cotfid, indeed, be a way of recovering
some of the expense. But, he cautioned, Code Enforcement uses fines "very
sparingly". We wonder why fines are used sparingly. If the city wishes to stop
violations it must enforce the code and fine violators. We can support an initial
warning to violators, even though they have a responsibility to both
themselves and their neighbors to know the law -- but thereafter we believe
that increasingly sever fines must be levied against repeat offenders. It is only
through continued enforcement pressure that violations will be reduced. And
Temecula can certainly afford to hire additional Code Enforcement persolmel
as it grows.
Length of Time for Temporary Parking: Most commissioners would
support a reduction in time allowed for temporary parking. Indeed, one would
have totally eliminated any overnight parking. We believe that it is reasonable
that some time be allowed for temporary parking. But washing and/or cleaning
of the vehicle, boat, etc. shotfid not take even 24 hours, and we believe that
maintenance shouldn't be performed in the neighborhoods. Stocking of RVs,
etc. for trips certainly doesn't take more than a few hours. So we support a
time limit of 12 hours for temporary parking. We would, however, exempt
visitors with RVs from the 12 hour limit.
Parking of RVs on City Streets: Currently, on-street parking is
regulated by the State Vehicle Code, and enforced by the Police Department.
The problem is with people who wish to circumvent the code by simply moving
their vehicle before the 72 hour limit is exceeded. Sometimes this is done by
moving the vehicle to an adjacent street, other times by just driving around the
block and parking again near the original spot. In any case the owner is using
a loophole in the code to counter the intent of the code; namely to prevent long
term use of the streets for the parking of RVs. At one time, in another city, we
had a neighbor who parked his tar roofing truck in front of our home; not the
most attractive curb appeal we wanted -- or you would want. We support a
change in the code that would track and fine persons using the 72 hour
loophole. Additionally, we support a widening of a new code to include business
vehicles, nuisance vehicles (old, rusted, or unused), and RVs.
A question was posed by a commissioner as to how much it costs RV owners to
store their RVs in approved storage facilities. The answer was approximately
$250 per 6 months. We believe that this is not an issue for Council
consideration however. When you buy an RV you ass~me responsibilities, one
of which is to abide by the codes in force where you live, another is to accept
the costs of such ownership -- including the cost of its proper storage.
Our concerns are driven by. our desire to protect our property values, the
beauty of our neighborhoods, and the beauty of Temecula in general. Unless
the City establishes a firm policy in regards to RVs and commercial vehicles
the problem will only be exacerbated as our population grows. A street littered
with RVs, and/or nuisance vehicles, and/or commercial vehicles is not an
attractive street. Please strengthen the code and publish frequent reminders
that Temecula will not tolerate offenses to the code.
We appreciate your consideration of these items as you deliberate on the issue.
Sincerely,
32237 Placer/Belair
Temecula, CA
693-0929
CC:
The Californian
Mr. Bill Gray
Mr. Bob House, President, Chardonnay Hills HOA
F~om~
Date~
subject:
Richard Sarraffe <richsar@iname.com>
TEMECITY.TEMECULA(HOTLINE)
1/30/98 4:54pm
cc:
G. Thornhill
R. Bradley
To: Temecula city Council
I understand that the Temecula City Council will soon be
reviewing it's
position regarding the parking of RVS and Campers on city streets
within a
residential area.
I strongly urge that the city take some initiative in prohibiting
residents
from parking their RVs on residential streets. There needs to be
some means
of code enforcement so that private Homeowners associations can
deal with
the problem if the city does not. As a committee member of the
Villa
Avanti HOA, here in Temecula, it seems that we are powerless to
keep our
community free of the unsightly parking of these vehicles because
the
streets belong to the city. We have some residents who
continually play
the game of moving their RV six inches every 72 hours so that
they comply
with the city law.
I know that you, as a council, are committed to keeping our city
attractive
and I urge you to give this matter some real thought and help the
Homeowners Associations to legally deal with blatant violations
of this
nature.
Thank you,
Richard Sarraffe
Tel. (909) 694-3459
Richard Sarraffe
mailto:richsar@iname.com
;c: G. Thornhill
2 December 1997
Linda Fahey
Chairwoman, Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Ms Fahey:
At the 1 December meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission discussion
pertaining to a section of the City's Development Code was "continued off
calendar". That section has to do with storage of recreational vehicles in
residential areas. A review of the documents provided to the public at that
meeting indicates some Planning Commission and/or staff confusion regarding
the subject.
- The December 1 agenda provided to the public provides the following
regarding this subject:
"Proposal: Repeal Sectiqn 1Z24(D)(1)(D of the City's
Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in
Residential Areas"
- A memorandum to the Planning Commission from Debbie Ubnoske,
Planning Manager provides the following concerning the same subject:
Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment
to Section 17.24.020(D)(1)09 of the City's Development Code Pertaining to
Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas"
Ms Ubnoske -- in her "Background" section of the memo states
that "The City Council originally directed staff to amend Section ............... "
The subject was titled "Repeal" at the 3 November Planning Commission
meeting -- now it appears that a decision has been made without public notice
to modify the original subject to one of "Amendment". Further, the section of
the Ddvelopment Code cited is different. Did we miss notification by the
Planning Commission that the original subject had been changed? Has it been
changed? Was the original subject in error? Is the staff in error?
The public has a right to accurate information concerning proposed changes; if
for no other reason than to be able to respond intelligently to those proposals.
Response to a proposed ~ is very different from that for an amendment.
In regards the same subject -- but with a different focus:
When several people show up at a meeting of the Planning Commission
anticipating a discussion of a topic and are then notified that the subject is
being "continued off calendar" it can -- it does -- make those people suspicious
of the reason(s) for the continuance. For example:
- Is the Planning Commission just waiting for people to lose interest so
that they can do what they want without being in the spotlight of public
pressure?
- Are members of the Commission or their staff predisposed to repeal or
amend the section regardless of public opinion?
- Is pressure being exerted by the City Council?
I don't accuse either the City Council or the Commission or its staff of any of
these motives. I only list them as ways the public can -- and often does -- think
about their government. I would like to think that the reason for the
continuance has to do with an overworked staff who just haven't have enough
time to complete their task
Might I suggest that some explanation to the public is warranted when a
subject is "Continued off calendar"? There is a lot of public suspicion of
government today, both locally and nation wide. You could help reduce that
suspicion in Temecula by the simple act of providing a rational explanation of
the reasons.
A copy of my original letter to 'the City Council and the Planning Commission is
included. I wish to ensure that my views as a citizen of Temecula are
considered when the subject is again considered.
Sincerely,
Temecula, CA 92592
693-0929
Enclosure
cc: r(eemecula City Council
The Californian
Edward V. and Evelyn D. Salitore
42733 San Juliam Place
Te~ecula, Ca 92592
December 1, 1997
Honorable Councilman, Karel Lindermans
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, Ca 92589-9033
cc: Gary Thornhill
RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PARKING REGULATIONS OF MOTOR HOMES,TRAILERS
BOATS
Dear Councilman Lindermans:
We purchased our Lake Village home in 1973,the year Lake Village was founded.
In those early days beforethe Incorporation,Lake Village was a quiet,laid-back,
slow-moving off the beaten path community. The ideal setting that my wife Evelyn
and myself were looking for upon our retirement from the exciting and fast moving
life-style demanded by our ownership and administrative involvement in News-
paper and Text book publishing business in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Upon our retirement in 1978, we made the BIG MOVE to our small Rancho Calif.
(Lake Village) retirement home,worlds away we thought then,from the hectic,
never ending "Rat Race" of Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
During most of our almost 20 years of living here in Lake Village, we have owned
and parked our Motor Home in our driveway, without problems.
We heartily disagree with the JOHNNY COME LATELY DISGRUNTLED DISSIDENTS,that our
Motor Home is a blight and eyesore to our neighborhood.
However,we would gladly park it behind our fence it it were possible to do so.
unfortunately our lot is situated in such a way that it is impossible to park it
behind our fence.
We have a large investment in our Motor Home which is kept in excellent condition
at all times and is considered as one of our most cherished possessions. It is
furnished,packed and "ready to go" on short notice, which we take advantage of
quite often for weeks and months at a time.
Any thought of driving it to a storage lot, even if one were close by, between
trips and subjecting our Motor Home to burglaries, and vandalism is entirely out
of the question.
-More-
Temecula City Councilman
--2--
Ed & Erie Salitore
IN CONCLUSION --FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
1)Motor Homes,trailers,boats, and recreational vehicles should be allowed to
be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or possible to park them
behind the fenced or screened area of such property.
2) Most owners of Recreational vehicles are honest,law-abiding ,tax paying
civic minded citizens and a credit to our Community.
3) JOHNNY COME LATELY DISSIDENTS should not be encouraged in their unjust and
unwarranted self serving demands against all owners of Recreational Vehicles.
They knew what the conditions were relative to the policy of the City of
Temecula ,on Recreational Vehicles at the time they made the decision to move
here.
4) Where flagrant abuse of reasonable regulations exist, the parties responsible
for the abuse should be held responsible.
In closing we are really happy to let you know we Voted for you and have been
strong supporters of the actions and efforts of our City Council,including,and
ever since Incorporation.
Thanking you in advance for your kind indulgence, and it is our fervent hope that
you and all your loved ones are blessed with a Happy, Healthy,and better than ever
coming Holiday Season and New Year.
Sincerely,
Ed and Evie Salitore
42733 San Julian Pl.(Lake Village)
Temecula, Ca 92592
Phone: (909) 676-6355
ENCL:
CC:
Photograph enclosed showing our Motor Home as it is,parked in
our driveway.
Council Members
Birdsall
Cormerchero
Ford
MLindemans
Rdbert~.
Stone
Planning Comm.
Fahey
November 17, 1997
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION:
This is one more concerned citizen's appeal to
PLEASE, PLEASE retain and enforce the City's Develop-
ment Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage
in residential areas, and illegal parking on City streets.
Please help the majority of the citizens,who love
Temecula, to maintain and enhance this beaUTIFUL CITY.
It will invite responsible growth and pride of owner-
ship. Street clutter and ugliness of RVs parked on
streets and in yards, add to deterioration of neighbor-
hoods. Property values decrease. Citizens who enjoy
Living lB ~q~B~ained, beautiful neighborhoods,
with pride oF ownership, will move out, and those who
do not care will move in. Home values will hit rock
bottom in these blighted neighborhoods.
The appeal of Joh'n Lynn, published November 13th in the
Californian contains many points of concern, which we
share. The following portion of his appeal, bears
repeating:
"Third: Other_cities can and do enforce the
same or similar parking regulations. Temecula
can either help maintain the beauty of Lhe
neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to
their deterioration."
~hank you for considering our concerns.
MRS. MARIE DUNN
30156 La Primavera, Temecula
Phone: 676-3059
November 15, 1997
Narcia Waftdos
30.152 ~q!la Altuta$ Drive
Temecula, Califomi~ 92592
(909) 676-4920
Mr. Ron Bradley
City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Bradley:
The issue of Recreational Vehicles (Campers, Boats, Trailers, Fifth Wheels, and Motor Homes) in
our residential area is of concern to me.
On Villa Almras Drive, where I live, there is a Recreational Vehicle parked in a driveway on blocks
to keep it level m as it is being used as an extra bedroom! Just a few houses beyond the mobile
bedchamber, a welding business is op.erating out of the garage, and unsightly old cars are being
worked on in the street and driveway. This was once a lovely neighborhood in a beautiful city, but is
now just one of many Tcmecula slxcets-that is beginning to look run down and ragged.
[ want to see the City Code enforced, but the existing laws don't appear to be clear or enforceable, as
written. Perhaps the vehicle code governing residential parking needs to be rewritten so that it is
CLEAR ~VD PRECISE and cames a tfEF1Y MONET/tRY ?ENJLTY; one STRONG ENOUGH to deter violators.
Let's strive to keep The City ofTemecula a city we can all bc proud off
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Waddns
4 November 1997
Whom It May Concern
City of Temecula
Re: Attached Letter
We request that copies of the enclosed letter be provided to each member of
the City Council and Planning Commission before their next meetings on this
subject.
Sincere~y,_~
4 November 1997
Temecula City Council and
Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining
to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas
At a 3 November meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission the
referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further
study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the
Planning Commission provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns
about the proposed repeal.
We would like to comment, in greater detail than the three minute Commission
limit allows, on two issues raised during the public responses.
El~forcement: Three comments here. First: Commissioner Guerriero
asked about numbers of personnel needed to enforce the code. Why has the
code not been forcefully enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the
number of personnel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents
would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the
code. Initial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require
additional personnel to be used, but a lower level would ultimately be required.
The code enforcement must include significant penalties. Some people have to
be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention.
Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the
HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to
neighborhood feuds and hatred. He suggested that the City is the better
regulatory agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16
years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce parking
regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds, anger, and, in extreme
cases -- violence. The city owns the streets. The city has an enforceable code
on the books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs
are forced into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles with people
who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property
values. "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered
neighborhood reduces curb appeal.
Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations.
Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove
the code and contribute to their deterioration.
RV. RoAte. Etc. ~torage: We note that an agenda report concerning
this item states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met with
resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers,
RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications
for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage
opportunities." Comment: Are the majority of City residents to be penalized
because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of
Temecula and (where they live in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the
law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks,
giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a
responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes,
rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not.
We appreciate your consideration of these items as you move to
reconsideration of this issue. We urge retention of the code -- and its vigorous
enforcement.
Sincerely,
3223,7 Placer 3elair
Temecula, CA 92592
693-0929
cc: The Californian
cc:
October 24, 1997
R. Bradley
G. Thornhill
Temecula City Council
OCT 2, 9 199
Dear Council:
We have lived in Temecula for eight years and are proud to say there is very little to
complain about. Our City Council listens and acts for all our behalf. In today's politics,
this is unusual and appreciated.
The issue of RV and boat parking in our residential areas is of concern to us for two
reasons: (1) If our City Council can elect to not enforce the Codes of Record what other
laws and codes can they elect to not enforce? (2) With the "announcement" that this
code will not be enforced, we have in effect given an open invitation for more of what is
already a blight on our neighborhoods. Many times the parking of RV's and boats on the
driveways necessitates excessive automobile parking in the streets or cul-de-sacs·
Policing is not a problem if the fine for infraction is high enough and well published. A
$500.00 per day fine will dean up what is beginning to look like a resort parking lot
throughout our beautiful city.
Mr. Roberts and Ms. Birdsell must start looking around more and listen to the electorate.
This city is larger than just Meadowview!
We applaud the efforts of Mr. Stone and Mr. Lindennan who on all issues have the pulse
of our entire community. Mr. Ford, you will do well to follow their examples. We urge
all of you to reconsider this issue and perform the job you were elected to do. Please obey
and enforce our laws; they are there for a good reason and it is not your job to excuse
them.
Betty 1o Porter
40221 Tuolomne Court
909/699-6968
vIA FAX
20October 1997
TO: City Counct1 Plembers
City of Temecula
SUBO£CT: Chapter 17.24 of Development Code - Sectton 17.24.020
Off-Street Parktng and Loading
My name is Joanne Phtllips and ! reside, with ~lY husband, Oltver at
30361 Tradewater Ct, in the City of Temecula.
The City Counctl has had various discussions recently regarding Off-
Street Parking, and more specifically as pertains to RVs, boats, etc.,
Back on 6 August 1997 I sent a FAX (copy attached) to Ms. Cindy Ketrsey
Code Enforcement Officer, for the City of Temecula - regarding a
violation of the subject Code, Section 17.24.020. This specifically
addresses the fact of motorhomes parking on the street legally for a
5 d~y period and then being able to move it to the other side of the
street and being able again to leave it there for another 5 days, etc.
It is hard for me to_under)tend ho)t thts can be allowed) ~ have a
beQu~iful City and you, as members of the ~tt~ C0unct!, a~e allowtnq
this t.¥pe. pf Uhsightly ~hinqs tP o~cu~. HOW tAN THIS BE??????
We are members of the The Vtllages Home O~mers Association group and
our CC&Rs restrict overnight parking in the streets - however, it can-
not be enforce BECAUSE THE CITY OF TEI~CULA IS NOT WILLINGT0 BACK US
UP. We, too,have a motor home - it is parked behind gates (legally
according to our CC&Rs) because we believe In following the rules -
! know rules are made to be broken - but that 1s not how it should be,
If we leave our motorhome out parked In our drtveway for a day or two
whtle we are getttng ready to go on a trip or are cleaning/washing
same and the homeowners association comes by and sees it there, we are
immediately nottried to move same - and it's on our own propertyl
I belteve it is about time that our City Council look out for the vast
majority of the cttizens of this great city and decide to put a law Into
affect that dfsQ]lows overnight parking or continuous parking of motor-
homes. boats. big trucks, etc. on our streets.
PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO STOP THIS TYPE OF TilING FROH RUINING OUR
CITY AND CAUSING PROPERTY VALUE TO GO OOWN TO SAY NOTHING OFT HE FACT
THAT 1T LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - [F NE gANTED TO LIVE L(KE TRASH
NE SURE NOULDN'T HAVE FtOVED HERE.
SINCERELY, ~.~ · o ·
~0~INE PHILLXPS
(676-4466)
OH~"OO'3HZHOI;IH$£ kid t,~ be HObl
TEMECULA CITY MANAGER AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Dear "~..~ /~ '~,
We thank the board members for hearing our plea on Monday
evening November. 3rd, to stop permanent parking of RV'S
and boats on driveways, lawns and streets in residential
areas.
City Council members Mr. Stone, Lindermans and Roberts were
not aware of the seriousness of this problem until they
came to our neighborhoods. In fa~ness to yourself and us
homeowner taxpayers, I urge you to give just 30 minutes of
your time and persoally come out and see what has happened
to this beautiful city. I recommend you drive the following
streets; Calle Medusa, Chauncey Way, Yardley Ct., Wellington
Circle and the worst of all Windsor Road.
The answer to this problem is not Home Owners Associations.
Its evident that HOA can not enforce this unless the city
invokes and enforces an ordinance to prohibit this sort of
thing --- and please realize that about one third of the
developments in our city do not have HOA,S. The California
vehicle code governing residential street parking is not
working. Also, niether is development code chapter 17.24
and chapter 10.32. They will never work until rewritten.
The penalty must be stronger than "Violation of any
provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an
infraction". We suggest it read "Violation of any provision
of this subsection shall be given a three day notice to
correct the infraction or be fined $100.00 per day until
corrected. After the third day the owner will be cited and
fined at rate of $100.00 per day until the infraction is
corrected. The vehicle, trailer, RV, boat etc may be
impounded at the cities descretion and the fine shall
continue until claimed and fine is paid."
It should be published in all local newspapers that this
ordinance would become effective in 30 days.
Please help us keep this city beautiful.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR TO APRIL 21, 1998 WORKSHOP
R:\$TAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NO1 4/10/98 klb 6
r~.]R. i,,]ATTH_E~ PAGAi'~ ,AIC} APRIL --",
THIS tS TO INFORM ~C. UK~;iR= SHOP TiIAT ~'E ON DEER ~
['.~AD~',~ ROAD,
A~E VErY UNiE~Y ABOUT A~ THE R.V. 'S AND BOATS BEiiIG PAR~ED 0~ OU~ STrEEtS.
P~,..P~E PARK THESE UNSIGHTLY THINGS IN THEIR DRIVE WAYS AND G~ AWAWY
WITH IT.THERE ARE PARKS OUT ~'~°~ ~ -
· H~= WHERE THEY ~A~J RENT S~ACES YEAR ROUND
POR THEIR TRAiLERS,BC. ATS,ETC.SOMTHING I~'ST BE DONE ABOUT THIS PAST.
SZ0~'LY,A BEAUTIPULL AP. EA 13 BECOPdf'diNG A JUNK Y~D. WE HAVE NO ASSOCIATI01'J
HERE. WE HAVE COaR'S BUT "~ ~E 'T
_,,~ ONE INFORCES THEM. WOULD KNOW WHO TO
CALL EXCEPT CiTY
i WATCH ALL YOUR ;{EETINGS 0N TV. AT ONE 0F YOUR MEETINGS THE CITY WANTED
TO SELL PERMiTES To THE PEOPLE TO ~LOW THEM T0 PARK ON OUR STREETS.
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE R~ST 0F US HOME OWNERS LOOKING OUT CUR WiNDO%'S
L~'OKiNG AT Sd. MEONE ELSES '~'RECK OUT THERE. NOT ~L MOTOR HOMES ARE PRETTY.
6'M~ OF THEM ARE JUNKERS. ALSO,WHAT '~C:UT THE CAMPER SHELLS THAT PEOPLE
HAVE P~XED iN THEIR DRIVE~,~iAYS? THIS IS A GISGRACE. TEMECULA IS TO
BEAUTIFULI AND %~E DON'T WANT T~ TURN INTO ANOTHER PERRiS.THAT'S A MESS.
SOMTHiNG BETTER BE L, NE REALLY SOON BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
WE TAKE REPLY GOOD CA~IE OF OUR PR'OPERTY,IT'S BEAU'~IFULI..WE PAID A Z0T
F~BR :-UR HOME.THESE JUNKERS ~RE LOWERING THE VALUE OF {_UR PROPERTY.WE
ARE ~v
.~s~s~ [~AD AND iF ~fE CAN ALL MAKE Y{i. UR MEETING ,WE
iN THE MEANTiDlE ,',~E WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU Kif0W HOW WE FEEL ABOUT ALl
THiS JUST I}} CASE WE }~ MISS THE ~'C. RK SUOP.
?~E 'iVE ~ D(C:RS i~ PR;'M Trim M :~A~Y AT ~lo~D~m~
~,~ ~= PB'~'iNG UP 'WITH IS SONT!II},IG Ei. SE.Y PETTER COi~E OUT AND
CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES.ASK ALL THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT IT.
TH~K YOU
· ~BOB P~!C SPADDEN
DEER MEADOW' RD.
TEMECULA, CA.
April4,1998
Mr. M. Fagen
Ass. Planning Commissioner
City of Temecula
Dear Sir,
I would like to address the new street parking regulations you and your group plan to
discuss on Tuesday April 21.
Having served on "The Villages H.O.Assoc. Board" in various capacities and am currently
the president of this board, I certainly know how difficult it is to enforce the C.C&R's as
well as any laws or regulation"s.
Commercial vehiciles,boats, campers,Iarge motor homes as well as simi-tractor trailers
certainly do not enhance either our residential or commercial street. It is my
understanding that vehicles of this nature are simply cited by our police dept.,with a 72
hour notice to remove. What happens is the owner of the vehicle moves them within the
allotted time fi'ame across the street or down the block. A solution for this on going
problem might be as follows.
Issue permits by mail or in person for a day or two to load or unload these vehicles or for
out of town visitors. To cover any expense for issuance could be $5.00. These permits
would have to be attached on the vehicles windshield with an expiration date clearly
visible. Traffic tickets and fines would be issued on the expiration date. No more
"Warning Citations" of 24 or 72 hours.
Lets not move Vehicles across the street but out of the residential neighborhood to insure
a pleasing sight and also improve the safety of our streets.
Additionally large simi-truck-trailors should be illegal on any residential street at any
time,with the exception of residential moving vans for home owners goods pick ups or
delivery.
I do hope to attend you work shop and am grateful the city is taking a real interest in this
ongoing problem.
Mrs. M.C. Sawyer
Temecula
Norman Taylor
30048 Via Velez Place
Temecula, CA 92592
Subject: Parking/Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
Recently the Temecula City Council agreed to give the so-called "pioneer
businesses" a break worth a million dollars or more. Why not give RV'rs a
break at no cost. We bought and brought our RV's here to Temecula long
before the city proposed this new unfair ruling on RV's. We RV'rs agree to have
them removed from our city streets. To make us remove them from our own
property and driveways is absurd.
I want to give you an example of how pathetic this whole situation is. Can I file
an official complaint to the city that a train caboose is sitting over in a
neighborhood and I think it is an eyesore to My City?
Sincerely,
Norman Taylor
10 April 1998
City Council and Planning Commission
City of Temecula
c/o Temecula City Hall
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: The RV Problem
A prior out-of-state commitment prevents me from attending the
joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on the RV problem.
Since I cannot be there to express my views I am enclosing a copy of
my letter to the City Council, dated 19 March. Please give it the same
attention you would if ! were there to express it in person.
Sincerely,
Temecula, CA 92592
693.0929
e-mail: j&jshow@vmicro.com
cc: Mr. Bill Gray
Enclosure: My letter to the City Council of 19 March 1998
19 March 1998
City Council
City of Temecula
c/o Temecula City Hall
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: The RV Problem
RV owner Ed Salitore has recently been quoted in the newspapers
expressing his concerns on the subject "problem". We would like to
again present an opposing view.
· Temecula has an ordinance concerning parking of RVs, boats,
etc. If you live here you should obey the local ordinances. And,
Councilmember Ford, enforcement of the ordinance doesn't imply
that we're a "trailer police" city anymore than enforcement of speed
limits means that we're a "speed limit police" city. Enforcement of
city ordinances helps maintain the attractiveness of our
neighborhoods and the city in general. We have ordinances because
some people aren't considerate. That's sad, but very true. For an
ordinance to be effective it must be enforced. We do not understand
why the city has suspended enforcement of the ordinance until the
matter is resolved. The ordinance is on the books. It should be
enforced. The longer it goes unenforced the more RV owners will
believe that they have a right to ignore it.
· We agree that RV owners need to be able to load and unload
their vehicles, along with limited servicing. But 5 days parking in
front of private residences encourages people to violate the intent of
the ordinance. Why should loading, unloading or limited servicing
take 5 days? And some RV owners now move to the street after 5
days. Then --
· Many RV, etc. owners get around the 72 hour street parking
time limit by moving their RVs, etc. to another location before they
are ticketed; then leaving it there for a few days before moving
again. This defies the intent of this ordinance, which is to prevent
long term storage of RVs, etc. in our neighborhoods. That's tacky.
That situation should be corrected. Owners need to be able to load
and unload their vehicles, along with limited servicing. Why should
that take more than 12 hours? -- if even that? Five days parking in
front of private residences again encourages people to violate the
ordinance.
· Mr. Salitore has to pay fees to his homeowners association for
parking his vehicle in that association? That's between him and his
association. He should have read the CC&Rs before deciding to live
there or acquire an RV. Has he ever heard of a concept called
accepting responsibility for his own actions? Has he ever heard of a
concept called being informed?
In a city we all live close to one another. The unfortunate fact is that
what you and I do on and around our property impacts our
neighbors and neighborhoods. The RV owner has rights? Sure, but
they also have responsibilities, including care for their neighbors,
neighborhood, and property values -- theirs and ours. Sometimes we
all have to subordinate our own rights to those of the community.
The city can help the owners of RVs by trying to attract more RV
storage business to the city and giving them "fast track" approval.
Heavy emphasis on security should help ease the fears of the RV
owners.
Sincerely,
M~~ Johi' Lynn
32237 Pllicer Belair
Temecula, CA 92592
693.0929
e-mail: j&jshow@vmicro.com
cc: Mr. Bill Gray
The same E-mail was sent to all Councilmembers
From: "Chuck Hankley" <hankley@vmicro. com>
To: TEMECITY. TEMECULA (ROBERTSR)
Date: 3/18/98 12:40pm cc: R. Bradley
Su~j ect: R.V. Parking G. Thornhill
To: Mayor of Temecula
From: Charles and Donna Hankley
31745 Via Cordoba
Temecula, 92592 (E-Mail "hankley@alphainfo.com")
re: Recreational Vehicle parking in residential areas.
We are owners of a Recreational Vehicle and strongly feel that
they should not be parked or stored on residential properties for
prolonged periods. They should only be in a residential area,
limiting the time, for maintenance or to prepare for a trip.
Before purchasing our home in Temecula we investigated the
regulations concerning Recreational Vehicle parking, as any
prudent person should. We found the rules compatible with us and
the city*s desire to maintain the ambiance of the city.
We came from a city where Recreational Vehicles were parked every
which way - on private property - on the street - or wherever.
Some were one step from the junk yard. Some were lived in at the
residence for prolonged periods. This was either allowed with no
restrictions or the regulations were overlooked, the area looked
blighted. Particularly as more families acquired these adult
toys.
Please keep this from happening in beautiful Temecula. Don*t let
the residential areas of Temecula become a Recreational Vehicle
yard. We don*t feel that our neighbors should have to share our
Recreational Vehicle desires or tastes by having to stare at our
Recreational Vehicle parked in our driveway.
We are not opposed to Rgcreational Vehicles parked in residential
areas so long as they are completely out of view from the street
or the view of their neighbors. The lot sizes and driveways of
most homes in Temecula are small and are not conducive to parking
large vehicles.
We pay for storage and feel this is the responsibility of the RV
owner. Remember something that would appeal to one can be an
eye-sore to another. To repeat - If you can afford a RV, you
should be able to pay for public storage.
Living with the results of relaxed rules would be harder for the
majority of residences to live with than the City*s current
ability to enforce the exiting rules.
Thank You
Charles and Donna Hankley
George
318~O Certs Posies
Temecula, California
April 13, 1990
Mathew Fagan
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca 925~9-~033
Subject, Parking of recreational vehicles - Boats - trailers -
and]or like kind on city streets in residential zones.
Dear ~. Fagan,
In order to establish a more nositive control over the
natking of subject vehicles on city streets in residential
zones within the city of ~emecula, it is respectfully
requested that a city ordinance be drafted to clearly define
the regulations and limitations under which this practice
will be .hermitted. This ordinance should include, but not
limited to the following,
P~arking of recreational vehicles. boa~s, %railers, and/or
like kind objects, are limited to ~ period of no'~ore than
2~ hours. Owners of vehicles who exceed this ~ime l~mit
will be subject to a fine of 50.00 dollars for the firs~
offense and 100.00 dollars for the second offense occuring
within a ~ime Z'L'~me of 3 years.
In those instances where a third offense occurs, vehicle
impound action will be taken, and all related costs,
including, but not limited to, fines &nd impound fees
must be ~aid b2 ~he owner prior to the release of vehicle
in¥olved.
In certain exceptional cases where compliance with ~he
25 hour time limitation cannot be met, such as for
visitors, the homeowner must obtain an "Bxtended Parking
Permit' from the city of Temecula for a fee of 50.00
dollars, which allows parking ~ime not to exceed e
maximum of (7) seven days. This seven day time period
coBBencee on the fire% day the vehicle is in a parked
nosirish, and mus~ be nositioned in front of the
homeowner's residence. This "~xtended Parking Per~it"
ma2 be renewed for one time only for an additional fee of
~0.00 dollars,
'[0
£/-. l:6-S69-606 I:E: :~1:
II. a6ecf -- ,F../_I, 6 ~;69 606, tuoJ:l .. tU~l.*~:l.I, 9~1, '£1. i!.~dv XepuowI
IMonday Aptit .13, _1.998 11:41am -- From '909 695 9173, -- Page
o4/i3/ig98 12:31 go~-~95-9i73
P~ 02
Subic ct ~
PaEe 2.
Par~i~g of recreational vehicles - boats - trailers -
and/or like kind on city ~tree'ts in residential zones
In the event the permit time is exceeded, impound action will
be taken and all related cost, including, but not limited to,
fines and impound fees must ~ naid by the owner prior to
release of vehicle involved.
Due to the constr~ction of %he Metropolitan Water District
Reservoir, s~eclal attention to this subject merits
particular imoortance, as a major influx of these typ. e~ of
vehicles into our city is imminent.
In view of the aforementioned comments and suggestions,
perhaps a Ballot Initiative for our next General Election
could be developed, to allow all our eligible
citizenry an opportunity to participate in the final decision
Process of the policy related to this subject.
Your promot action in this matter is appreciated.
(Stgnatorys are members of
the Board of the Villa Avantt Sincerely,
] omeowner Association-
an organization reureoenti~
~74 homes.) George ~rshall
Norbert M. Bunt / Frances Bunt ~~, ~ ecc ia
co, Coun. cil.Members - FAX No. C.i_ty. of Temecula: 695-!999
Jeff Comerchero
Steve Ford
Karl Lindermans
Ron Roberts (Mayor)
Jeff Stone
Linda Fahey (Planning Commission - Chairperson)
N~:fb
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF FULLERTON RV STORAGE ORDINANCE
R:\STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NOI 4/10/98 klb 7
IS.17.030. Conditions or pe-mitted uses.
The foUowing qualifications, limimfions, and condi-
tions shall be applicable Io the uses d~"fil:~l in Table
15.17.020 above. These shall be in addition to any quali-
ficafions, limitations, or conditions sex forth in the use
definitions of C!mpter 15.04 of this fide:
A. Multiple-family dwellings shall include coopera-
tively owned apartments and condominiums;
B. Mobile home parks shall comply with those devel-
opmere slandarcts included in Section 1S.17,040 and
Section 15.17.050:
C. The renting of rooms or the providing of board,
or beth, shaU be limited to a wtal of etree persons per
dwelling ~ in R-1. R-1P, R-2 and R-2P zones;
D. Aec~m~ buildings. structures. and uses Ire'mitred
in the R-l, R-IP, R-2 and R-2P zon~ shall be limited to:
1. Private garages,
Pasking and/or storage of recreational or utility
vehicles. mot~ized, or nonmoa:~iged, is permitted
provided all of the following c, omtifions are satis-
fied:
a. Such vehicles shall not be occupied for
living purposes.
b. Sech vehicles shall be !imie~i w those
owned by the occupant of the dwelling uniL
do
Recreational vehicles shall not be parked or
s~red whcrc such padting or ~oragc shrill
constitute a clea~ and demonstrable vehicular
traffic hazarcL or bca tltrcaz to public health
A recreational vehicle shall not be parked or
stored within the front yard where there is
an existing driveway or othe~ access leading
to the rear yard of the rt~lence that can
accommoda~ such vehicle.
Pa~ng paraUd w the ha:rot property line is
prohibited except where a curved or circular
driveway exists. In those cases. suitable
screening of the recreafional vehicle shall be
Swimming pools, tennis courts, cabana.s, and
similar r~:reation facilities for the sole use of the
occupants of the premises and their guests, pro-
vialed that such facilities .shall not occupy any
potdon of a required front yard and are suitably
screened f~)m adjacem properties:
E. Privac padring areas shall conform to the fol-
lowing cond/fions:
Such ~ shall be improved and nmimgined in
acconfax~e with the provisions of Section
15.56.1.50 of titis tide. except that the required
fifteenfoot setback fxom a~y street shall be !and-
scaped in its entimy and not less than five per-
c,e~t of the rema/ndcr of the paring area shall
Along any common boundary with l~x~ny ~
R-1 c~ R-1P, a six-foot h/gh ornamental masomy
wall or wooden fence shall be provided and main-
rained. Where a differential in grade exists be-
tween the two properties, the height of the wall
shah be reduced one foot for each two feet of
grade differendal, provided that in no case. except
wilttin fifteen feet of the street line, shah such
wall be less than six fe~t in height as measured
from the commercial side and forty-two inches in
height as measured from the reddential side.
building pad eleva~n, if known, and if not
elevatim,
Along any "R" zone boundary not ot!~'w~ pro-
tected by a masonry wall located on the parking
lot side there shall be installed and maintained a
concme curb of dinbet barrier not less than six
inches in height and located not less than two fe~t
from said boundav/,
4. No such area shall be used for the commercial
storage of c.a~s. trucks. boats, or trailers.
5. No habitable structm'es shaU exist on the parcel
during its us~ as a parking area,
~u~ l-gs) 15-32
Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore
42733 San Julian Place
Temecula, Ca 92592
Honorable Mayor
Ron Roberts
City of Temecula ,Calif.
Dear Mayor Roberts:
We really appreciate your kind letter of recent date, recognizing
our valid interest in one of the most controversial issues facing
our City Council and the citizens of our outstanding City Re:
Parking/ storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones.
Along with the valuable and important cooperation of the Good Sam
Club which has a membership close to one million families who own
and enjoy Recreational Vehicles,the "We Love RV's" club of Temecula
has put together for the City Council a R.V. Information Packet
labeled "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" which we hope the City Council will take
the time to carefully consider for input to include in an R.V.Park-
ing Ordinance free of Leg~ and Constitu~£,~,nal implications.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT'''
The Planning Commissions recommendation not only to endorse ret-
aining the existing Ordinance but also strengthen and vigorously
enforce it,totally ignores the Parking Rights of Recreational Vehicle
owners, as well as having Legal and Constitutional implications
There are 2 sides to this "Hot" issue,the Recreational Vehicle owners,
and the anti-RV'ers. Both have inalienable rights which must be protected.
Anti RV'ers who base legitimate proveable claims in a Court of Law which
adversely affect the Health,Safety,a~d Welfare of our Community have our
complete sympathy,and support. Partie~ "esponsible for the abuse should
be held accountable,and dealt with ac~.o~'dingly.
However we heartily disagree with the A~ti-RV'ers who condemn Recreat-
ional Vehicles as eyesores,Crappy looking,Property degraders,etc.These
complaints are illegal and should be disregarded."Beauty is in the eyes
of the Beholder". Denying RV'ers the privilege and right of properly
parking thef~ vehicles on their own property is discriminatory.
-more-
Mayor Roberts -2- Salitore's
It is difficult to find a case where an RV properly parked on private
property has resulted in decreased property value. As a rule most Realtors
will point out the fact that RV parking is a plus when property is sold.
Most RV owners have substantial investments in t~ir vehicles and take
pride in them and their homes, to ask them to park elsewhere we feel is
taking away their Rights as property owners.
Please find enclosed 2 letters and copies of other Cities Recreational
Vehicle ordinances which we hope will be helpful in resolving Temeculas'
Recreational Vehicle parking in residential zones.
Sincerely,
Ed and Erie Salitore
Encl.
cc: Council members
Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore
42733 San Julian Place
Temecula, Ca 92592
Honorable Councilman
City of Temecula
RE: Tuesday April 21st Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop--Discussion of Parking/Storage
of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones.
Dear Councilman
Enclosed are copies of other Cities Recreational Vehicle Ordinances,
which we hope will prove helpful to you as well as staff as input
in resolving Temeculas' Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential
Zones.
Sincerely,
Ed and E~-Salitore
Encl: Response to Mayor Roberts letter dated March 20,1998
CASE HISTORIES and ORDINANCES FOR:
~resno, Ca
Fullerton,Ca
La Mesa,Ca
Mission Viejo,Ca
Pasadena, Ca
Salinas,Ca
San Bruno,Ca
San Diego,Ca
San Rafael,Ca
Santa Clara,Ca
trcSt Covina,Ca
lid,Ohio
ongsville, Ohio
MIKE RAMEY LETTER
DHIO, Euclid
One of the most significant
decisions involving RV parking
took place in Euclid, Ohio, in
1977. This was a major victory for
RV owners for two reasons: the
focus of the case was on aesthetic
values, and the case reached the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Following is a synopsis of the
events that led to this landmark
decision; the text was prepared
by Corinne Shulman, a California
attorney. The case is known as
City of Euclid v. Fitzthum, et al., 48
Ohio App. 2d 297, 357 N.E. 2d
402 (1976), cert. denied 429 U.S.
1094, 51 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1977).
Some years ago, Euclid, Ohio,
adopted an ordinance that pro-
hibited the parking of "any type
of truck, trailer, auto trailer or
trailer coach" in residential areas,
on either public or private prop-
erty, unless such unit was
"parked or stored in a completely
closed structure."
In 1974, nine RV owners were
cited for parking their RVs on
their property, and they and
others banded together in a
determined effort to fight the
ordinance. The matter was tried
at the municipal court level as a
criminal offense and the owners
were found guilty and fined, the
trial court finding the ordinance
constitutional.
Th~"RV owner. s appealed and
the Ohio Court of Appeals
reversed their convictions,
finding the ordinance unconstitu-
tional. It is that decision, made in
February 1976, to which we've
referred you, for subsequent
petitions by the City of Euclid,
first to the Ohio Supreme Court
and then to the U.S. Supreme
Court, were both denied and the
opinion of the Ohio Court of
Appeals is now final.
The state appellate court said
that in Ohio, zoning restrictions
for purely aesthetic reasons are
unconstitutional, and that the
ordinance, to be constitutional,
must be a valid exercise of police
power, the power to regulate for
the public health, safety, morals,
and welfare. The court then
stated that:
The vice of the present ordi-
nance is that the record will
support neither an applica-
tion of the ordinance which
bears a substantial, and
therefore reasonable, rela-
tionship to public health,
safety, morals or welfare nor
the imposition of a taxonomic
scheme based on any state
of facts that may reasonably
iustify it. Part of the lack of
reasonableness is exposed
by evidence of an uneven
regulatory application.
Reviewing the facts illustrated
the "constitutional inadequacies
of the ordinance." The city had
produced testimony to show that
a trailer parked in a driveway
would interfere with access for
fire-fighting equipment, would
serve as a conduit for fire, was
more difficult to move than a car,
lowered property values, and
under certain circumstances,
could create a safety hazard by
obstructing the view of street
traffic.
The RV owners had produced
evidence to show that automo-
biles (which were not prohibited
from driveway or street parking)
could be conduits for fire and/or
cause fire hazards and may be
unsightly when stored outside.
But the state appellate court
properly disregarded this evi-
dence, following a generally rec-
ognized rule of law that it is for
the trier of the fact (here the trial
court) to resolve conflicts in evi-
dence. The court then posed and
answered the constitutional ques-
tion:
Where, then, are the Due
Process and Equal Protec-
tion vices of the ordinance?
They lie in the indisputable
fact that enclosing vehicles
classified as trailers does not
change the fire hazard pro-
pensities and it does not
enlarge health safeguards.
Indeed it is clear beyond per-
adventure that enclosure may
diminish health and safety
factors by trapping sewage
spillage from portable sani-
tary facilities and collecting
highly flammable escaping
propane gas which would
otherwise be dissipated in the
air. These are factors too
obvious to be resolved on
mere credibility determina-
tions. '
CALIFORNIA, Fresno
RVers in the central California
city of Fresno are attempting to
change a city ordinance that
requires RVs in single-family res-
idental neighborhoods to be
parked and stored in an entirely
enclosed area or in a rear or side
yard that is enclosed by a wall or
solid fence not less than five feet
in height.
In addition, the city ordinance
allows for front yard parking for
loading/unloading not to exceed
72 hours in any month. Even for
RVers who keep their rigs in
storage, the 72-hour-per-month
limitation is not adequate for
those who use RVs frequently.
Not satisfied with the ordi-
nance, RV owners formed Fresno
RVers for Fair Play and
approached the city about
making changes in RV parking
regulations, but the city refused
to negotiate.
That's when RVers took advan-
tage of the state code that allows
street parking for up to 72 hours
at which time the vehicle must be
moved. Although the city ordi-
nance prohibited RV parking on
residential streets at any time,
unless adequate signs are posted
advising residents of the restric-
tion, the city could not enforce
the local ordinance. (For a more
thorough explanation of this
code, see Salinas, California, on
page 18.)
RVers who had received tickets
for parking their RVs on the
street challenged the city in
County of Fresno Municipal
Court on April 19, 1993 (People v.
Mitchell, No. 473534). The court
ruled that the city ordinance was
valid, but to be enforced, signs
must be posted before tickets can
be issued.
Rather than going to the
expense of posting signs, the city
changed its street-parking ordi-
nance to agree with the state
code.
However, RVers would prefer
to have their vehicles on their
private property,.and are c0ntin-
uing in their efforts to encourage
the city to change the existing
ordinance.
10
CALIFORNIA, Fullerton
Early in 1990, the Planning
Commission of Fullerton,
California, recommended an
ordinance that would have pro-
hibited the storage of RVs and
utility vehicles within required
front yard setbacks, including
driveways and accessways.
According to the terms of the
proposed ordinance, RVs could
be parked on a dust-free surface
behind the front yard setback in
an area having direct access from
a street or alley, but the vehicle
had to be stored perpendicular to
the front property line.
First to speak at the initial
hearing regarding the ordinance
was Gil Gilbert, who was at that
time Good Sam Southern
California State Director. Gilbert
asked for a reasonable use of
property, offering, as examples,
compromise ordinances from two
other California communities. He
also recommended that a citizens'
committee be formed to study the
problem. The commission agreed,
and a committee was organized.
It took approximately one year
of meetings for the task force to
draft and submit an ordinance to
the city, but the wheels of gov-
ernment turn slowly, and it
wasn't until February 1992 that
the city finally adopted an ordi-
nance that is acceptable to RVers.
RV owners called the ordinance a
victory, anti-RV homeowners
called it a waste of time and a
city council member called it a
"lesson in civics." In essence, an
ordinance from the 1960s was
revised to be more liberal for RV
owners.
ORDINANCE NO. 2800
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FULLERTON AMENDING
TITLE 15 OF THE FULLERTON MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ON-SITE
STORAGE AND PARKING OF RECREATIONAL AND UTILITY VEHICLES IN R-l, R-2 AND
R-2P ZONES
AMENDMENT A-1368
CITY OF FULLERTON
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FULLERTON HEREBY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Subsection 15.17.030.D.3 of the Fullerton Municipal Code currently reading:
3. Storage of recreational vehicles provided all the following conditions are satisfied.
a. Such stored vehicle shall not occupy any part of a required front yard.
b. Such stored vehicle shall not be occupied for living purposes.
c. Storage shall be limited to vehicles owned by the occupant of the dwelling unit.
is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. Parking and/or storage of recreational or utility vehicles, motorized, or non-motorized,
is permitted provided all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a. Such vehicles shall not be occupied for living purposes.
b. Such vehicles shall be limited to those owned by the occupant of the dwelling.
c. Recreational Vehicles shall not be parked or stored where such parking or storage
shall constitute a clear and demonstrable vehicular traffic hazard, or be a threat to
public health or safety.
d. A recreational vehicle shall not be parked or stored within the front yard where
there is an existing driveway or other access leading to the rear yard of the residence
11
that can accommodate such vehicle.
e. Parking parallel to the front property line is prohibited except where a curved or
circular driveway exists. In those cases, suitable screening of the recreational vehicle
shall be provided.
PASSED BY THE FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL ON February 4, 1992,
SIGNED AND APPROVED ON February 5, 1992.
12
CALIFORNIA, La Mesa
Back in 1988, Jack Chambers
led Good Samers residing in this
Southern California community
during a successful campaign to
fight anti-RV parking legislation.
However, the situation reared its
ugly head again in 1992. Good
Samer Reed Sauter went into
action and asked that headquar-
ters send a letter to Art Madrid,
mayor at that time, asking that he
modify his views on RV parking.
Also monitoring the situation
and offering advice was Mae Jo
Slager who organized RV's
United for Fair Play in nearby
San Diego, where she had led a
successful campaign against
unfavorable odds (see page 20).
While the La Mesa RV ordi-
nance was being considered,
Ruth Sterling ran for the city
council on a pro-RV ticket and
won her election. After the elec-
tion, the city council bowed to
pressure from RVers and voted
against the anti-RV ordinance. It
was Councilwoman Sterling's
first vote in her new position.
Mayor Madrid, who cast the
only dissenting vote, continued
to argue against the more
lenient bill, and even claimed
that the council's vote was
illegal, but the majority ruled.
RVers in that community hope
that the issue has been resolved
once and for all.
ORDINANCE NO. 2615
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12.51 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE,
RESTRICTED PARKING FOR OVERSIZE VEHICLES AND UNAT'FACHED TRAILERS
The City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, DOES ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 12.51 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, "Restricted Parking for
Oversize Vehicles and Unattached Trailers," is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk
shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once
in the La Mesa Forum within 15 days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
La Mesa, California, held the 8th day of December, 1992 and thereafter PASSED AND
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the 12th day of January, 1993.
13
CALIFORNIA, Mission Viejo
After spending just one night
in their new home in Mission
Viejo, California, Gary and
Sharon Hilde were facing serious
problems from their neighbors.
Although the Hildes knowingly
moved into a planned commu-
nity with restrictions, prior to
purchasing their home they took
the Covenants, Codes and
Restrictions (CC&Rs), a docu-
ment outlining the standards
established for the neighborhood,
to their attorney and were
assured that their motorhome
would be legally parked. They
had selected a home on a corner
lot with ample room for the rig
on one side of the property.
On the day the Hildes moved
into their home, they parked
their motorhome on the street
with the intent to move it onto
the property within a few days,
but within 24 hours, neighbors
complained and called the police,
who ordered the Hildes to
remove the rig from the street
immediately. However, even
with the rig legally parked on
their property, the neighbors con-
tinued their unrelenting assault
on the Hildes with verbal com-
ments and obscene gestures. The
unfriendly neighbors took their
grievance to the homeowners'
association, but the association
board ruled in favor of the
Hildes, saying that they had not
violated the CC&Rs and had a
right to park their RV on their
property.
When the homeowners' associ-
ation refused to cooperate, the
irate neighbors turned to the city
of Mission Viejo, requesting that
the city draft an anti-RV ordi-
nance that would encompass the
entire city. City officials said they
had no plans to enter into what
they considered a civil dispute,
but they did propose an ordi-
nance on the recommendation of
an ad hoc committee, specifying
that the ordinance was not to
replace or supersede CC&Rs in
private communities. The pro-
posed ordinance allowed RV
parking of any size in side yards
provided they were substantially
screened from view behind a 6-
foot fence, wall or gate, and
allowed RV parking in rear yards
with a site plan to be approved
by the director of community
development. The final ordi-
nance passed by the city council
affects RV parking in front of res-
idences and in driveways, but for
the most part, it represents a vic-
tory for RV owners.
Pressure from their neighbors
was so great that, at one time, the
Hildes had their home up for
sale, but since they had done
nothing illegal, they took their
home off the market and decided
to stand their ground. Eventually
the neighbors who were causing
the most trouble sold their home
and moved away, and the rest of
the neighbors have relaxed their
views on the issue. Gary Hilde
said that it took a good year for
the dust to settle, but finally, all is
peaceful in the neighborhood.
14
ORDINANCE NO. 89-28
NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO ADDING
CHAPTER 9.04 TO THE MISSION VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE
ABATEMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.04 is hereby added to the Mission Viejo Municipal Code, which shall
read as follows:
9.04.020 Nuisances designated. It shall be unlawful and it is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of any residential prop-
erty within the City of Mission Viejo, to maintain such property in such a manner that any of
the following conditions are found to exist thereon:
(22) Recreational 'vehicles parked or stored on any street, in the front yard area, or any
other location on the property where the recreational vehicles are visible from the neighboring
property or any street. The foregoing applies even if the vehicle or item is used primarily for
some purpose other than recreation. Any recreational vehicle without a valid registration or
license is considered to be stored. For the purposes of this section:
a. "Front Yard Area" shall mean the area between the plane of the front elevation of
the main portion of a dwelling unit extending to the side property lines and the front property
line abutting the street, including tile driveway;
b. "Property Owner" shall mean the legal owner of the residential property;
c. "Owner" shall mean the registered owner of a recreational vehicle and/or other
recreational items, which includes, but shall not be limited to, the property owner,
renter/lessor, and/or other residents or guests residing permanently or temporarily on residen-
tial property;
d. "Recreational Vehicle" shall mean a vehicle, boat, vessel or other type of portable
structure, with or without a mode of power, and without permanent foundation, which can be
towed, hauled, sailed or driven, and is designed primarily for recreational, camping, sailing
and/or travel use, such as, but not limited to, travel trailers, motorhomes, buses converted to
recreational or other non-commercial uses, vans, trucks with or without camper shells,
campers, camping trailers, motorcycles, off-road vehicles, aircraft, boats or other vessels.
(23) Use of parked or stored recreational vehicles, as defined in Section 9.04.020 (22)(d), as
temporary or permanent living space;
9.04.025 Exceptions. Notwithstanding Section 9.04.020, the following shall not constitute a
public nuisance:
(5) Parking of a recreational vehicle described in Section 9.04.020(22) on the street in front
of the owner's property or in tile driveway thereof, provided the sidewalk is not blocked, while
actively engaged in loading or unloading of said vehicle, but in no event longer than 72 hours;
(6) The legally conforming and approved storage or parking of a recreational vehicle
described in Section 9.04.020(22) in zones or designated planned development areas permitting
such storage or parking, and approved by the City;
(7) The parking or storage of recreational vehicles, as described in Section 9.04.020(22), in
the side yard or rear vard of property upon approval of a site plan, provided such vehicles or
items are substantialiv screened from view from any street or neighboring property of the same
or substantially similar grade behind a solid six (6) foot high fence/gate or wall and where ade-
quate screening or shrubbery is also provided along the neighboring property line. Boats, ves-
sels or other water craft having a mast must be parked or stored with the mast in a horizontal
position regardless of location if the mast is visible from tile street or neighboring property. Site
plans under this provision shall contain a vehicular parking/storage, fencing, wall, gate and
landscape plan. The site plan shall be submitted bv the property owner to the Director of
Community Development, who may approve or c~eny the plan or refer it to the Planning
Commission at his or her discretion. All site plans approved under this exception shall contain
a condition that if walls, fencing, gates or landscaping required by the site plan are not main-
tained, fall into disrepair, or are altered or changed without approval, the site plan approval
shall be revoked;
(8) Property owners of residential property which, by its physical characteristics may
allow the construction of a completely enclosed addition to the main living structure in the
front area may apply for a permit to build such an addition for the purpose of parking or
storage of recreational vehicles provided that such addition will not result in any exception to
the zoning laws or require a variance. The addition shall be compatible with the existing main
living structure and shall be designed so recreational vehicles are not visible from the street or
any neighboring property. Site plans under this provision shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval;
(9) Validly licensed four wheel drive vehicles, pickup trucks without camper shells or
with camper shells which do not extend more than one (1) foot above the height of the truck
cab, and vans may be parked in driveways, provided the total height of the top of the vehicle as
measured from the ground does not exceed ten (10) feet, excluding air conditioning units and
vents, and provided no part of the vehicle extends into the sidewalk area. This exception does
not apply to pickup trucks with sideboards, storage devices or racks extending more than one
(1) foot above the cab height or to any other recreational vehicle not specifically listed in this
subsection;
(10) Validly licensed four wheel drive vehicles, pickup trucks without camper shells or
with camper shells which do not extend more than one (1) foot above the height of the truck
cab, and vans may be parked in the street in front of the owner's residence as long as the total
height of the vehicle as measured from the ground does not exceed eight (8) feet in height,
excluding air conditioning units and vents; the width of the vehicle is less than ninety (90)
inches, the length of the vehicle does not exceed twenty-two (22) feet. This exception does not
apply to pickup trucks with side boards, storage devices or racks extending more than one (1)
foot above the cab height or to any other type of recreational type vehicle not specifically listed
in this subsection.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AN D ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF June, 1989.
16
CALIFORNIA, Pasadena
- The city of Pasadena, California,
is familiar to the thousands of
Good Samers who have enjoyed
taking part in Good Sam's annual
Samboree in conjunction with the
Tournament of Roses Parade
every New Year's Day. But while
RVers were enjoying Samboree
activities, the city was waging a
campaign to completely remove
RVs from private property in that
community. The proposed ordi-
nance referred to RVs as "visual
blight." Making the situation
worse was the fact that Jess
Hughston, who was serving as
mayor of the city at that time,
was an RV owner and member of
the Good Sam Club, but he sup-
ported the anti-RV ordinance.
Even a letter from Sue Bray,
Executive Director of the Good
Sam Club, reminding him of how
much money is pumped into the
city coffers every year by Good
Samers and other RVers
attending the Rose Parade, failed
to sway the mayor on the subject.
At the initial hearing on the
subject, the council delayed lis-
tening to the RVers attending the
meeting until 10 p.m., at which
time only two remained to voice
their objections to the ordinance.
At a subsequent meeting,
about 200 RVers showed up with
20 speaking against the ordinance
while only three speakers in favor
of the ordinance addressed the
council. The council showed
signs of backing off on some of
the terms of the ordinance that
referred to motorhomes, but
refused to change their views on
boats and trailers. But all was not
lost; there was to be one more
hearing on the subject.
Again, the RVers showed up en
masse at the council chambers
and pursuaded the council to
revise the ordinance to be more
favorable to RV owners, including
those with boats and trailers.
Because of the excellent organiza-
tion demonstrated by the RV
owners, council members reversed
their views on the subject.
When the issue first came up,
there was a 20-year-old ordi-
nance on the books that the
council determined needed to be
updated. Members thought they
could quietly and discreetly
change the ordinance with little
fanfare, but some alert RVer saw
the required notice of the intent
to change the ordinance; it was
published in a small newspaper
rather than the city's leading
publication. That got the wheels
turning, and the RVers organized
their winning campaign that
resulted in an ordinance that is
favorable to RV owners.
17
CALIFORNIA, Salinas
For 25 years, the city of Salinas,
California, had an ordinance that
prohibited the parking of RVs on
city streets; the ordinance speci-
fied that RVs were to be parked
on private property and screened
from sight.
Few RV owners were aware
that the ordinance existed until
1989, when the city hired a code
enforcement officer who started
issuing tickets to illegally parked
RVs. Most were on private prop-
erty, but they were not screened
from sight.
A hue and cry from RV owners
prompted the city to put a tem-
porary moratorium on enforcing
the ordinance while a committee
studied the issue, but the com-
promise the city proposed didn't
change anything or improve the
situation for RV owners. At the
time the RV parking issue
erupted, Bob Taylor, a lawyer,
was the only pro-RV member of
the Salinas City Council, but he
did not carry enough clout to
come to the rescue of RV owners.
Not satisfied with the city's
actions, RV owners formed RV
Owners of Salinas and engaged
the services of Taylor, who was
no longer a member of the city
council. The RVers appealed to
the council to reconsider the
issue, but their plea fell on deaf
ears.
The RV owners then put the
RV-parking issue on a ballot, but
the issue lost by a landslide.
That's when the RVers, under
the guidance of Taylor, took a
18
new approach. In California, the
city has only the authority given
to it by the state legislature over
streets and highways. If a city
chooses to impose parking
restrictions beyond the 72-hour
street-parking linKit provided for
by the state, there is a state code
section that requires the city to
post these parking ordinances on
signs before they can be enforced.
Taylor claimed that the city's
ordinance prohibiting RV
parking on streets could not be
enforced since the required signs
were not in place. To legally
enforce the ordinance, the city
would have to post signs every
250 feet on streets where the
restrictions were to apply.
Armed with this information,
RV owners took their grievance
to the administration hearing
officer, but, as anticipated, they
lost. Undaunted, they appealed
to the Municipal Court where a
trial was held, but again the
RVers lost.
The next step was an appeal to
the Superior Court, and it was
there, during a hearing before
three judges, that the RVers won
a sweet victory. The Superior
Court overturned the Municipal
Court's ruling and said that the
city cannot prohibit street parking
without posting the signs as
required by the state code. As
Taylor pointed out, at a cost of
$150 to purchase and install each
sign, it would be an extremely
costly venture that would irritate
taxpapers footing the bill.
That leaves the city with the
option of changing the existing
ordinance and allowing RVers to
park their vehicles on their prop-
erty, or having the rigs parked on
the streets, which is not a desir-
able option to RV owners, who
must move their vehicles every
72 hours, or to non-RV owners or
the city.
The Good Sam Club does not
encourage or condone long-term
street parking for RVs. It does
encourage reasonable street-
parking limits for loading/
unloading vehicles (usually 72
hours), but the Club discourages
RV owners from demanding the
right to store their vehicles on
city streets. However, RVers have
moved their rigs to the streets in
an effort to encourage the city to
cooperate with RV owners in
providing reasonable ordinances
for parking their vehicles on their
own property.
Since RV storage facilities will
not accommodate the vast
number of RVs in Salinas and
many other California communi-
ties, it was the only recourse,
short of selling their rigs, left to
RV owners.
The Salinas situation bears
watching. After the Superior
Court ruled in favor of the RVers,
the city approached the state
about enacting a law that would
have eliminated the need for
posting signs in order to enforce
a city parking ordinance, but the
issue was not introduced to the
legislature.
CALIFORNIA, San Bruno
When the City Council of the
San Francisco Bay community of
San Bruno, California, reaffirmed
the council's support for a con-
troversial law that had been
passed the preceding year aimed
at restricting boat and RV storage
on private property, Jack
Bartalini took it as a personal
assault and waged war on the
council. Council members soon
learned that Bartalini was not a
person to be taken lightly. The
battle that ensued led to many
bitter debates and, finally, to a
general election that found
Bartalini leading RVers to a vic-
tory over the city officials. It was
one of the more interesting and
hard-fought campaigns in the
history of RV parking legislation.
The battle heated up early in
1992 when Bartalini was quoted
in the local newspaper as saying
that what the council was trying
to do was "un-American." He
claimed that the council passed
the anti-RV ordinance without
the knowledge of RV owners.
However, when the council
attempted to enforce the ordi-
nance, the protest from RVers
was so loud that the council put a
moratorium on enforcing it until
October 1, 1992, allowing some
time for discussion. It was public
knowledge that the mayor and
most of the council members
were against RVs.
Bartalini organized a picnic
and rally at a local park, inviting
RV owners and the press to
attend the rally and organize
their efforts to fight the issue. It
was a move that brought RVers
together to form a united front
against the city government.
In response, the council put the
RV issue on the November ballot,
convinced that it would lead to
an anti-RV vote. Since it was a
presidential election year, a good
turnout for the election was guar-
anteed. There were two measures
concerning RVs: One asked the
voters if they wanted to continue
with the anti-RV law as it was,
which included prohibiting self-
propelled vehicles from parking
on driveways, and the other was
an advisory measure that would
allow parking of certain boats
and RVs less than 6 feet 6 inches
in height and fewer than 25 feet
in length on private property.
Bartalini launched his cam-
paign to defeat both of these
measures. He distributed 10,000
voter-information pamphlets,
going door to door in every
neighborhood in San Bruno, a
community with a population of
40,000. He drove up and down
every street, looking for boats
and RVs, to provide owners with
information and ask for a nom-
inal donation to finance the cam-
paign against the issues on the
ballot. He enlisted the aid of
others in carrying on a telephone
campaign. He was relentless in
his efforts to protect the rights of
RVers in San Bruno.
On election day, the efforts
expended by Bartalini and other
RV owners paid off; both of the
measures on the ballot were
defeated. The RV owners were
victorious, and the anti-RV ordi-
nance has been erased from the
books of the city of San Bruno.
19
CALIFORNIA, San Diego
Until 1991, Mae Jo Slager was a
senior citizen who lived a quiet
life in San Diego and enjoyed
RVing with her husband. Today,
Mae Jo is best known as the gutsy
lady who took on the countrv's
sixth largest city and won. It was
a major accomplishment.
To achieve a decisive victory in
San Diego took a lot of effort on
the part of Slager and the RVers
who responded to her leadership.
It was in 1990-91 that the city
decided to enforce an RV ordi-
nance that had been on the books
since 1987 and amended in 1988
and 1989. According to the terms
of that ordinance, RVs could not
be parked in a required front or
street-side yard, and those in rear
and side yards had to be con-
cealed from any public street bv a
solid, 10-foot screen.
Determined to fight such an
unreasonable ordinance, Slagcr
went into action. From a nucleus
of 13 RV owners, she organized
RV's United for Fair Play. Onlv
one person per family was
allowed to become a member
and attend meetings, limiting
votes to one per rig.
As word of the fledgling orga-
nization spread, the roster grew
at an unbelieveable rate. To
establish a war chest, everyone
joining the organization was
asked for a voluntary $10 dona-
tion. In Slager's own words, "The
money never stopped coming
in." Contributions came from
Good Sam chapters and other RV
clubs as well as individuals and
20
fraternal organizations. What was
especially surprising was
receiving contributions from Good
Sam chapters and individual
members as far as 200 miles away
from San Diego. Through these
contributions, the Fair Play war
chest grew to $9,000.
Once the organization was
established, Slager encouraged a
letter-writing campaign directed
at city officials; she even pro-
vided the names of those who
would be determining the fate of
RVers in San Diego. She went to
surrounding communities and
encouraged RVers to let the
leaders of San Diego know that
they were being watched.
By August 1991, the wheels
were turning. The San Diego
planning commissioners were
fully aware that the RVers of San
Diego were angry. The San Diego
Planning and Zoning
Department made overtures
about having a meeting with rep-
resentatives from RV's United for
Fair Play to determine what
changes would be necessary to
satisfy the RVers, but since no
meeting was scheduled, the Fair
Play members submitted their
position in writing.
This position offered nine
alternatives, including the estab-
lishment of a self-governing com-
mittee to act on complaints
received by the zoning depart-
ment about RVs. If no solution
could be enacted, the issue
would be directed back to the
zoning department for action.
The proposal submitted also
included a survey of available RV
storage spaces in San Diego;-the
statistics were alarming. There
were more than 100,000 RVs of all
types in San Diego (including
boats), but at the time of the
survey, there were only 85 avail-
able spaces for civilians and 236
for military personnel.
It was obvious that RV's
United for Fair Play leaders had
done their homework, but their
efforts fell on deaf ears. Planning
commissioners sent a recommen-
dation to the city council that the
code be maintained as written.
More than 100 RVers attended the
planning commission meeting
when this decision was made,
but not one of them was allowed
to speak.
As Slager later said, virtually
everyone at city hall was against
the RVers. Even the powerful San
Diego Union Tribune, with a circu-
lation of 400,000, took an anti-RV
stand.
In spite of this torrent of anti-
RV sentiment, Slager and her
forces rolled up their sleeves and
turned their attention to the city
council. In February 1992, armed
with 6,400 address labels of Good
Sam members in the city plus
names on the roster of RV's
United for Fair Play, Slager and
her committee mailed fliers to
15,000 RV owners in San Diego.
Printing for the fliers was pro-
vided free by two firms; the cost
for postage and paper, which
came to $1,160.49, came from the
war chest. It was a gamble, but it
was the committee's last chance
to beat the anti-RV ordinance.
The flier encouraged RVers to
bombard the mayor and council
members with mail and, if pos-
sible, to attend the city council
meeting on March 17, 1992, when
a decision would be made about
the recommendation from the
planning commission. Slager's
goal was to see that the mayor
and each council member
received at least 1,000 letters of
protest.
As March 17 dawned, RV
owners prepared to descend on
city hall for the city council
meeting. The groundwork was
laid. Each person attending the
meeting was wearing an electric
orange label with "RV's United
for Fair Play" printed on it.
Before each council member was
a packet of information from
RV's United for Fair Play with an
orange label on it.
Before the meeting was under
way, more than 900 RV owners
jammed the council chambers
and an auxiliary room equipped
with a sound system to follow
the proceedings. Seven represen-
tatives of the Fair Play committee
spoke, each presenting different
information on the subject of RV
parking. The presentation had
been carefully rehearsed and
timed the night prior to the
meeting.
It didn't take council members
long to realize that the RVers were
well organized and determined
to win. Councilman Ron Roberts
took the lead and made a motion
tl'tat the existing ordinance be
changed to meet most of the
RVers' demands. All of the council
members, including the mayor,
agreed, and the RVers of San
Diego knew that their efforts had
paid off. The ordinance was sent
back to the planning department
for proper wording and was to
be returned to the city council for
a final vote on April 21.
Needless to say, Slager and her
troops attended the April 21
meeting to make certain that the
ordinance was acceptable as
written. The RVers had to give in
on parallel parking in the front
yard, but the required fencing or
natural screening was reduced
from a height of 10 feet to 3 feet.
All in all, it was a great victory.
City council members who spoke
with Slager said that it was the
manner in which the RV owners
were organized that swayed the
council to take a very favorable
stance on the issue.
After spending $6,000 for
many mailings and other
expenses, RV's United for Fair
Play had $2,400 that has been set
aside for future problems.
Meanwhile, Slager has become
a driving force in other Southern
California communities facing
RV parking problems. Her fame
is spreading, and others are
turning to her for guidance and
advice, which she willingly
provides.
Her celebrity status has made
significant changes in the quiet
lifestyle this San Diego senior cit-
izen once enjoyed.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 101.0407
R-1 ZONES
E. PARKING REGULATIONS
1. Every premises shall be provided with a minimum of permanently maintained off-street
parking spaces in a parking area or private garage on the same premises as follows:
a. For each dwelling unit -- two spaces.
b. For each two lodgers -- one space.
2. Off-street parking spaces shall be constructed, maintained and used in compliance with
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter X, Article 1, Division 8, except that the required parking
may be provided on a driveway or paved surface within the front or street side yard on
premises where required parking was converted to habitable space prior to January 1, 1992, sub-
ject to the following standards:
a. Said area complies with the standards for required parking contained in Municipal Code
section 101.0813 utilizing a maximum of five (5) feet of the undeveloped public right-of-
way. In no case shall the sidewalk be obstructed or encroached upon by a vehicle parked
within said area.
21
b. Said area is perpendicular to the public right-of-way and between the sidewalk adjacent
to the property and the building setback.
c. No other on-site alternative placement options are available.
d. Complies with Municipal Code section 101.0407(E)(3).
3. Maximum Driveway Width. No driveway or required off-street parking area shall
exceed a width of twenty-five (25) feet within a required front or street side yard, or at any point
between a property line and an established setback line. There shall be no less than thirty (30)
feet within a required front or street side yard, or at any point between a property line and an
established setback line. There shall be no less than thirty (30) feet, measured at the property
line, between driveways serving the same premises. All driveways shall lead to a legal off-street
parking area on the same premises (and/or to legal parking on neighboring property, if per-
mitted by variance, recorded map easement, or other approved mechanism) or shall provide for
required parking per Municipal Code section 101.0407(E)(2).
F. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND PLACEMENT
Storage and placement of material and equipment outside a roofed, fully-enclosed, legally-
installed structure is permitted as follows, subject to compliance with all applicable fire, health,
safety, litter and building codes.
1. The type and quantity of stored and placed items must be clearly incidental to residen-
tial use and enjoyment of the premises; those items, except as exempted below, are further pro-
hibited from or restricted within required yard and setback areas by the terms of Municipal
Code section 101.0609.
2. Unless otherwise noted in Municipal Code sections 101.0407(F)(4) and (F)(5), all stored
or placed items shall be completely screened by legally installed and maintained solid fencing,
walls, building, landscape features, or a combination thereof. No item shall exceed the height of
the solid screening enclosure, except where City-wide screening requirements are stipulated for
specific equipment elsewhere in this Code.
3. Not more than one (1) fully screened outdoor area may be used to store vehicle and/or
other equipment parts and/or inoperable vehicles. Such storage may not exceed four hundred
(400) square feet in area, may not intrude into any required yard and may not exceed 10'-0" in
height except as prescribed in Municipal Code sections 101.0407(F)(4), (5) and (6).
4. The following items may be placed outdoors without screening:
a. Any item listed in Municipal Code section 101.0609.
b. Home maintenance or lawn maintenance equipment and supplies during actual use. The
Development Services Director shall determine the necessity for extended placement when
questions arise.
c. Game, sport and leisure equipment designed and intended for on-site recreational enjoy-
ment when such equipment is set up and immediately available for such use.
d. Bicycles, tricycles, children's wagons and other small non-motorized wheeled devices in
working condition and used for recreational purposes either on-site or on neighboring
streets or properties. A non-motorized wheeled device with any plane dimension of greater
than twenty-four (24) square feet is subject to Municipal Code section 101.0407(F)(5). The
requirements set forth in this section only apply to parking areas that are located within a
required front or side yard setback. To the greatest extent possible, the rear yard setback
should be used for vehicle or equipment parking/storage. Otherwise:
5. For lots developed with interior side.yards of less than ten (10) feet, no access to the rear
yard and no other on-site parking areas located outside of the front or side yard setbacks, one
(1) of the following items may be stored outdoors in the required front or side yard setbacks
subject to the requirements contained in paragraphs a through c of this subsection 5:
Recreational vehicles, travel trailers, trailers, boats, all-terrain vehicles, camper shells,
motorcycles and similar equipment, provided that the vehicle or equipment is maintained in an
operable condition. (An operable, self-propelled vehicle may be parked in the same manner as
any other operable vehicle, pursuant to the San Diego Municipal Code Chapter X, Article 1,
Division 8.)
a. A listed item shall be placed perpendicular to the front property line when the item is
located within the required front yard setback.
b. For equipment that is located within the required front or side yard setbacks, a three (3)
foot high solid wall/fence or landscape material which shall reach a minimum height of
three (3) feet within two (2) years of installation, shall be placed along interior property
lines adjacent to the above listed item.
c. The provisions of this subsection 5 shall not affect the validity, application or enforce-
ment of any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any other agreement
relating parking and storage of any of the items listed in this subsection 5 if the CC&Rs or
agreements are more restrictive that the provisions of this subsection 5.
(AMENDED 7-25-94 BY 0-18088 N.S.)
CALIFORNIA, San Rafael
The community of San Rafael
determined that the city's 40-
year-old zoning ordinance
needed to be revised. After three-
and-one-half years of research,
the new ordinance was unveiled,
but there were those who were
less than pleased with the section
of the ordinance controlling RV
parking in the city, an issue that
the old ordinance did not
address. In essence, RVs longer
than 20 feet would be prohibited
from parking on streets, in drive-
ways or other parts of residential
property.
Members of the Top of the Bay
Good Sam chapter realized that it
probably was a few careless RV
owners who were responsible for
such a restrictive clause in the
zoning ordinance, and expressed
their views before the city
council. The Good Samers felt
that these few cases should be
handled individually rather than
imposing the ordinance on all
RVers.
When the council members
saw the large turnout of RV
owners at the first heating on the
ordinance, they realized that the
RV issue was by far the most con-
troversial in the ordinance. A few
spoke against RVs on private
property, but since the vast
majority of those at the meeting
were against the restrictions,
council members determined that
the size restriction was not justi-
fied and changed the ordinance
before it was voted into law.
Once again, showing up in a
united group to protect their
rights paid off for members of the
Good Sam Club.
24
CALIFORNIA, Santa Clara
When the community of Santa
Clara, California, threatened to
ban all RV parking in front of
homes or in driveways, RVers
expressed their opposition to the
issue. Some agreed to serve on a
committee to draft a compromise
ordinance. Meanwhile, anti-RV
forces threatened to put an initia-
tive on the ballot opposing RV
parking. However, the council
must approve funding for initia-
tives placed on the ballot.
Before the issue reached that
point, the compromise ordinance
was presented to the city council.
After the required hearings were
held, the council approved an
ordinance that most RVers find
reasonable. Essentially, RV
parking is permitted in front
yard areas as long as the vehicle
is perpendicular to the street and
at least 45 percent of the yard
remains in grass. Good Samer Ed
Borner said that even though it is
a reasonably liberal ordinance,
there is little effort to enforce it.
ORDINANCE NO. 1634
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AMENDING ARTICLES 5, 6, 7, AND 41
OF "THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA" PERTAINING TO
MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND REGULATION OF PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL
FRONT YARDS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, as follows:
SECTION 1: That Article 5 of the "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Clara" is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Article 5. Regulations for R1-8L
Single-Family, Larger Lot Area Zoning Districts
Sec. 5-11. Parking Requirements (05/92)
(a) Each single family dwelling shall have two garage or carport parking spaces; these
parking spaces shall be prohibited in required front yards or corner lot side yards. A minimum
driveway length of twenty (20) feet shall be required between said parking and any street right-
of-way line.
(b) Additional parking shall be permitted in required front yards or corner lot side yards,
with motor vehicles, trailers, and boats parked in an orderly manner, generally perpendicular
to the street. Such parking shall be prohibited in the 35 percent minimum landscaped area.
Motor vehicles which do not comply with restrictions imposed by other sections of this
Ordinance are prohibited.
(c) Parking shall only be allowed on areas surfaced with all-weather materials such as
concrete, asphalt, brick, stone or gravel.
(d) More information on prohibited activities in residential districts may be found in
Article 41 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7: Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final adoption and before its adoption it
shall be published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Clara.
PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 5th day of May, 1992.
25
CALIFORNIA, West Covina
In 1989, the city of West
Covina, California, was consid-
ering an ordinance that would
have removed RVs from city
streets at all times. Good Samer
Irving N. Rubenstein wrote to
headquarters saying that while
he kept his 35-foot motorhome in
storage, there were times when
he needed to have it at his home
for a few days to prepare for a
trip.
When the issue came before
the city council for a vote, the
majority of the council members
voted for passage of the restric-
tive ordinance; it was to become
effective in February 1990. RVers
went into action, writing letters
and attending meetings to
express their opposition to the
ordinance. At that point, the
council tabled the issue.
Letters to the editor started
appearing in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune, including one that
asked the council to leave RVers
alone and address the real issues
facing the city, like gangs, crime
and the budget. Another
addressed a claim by a Covina
city official that RVs parked in
driveways make excellent
hiding places for criminals who
have just left the scene of a bur-
glary. The author of the letter
had been a Los Angeles police
officer for 25 years who said he
searched hundreds of RVs,
"looking for that one burglar
who was stupid enough to trap
him/herself in one of these vehi-
cles. Never found one."
However, not all of the letters
were in sympathy with RVers.
One congratulated the council for
their "sound judgment" on the
RV issue in spite of the "rude and
disruptive behavior displayed by
a rowdy group."
To resolve the problem, the
council appointed a committee
comprised of those on both sides
of the issue. The resulting ordi-
nance allows up to 72-hour street
parking; if there is a special need
to park longer, the RVer can
apply for a permit. The vehicle
also can still be parked on pave-
ment in front of a residence.
RVers find the decision a reason-
able one.
ORDINANCE NO. 1855
AN ORDINANCE OF TIdE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 26, ARTI-
CLES II AND VIII, RELATING TO RECREATION VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE IN
THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL (RA) AND ONE FAMILY (R-l) ZONES. (Amendment
No. 234)
WHEREAS, at the recommendation of an Ad Hoc Citizen's Committee on the issue of over-
sized and recreational vehicles, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct
a study and prepare an appropriate draft ordinance providing for recreational vehicle storage
within the City including consideration of procedures for allowing parking on single-family
lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon giving the required notice, did on the 20th day of
June, 1990, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Planning Department,
the Planning Commission, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing held
on July 23, 1990; and
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the City Council and in its behalf reveal the fol-
lowing facts:
26
1. Community, concerns regarding the recurring on-street parking of recreational vehicles
and the lack of off-street parking provisions for such vehicles have been expressed periodically
over the past fifteen years.
2. Although the code does not expressly provide for parking of "recreational vehicles" in
single family lots, past and current City policy has been to treat them as any other vehicle
which may be parked on single-family lots.
3. Upon reviewing the pertinent sections of the code, staff is recommending that the
zoning code be amended to include explicit references to recreational vehicle parking provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION NO. 1: Based on evidence presented and findings set forth, Amendment
No. 234 is hereby approved as consistent with the City's General Plan.
SECTION NO. 2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Chapter
26, Articles II and VIII are hereby amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS
Sec. 26-118. Vehicles, definitions relating to.
(m) "Recreational Vehicle" means a vehicle, with or without motive power, capable of
human habitation or camping purposes and/or used for sporting, recreation, or social
activities including but not limited to trailers, semi-trailers, motor coaches, motor homes,
fifth-wheels, campers, and camper shells, and camper trailers.
ARTICLE VIII. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE/ONE FAMILY ZONE
Sec. 26-391, Permitted uses.
(h) Parking or storing of commercial vehicles or commercial equipment is prohibited. It
shall be unlawful to park or store any commercial vehicles, trailers or other related equip-
ment on property which is zoned for residential uses. The provision of this subparagraph
(h) shall not apply to commercial automobiles, pickups, panel delivery trucks and station
wagons, passenger or cargo vans. For purposes of this section, recreational vehicles are not
considered commercial vehicles.
(j) Parking or storing vehicles.
Parking or storing vehicles including recreational vehicles is permitted in the Residential
Agricultural and One Family Zone on lots which are developed with a private single
family residence subject to the following provisions:
(1) Within the front yard, parking or storing of vehicles is permitted only upon paved
areas.
(2) Within the street side yard or interior side yard, vehicles must be screened from
abutting streets and/or properties with a six-foot high masonry block wall, fence, or
solid landscaping treatment.
(3) Within the rear yard, vehicles cannot be located within five (5) feet of the rear
property line and must be screened from abutting streets and/or properties with a six
foot high masonry block wall, fence, or solid landscaping treatment.
(4) As used in this section, a "front" yard refers to all space between the main
building (also the projection of the main building to the side property lines) and the
front property line. "Street side yard" and "interior side yard" refers to all space
between the main building (also the projection of the main building to the front and
rear property lines) and the street side and interior side property lines, respectively.
27
"Rear yard" refers to all space between the main building (also the projection of the
main building to the side property lines) and the rear property line.
(5) There shall be no overhang of the vehicle along adjacent public sidewalks and
rights-of-way, and a forty-five degree diagonal corner cut-off shall be provided to
allow clear vision of such sidewalks or rights-of-way for at least ten (10) feet along
driveways.
(6) Parking and storing of vehicles shall be allowed only as an accessory use which is
incidental to the primary residential use of property.
Sec. 26-402.5 Maximum front yard pavement coverage.
(c) Administrative Review Board members appeal procedures, time limit and compliance
requirements shall be as provided in sections 26-267 through 26-269 of this chapter.
Through appropriate procedure to protect the interest of owners of property abutting the
subject property, the Administrative Review Board shall review and approve or deny the
following:
(1) A modification of the front yard pavement coverage to permit twelve (12) feet of
new paving to be added to one side of a driveway or to any other location within the
front yard in lieu of six (6) feet on either side of the driveway providing it is perpen-
dicular to the adjacent street and does not impact adjoining property.
(2) Substitutions of paved materials for the added paved area if found to be substan-
tially similar to the requirements of this article.
(3) A modification to the front pavement coverage to permit a circular drive.
SECTION NO. 3: It has been determined that this project, which consists of a minor
amendment to land use requirements is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15305 (Class
5-minor alterations in land use limitations) of the State CEQA Guidelines and no
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration Of Environmental Impact is required.
SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of the Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of August, 1990.
28
DHIO, Strongsville
After storing an RV on his
property since 1977 and a boat in
his side yard, Allen Clancy was
not pleased when he learned that
an anti-RV ordinance, passed in
1978, was going to be enforced.
The ordinance stated that RVs
"may be permitted on a residen-
tial lot, provided they are stored
in an enclosed structure, except
that boats and trailers of 18 feet
or less in length may be stored in
a rear yard."
When RV and boat owners
protested, the city agreed to tem-
porarily suspend enforcement of
the ordinance. However, there
was strong opposition to
changing the restrictive ordi-
nance by the anti-RV forces in the
community.
For two years, the RVers con-
tinued to negotiate with council
members, but it had to be done
on an individual basis so the ses-
sions would not be considered
meetings. Eventually, the RVers
had three council members on
their side. In countering argu-
ments from those who said they
did not like to see RVs in their
neighborhoods, Clancy said that
he didn't like swing sets, above-
the-ground pools and other items
that were considered proper. One
councilwoman who was strongly
opposed to RVs claimed that they
were unsafe because of the
propane tanks on them, but
Clancy shot back by asking her if
she had a propane-operated gas
grill right next to her home. The
councilwoman also mentioned
the supply of gasoline in a
motorhome, but he reminded her
that the cars she kept on her
property also had gasoline tanks.
She finally admitted that Clancy
had the answers to all of her anti-
RV arguments, but she never
turned in favor of the RVers.
However, enough council
members did realize that a strin-
gent ordinance would put a
hardship on RVers and drafted a
new ordinance that is quite rea-
sonable. But it was too late for
Clancy; during the negotiations,
he sold his RV and his boat
because he had been cited and
could not locate adequate com-
mercial storage near his residence.
ORDINANCE NO. 1991 - 136
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1252.26 OF CHAPTER 1252 OF TITLE SIX OF PART
TWELVE, PLANNING AND ZONING CODE, OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF STRONGSV[LLE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND
STORAGE, AS AMENDED.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STRONGSVILLE, COUNTY OF
CUYAHOGA AND STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That Section 1252.20 of Chapter 1252 of Title Six of Part Twelve, Planning and
Zoning Code, of the Codified Ordinance of the City of Strongsville be and hereby is amended to
read in its entirety as follows:
1252.26 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE.
A. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, words shall have the following meanings:
1. "Recreational vehicle" shall mean any vehicle or equipment designed for or pri-
marily used as a travel trailer, camper, motor home, tent trailer, camping trailer, boat, boat
trailer, snowmobile or snowmobile trailer.
2. "Park" shall mean to place a recreational vehicle for the purpose of convenient
departure from or return to the vehicle in connection wi'th a planned trip, outing or vacation,
including the processes of loading or urdoading the vehicle and preparation of the vehicle.
37
38
3. "Self-transported" shall mean capable of being moved from one place to another
over streets, roads and highways by means of motor power which is an integral part of the
main equipment.
4. "Self-transported recreational vehicle" shall mean a recreational vehicle with at
least four (4) balloon-tired wheels which is self-transported such as a recreational van or motor-
home.
5. "Store" shall mean to place a recreational vehicle for the purpose of preserving,
protecting and securing it for a period in excess of twenty-four (24) hours.
B. Garage Parking and Storage. Any such recreational vehicle may be parked or stored in
a parking garage on the zoning lot if such vehicle is of such a size as to permit it to be conve-
niently stored in such garage with the garage door closed.
C. Self-Transported Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage. A self-transported recre-
ational vehicle may be parked or stored in a front, side or rear yard on a lot in a R1-75, Rl-100
or R2-F Zoning District subject to the requirements set forth in this section.
D. Other Recreational Vehicle Storage and Parking. A recreational vehicle which is not
self-transported may be stored or seasonally parked on a lot in an R1-75, RI-100 or R2-F Zoning
District subject to the requirements of this section and the following conditions:
1. From April I to November 15 in any calendar year, one such recreational vehicle
may be parked in a front yard on a vehicle access driveway or hard surfaced parking area.
2. One such recreational vehicle may be stored on the zoning lot in the rear yard or
the side yard.
3. If such recreational vehicle cannot be stored in the rear yard because access for
such vehicle through the zoning lot to the rear yard is prohibited by a permanent structure per-
mitted on the zoning lot, and such vehicle cannot be stored in the parking garage, such vehicle
may be stored in a front or side yard on a vehicle access driveway of hard surfaced parking
area, provided that such vehicle does not exceed 28 feet in length.
E. Front Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked in a front yard shall comply
with the following reqt~irements:
1. Such vehicle shall be parked in the vehicular access driveway or hard surfaced
parking area.
2. Such vehicle shall be parked as close to the front building line as is possible, no
nearer to any side lot line than 5 feet in a R1-75 and R2-F zoning district, no nearer to any side
lot line than 10 feet in a R1-100 zoning district, and no nearer to any public right-of-way than 20
feet.
E Rear Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked or stored in a rear yard shall
comply with the following requirements:
1. Such vehicle shall be stored no nearer to the main structure on the lot or an
adjoining lot than 20 feet, and to any side or rear lot line than 5 feet.
2. The total area covered by accessory structures and recreational vehicles in a rear
yard shall not exceed 30V~. of the required rear yard.
3. The grading of the lot shall not be altered and the drainage of the area shall not be
obstructed or altered unless approved by the City Engineer.
G. Side Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked or stored in a side yard shall
not be subject to specific side yard requirements except as set forth in paragraph H below.
H. General Requirements. Any recreational vehicle stored or parked in any residential
zoning district shall comply with the following requirements.
1. No such recreational vehicle shall be parked or stored on a public or private street,
alley, treelawn or sidewalk, except vehicles licensed for street travel may be parked on public or
private streets during the hours and in the areas designated for automobiles as specified else-
where in the Codified Ordinances, provided such vehicles are currently licensed.
2. No such recreational vehicle shall have fixed connections to electricity, water, gas,
or sanitary sewer facilities, nor shall any such recreational vehicle at any time be used for living
or housekeeping purposes on the zoning lot.
3. Any such recreational vehicle shall be kept in good repair and in working condi-
tion, with current license plate, unless stored in a parking garage.
Date passed: Nov. 4, 1991
Date approved: Nov. 12, 1991
39
WE LOVE RVS COMMrI'IEE
April 08 1998
Subject: RV parking rights talking points
RV owner profile
* Member of a billion dollar industry
* Recreation/tourism key elements(ie. Temecula ballon/wine festival)
*Encompasses all age groups (young families to senior citizens)
* Appx 25% belong to one often national RVclubs((400 families belong
to one club in Temecula)
*Participants to this life style are tax payers/voters/law abiders and
generally good neighbors, accomodating where possible
RV owner issues/concerns
*Past lot size plans lacked proper clearance for side or rear yard access
*Many have had concrete pads and side access driveways poured at
great expense and where it was possible
*Storage facilities are costly/un secure/inconvenient/unavailable
*Stree~ parking for both cars and RVs not desireable nor safe and,
because of state law which requires posting on every block,
unsightly difficult to enforce and very expensive
But what are the options if property parking is restricted?
*Perception that owning/parking a RV decreases surrounding
property(most realtors say RVs in the neighborhood do nothing to decrease
residences value and when a home has RV parking the value for that
home is increased.
Possible longterm solutions
*Require new development to have a predetermined number of homes with side or rear yard clearance for RVaccess
*Modify existing code to be more accomodating for front yard parking
provided side/rear yard not available and safety
and health not compromised
*Sanction a citizen committee made up of both sides of this issue and a
neutral moderator to make recommendations to the council
Summation
*Property rights vs individual rights and home owner associations
vs non associations are difficult issues which demand
careful dialoque and no early rush to judgement to
promote fairness and prevent any unwanted and costly
litigation or an unwarranted reputation as an unfriendly to RVers
city
Working together we can make a difference !!!!!
Respectfutly submitted,
Mike Ramey
Mathew Fagan, Assistant City Planner April 14, 1998
Sir:
I understand you are considering restrictions on the parking of
recreational vehicles within the city limits of Temecula.
I live in Meadowviewandhave my R.V. parked on a cement slab behind
my garage. My lot is completely fenced in accordance with the CC&R's for
Meadowview.
I strongly urge your support in continuing to allow property owners
to keep their R.V.'s within the confines of their property.
Sincere Thanks,
Ronald A. Barbeau
29741Del Rey Rd.
Temecula, CA 92591
1998