The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0263.091• llay 16, 1991 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy and Procedures Committee oytrDight 'arliD9 X"va' Members of the Counci 1 = Report; 'a Bri,' On December 17, 1990 council reported an increasing number of problema associated with vehicles piirkinq in front of homes .. schools and parks. Acid.itionally, Council .eabers advised that individuals were repeatedly violating the -72 hour-rule by reparking a vehicle near their home every third day. creatinq an ae.sthetic upact and. interterinq with street sweeping. coW\cil referred the is.sue to the Policy and Procedures committee and directed staff to p-rovide in.formation regarding parking requlations that miqht resolve this issue, alternatives and legal implications. This report discusses the history of the parking ordinance, the probleJaS associated with overniqht parking and stored/abandoned vehicles regulations, and examines options that address the concerns raised by the Council. After assessing legal and practical considerations, staff recommends that no changes be made to the existing ordinances~ Palo Alto first enacted an overniqht parking ordinance in 1940 to address the following community concerns: 1) reduce auto theft and related crt-inal activity; 2) facilitate street sweeping; 3) pro vide better access for emergency response units; and 4) enhance general safety and improve community appearance. The ordinance prohi~it.d vehicles from being parked in commercial areas for more than one hour on any street or alley between the hours of 2:00 a.a. and 6: 00 a.m. For residents who did not have adequate parking available on their property, a provision for a hardship permit, issued by the Police Chief, was included in the ordinance. CMR:263:91 --. ... . , o o Page Two Since it. inception, the ordinance has bee.n d.iscussed at the Council level on numerous occasions. Numerous revisions to the ordinance have. been .ade over the. years. In 1956, the regulations were extended to include residential areas. In 1971 1 the ordinance was .. ended to allow for easier enforcement. Vehicle. were. prohibited trom parking on any street or alley between the hour. of 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.~. without a permit. In ~9'6, the City Treasurer's Office requested that the ordinance be repealed and that the overniqht parkinq proqram be discontinued because ot a negative cost-benefit ratio due to high administrative and enfcrceaent coats, lack of evidence indicatil'l9 that vehicle theft and vandalism were reduced due to overnight parking restrictions, and failure of the proqram to result in the removal of a siqnificant number ot vehicles from the streets. This;. request was not approved. statf reco~nded in Kay 1981 L~at the ordinance be repealed and that, should council desire enforcement~ significant funding be provided for effective efforts. Funds were not appropriated and enforcement was condUcted on a complaint basis only. In March 1982, Council approved a comprehensive. change in the ordinance to provide tor stronger enforcement capability of abandoned/stored vehicles left on the stre.e.ts for more than 72 hours and tor the iapoundae.nt ot veiticles abandoned on the streets for more than five days. Additiona11y, a provision ~as added that prohibited overnight parking in residential zones between 2:00 8.m. and 6:00 a.a. for recreational or comaercial vehicles in excess of 7,000-pounds. A hardship clause perllittinq vehicle owners with inadequate off-street parkinq to obtain permits was also i~cluded in the revision. Upon recomnendations of the Policy and procedures Committee, Council &lDended the ordinance in 1935 to prohibit commercial vehicles, in excess of 3,800 pounds unladen weight, trom parking on R-l zoned streets between the hours of 2:00 a.m~ to 6:00 a.m", to retain the hardship permits provision and to probibit campers, trailers, and house cars in R-l.zones. The last changes to the ordinance occurred in 1988. The revisions reduced the ~it validation period froll o-."'l~ yea!' to a maximum period of one month, prohibited the rene~al of those permits, and provided for the issuance of permits to Palo Alto residents only • .In a related. issue, Council »ay re.call that after a. two-year parking problem associated with the now defunct European {Grecian) CMR:263:91 r Page Three Health Spa in the. Southqate/Everqreen neighborhood, a residential permit ordinance was adopted (Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10. '6) in 1983 ~ The ordinance allo'\ied -resident only· permit parkinq on desiqnated streets In those neiqhborhoods. In 1985, Transportation staft recommended the ordinance be suspended for a tvo-year period until a disposition or the-property was determined.. counci 1 inatead dec idea to extend the parking permits indefinitely~ Because this ordinance has not been enforce.d for over five year., statf conaidered requesting the ordinance aqain be suspended until auch tilDe the property at the corner of El caaino and Park BoUlevard vas occupied. However, Planning Department peraotlllel have indicated that there are proposel! projects in proqress tor the properties at both the north a:nd soutbeast corners~ staff therefore believes that the extension should stay in place until such time final deterainations about the properties are lIade.. ICOU 01' DI PJ\OILg Abapdape4lBtor.4 'ehicl •• Palo Alto MUnicipal Code section 10~36~030 provides for the citing and. removal of any vehicle parked in one place for 72 or more consecutive hours. The Police Department currently devotes one full-time Community service Officer (eSO) to the abatement of stored and abandoned vehicles and enforces this ordinance on a complaint Dasis. For the last three years J an averaqe of 131 complaints have been received each month. During this last year on a .onthly average, 34 citations were issued and 15 vehicles were towed as abandoned or stored. The remalninq vehicles were moved by the owners. Staff is currently able to handle all calls for service reqardinq stored/abandoned vehiel~s. The number ot vehicle owners who .ove their vehicles after receiving a warning, only to IIItOve them back a sbort time later, is currently not tracked~ However, based upon the number of overall complaints received for violations of the 72 hour regulation, staff believes thia occurs infrequently. Public works staff was consulted reqardinq the abandoned/stored vehicles and street Bweepinq difticulties~ They reported that every street is scheduled for weekly sweeping. The majority of residential street sweepin9 is. donQ durin<j' da.ytime hours~ For those streets that may not be swept because of numerous parked vehicles, special -no parking-signs are posted tor special sweeps as needed.. Public works staff also report vehicles they believe to be abandoned/stored to the Police Department for processinq~ • \ .. ' ~ -------------------------- o o Page Four 'tree, par'ipa I •• \rietiop. a, Rghool. IDA rarta Exiating parking regulations in tront of Palo alto schools vary. Parking i. restricted at SChools that are located in residential areas, such as Barron Park •. At other schools, such as Jane Lathrop S'canford Middle School, parking is lill,lted to three minutes to allow for passenger unloading. Typically, Palo Alto schools experience some congestion between 8:00 -8:45 a ••• when students are dropped off. Similarly, between 2:30 -3:15 p.m. there is traffic congestion associated with the pickup of students. This sort or congestion is not excessive and due to its nature is not likely to be .lti9ate~ by a parking prohibition. The upact of parkinq around City parks depends primarily on location. smaller parks located in residential areas are usually frequented by resident. who walk or bicycle. Tbo5e who drive their cars, park on streets next to .end around the parks~ In the case of larger parks, sucb as Rinconac!a, the use i8 qreate.r by non residents and others who d:ive. The fev park-related parking co.plaints tbe Police Department receives are usually for blocked driveways, red zone and other miscellaneous violations. A prohibition of parking on stree.ts immediately surrounding or in front ot parks woula tend to displace visitors' vehicles further into the neighborhOOdS and Bost likely qenerate increased compla.ints~ Pylrpiqh\ Parkinq Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.44.020 prohibits colU!ercial Vehicles in excess of 3,900 pounds unladen we.ight from parking on R-1 zoned streets between 2:00 a.a. and 6:00 a.JrI~ commoarcial Vehicles over 7,000 pounds and campers, trailers and house cars are prohibited :from parking in residential 2:ones. Hardship permits are available to residents ~ho can show they do not have adequate off str.e';; parking~ The non-renawa.ble permit, valid for 31 days, .is issued through Revenue Collections at a cost of $20. During 1990~ one request vas received and the permit was issued~ Enforcement of the overnight parkinq ordinance is also handled on a complaint basis. During the. last 12 months, the Police Depa.rt.ment received 24 COJIIplaints about overnIght parking violations. Of the 24 complaints, 12 warnings were issued and the other 12 Vehicles were moved. The complaints dealt with weight restrictions and/or aesthetics, not with safety issues. The. existing ~rdinance allows the necessary latitude for staff to deal with infrequent reported violators. CI!R:263:91 "--.,--... • page Five The City Attorney'. office bas conducted extensive research into the statutory authority of local qovernment regulation in the a:ea of parkinq. Their tindings include the following: Parking cont:t.21 The California Vehicle Code {CVe) pre-empts the issue of on street. parking and. is the sole source a.uthority tor local parking controls. CQmplete PArking Prohibition California vehicla Code section 22507 authorizes local jurisdictions to prohibit parking on designated streets or on deaiqnated portions of streets. lime of pay Parting Probibition The eve explicitly allow8 time of day parkinq with specific authorization to prohibit parking in residential area.s between 2:00 a.a. and 6:00 a.... All colZllDercial vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds may also be prohibited during certain hours or the day in residential neiqhborhoods. PreferentiAl PArking 1"he eve includes provisions for preferential parkinq privileqes. Street sweeping Restrictions Local qoverzments uy enact street sweeping parking restrictions under the aut.hority of eve section 2250~n. 6 provided that appropriate siqns are posted. ~~ti •• ' '.qplatfoP'/lptorc"fQt Polict •• Staff surveyed 21 cities regarding overniqht parking regulations (Appendix A). Twelve of the agencies surveyed bad overniqht parking ordinances; five reported active enforcement and one reported a recent decrease in active. enforcement efforts. ·The other cities reported enforcing the ordinance on a complaint basis with few annua.l per:.its and/or citationslwarninqs issued. Inforaa~ion from many of these citie.s indicated that their overnight parki"9 ordinances were either ineffective or outdated. They have no current plana to make any revisions to their existinq ordinances. CMR:263:91 \ o o PaqR six Zncluded in the list of cities that proactively enforce overn1qht parking, the city of Menlo Park bas an ordinance prohibitinq parkinq between 2:00 a._. and 5:00 a.~. on any residential street or street within 300 teet of a residentia.l zone. Apartment dwellers whose buildinqs vere built before the i.plementation of the ordinance ar.d. who have insufficient otf-street parking lDay apply tor hardship permits. Peraita are available for one vehicle per bouaebold per year for $75. The City'S parking supervisor conduct. field inspections to verify the need for a permit. Viaitors, construction vehicles, etc. ~ay also be qranted a one night perait. ApproximatQly 250 permits are issued annually. BecaWie of the li.ited on-street parking, residents frequently park overnight In private lots or city lots without restriction. Menlo Park employs two 20/hours per week civilian parkinq enforceaent officers to bandla the enforcement of their ordinance4 Milwaukee, Wisconsin uses five patrol officers to actively enforce their ordinance prohibi ting parking from 3: 00 a.]III. -6: 00 a. m. Pena.its that allow residents to park in residentia.l areas are. issued tor tbree-.ontb periods of ti~e. Three parkinq enforcement officers issue over 54,000 citations a year in Beverly Hills while enfor~inq their ban on parking between 2:30 a.m4 and 5:30 a... However, they attribute the larqe number of citations issued to the two-hour timed parking restriction between 10:00 p.a. and .idniqht in certain parts of tbe downtown area. The City of Alhambra also proactively enforces their parking ordinance weekdays between 2:00 a.m. -6:00 iIl.m. Their special overnight parking unit issues close to 50.000 citations a year. The City of Burlingame, up until quite recently, was very proactive (1,000 citations a year) in the enforcement of their ordinance that prohibits parking of vehicles on any street between 2:00 a~~. and 6:00 a._. Enforcement was handled by patrol officers but because of the iUlount of staffing-resources nae.ded for this enforcement level, they currently enforce on a co.plaint basis only. During their proactive period, Burlinqame Police Cepart..ent reported receiving numerous citizen complaints regarding their enforcement efforts. OptiOJl.' fer Palo Alto Based upon the in:toraation obtained, staff has considered five options. With the possible exception of option #3's leqal ra.ifications, statf believes any of the options are feasible given the appropriate staffing resources. CMR:263:91 • . , / ... ~ 'V .,-., Paqe Seven %Dcr.... currant eaf~rC".Dt leval of or4iaanoea to include & proaotive approaoh ocaplaiDt oDly .ffort •• AdyflntDges: .zl.ti~q parkiD9 {n8t.ad of cuzrent There would be tewer vehicles parked on the street for more than n hour". The city would realize increased revenue due to increase in the number of citations and vehicles towed. There would be fewer parked cars to obstruct street iiweeping. Implications: Proactive enforcement would require the addition of a minimum ot two Co .. unity Service Officers (CSOs) to handle additional efforts. This option only partially meets the parking enforcement issues that Council bas addressed. 2. Prohibit parkiDq or all vahicl •• iD r •• i4aDtial .o~ •• bet •• an the bour. of 2 to i •••• wltb proviaion for bard.bip p.~its fol' .... i4_t •• AdVAntages: Abandoned vehicles wou1d be more e~si1y identified~ Aesthetics would be ilIIproved due to reduction of Vehicles stored on street ~ The City vould realize increased revenue due to the number of citations and vehicles towed. option #2 most completely meets the parking enforcement issues the Council ~as addressed. Imp1 i cat ions: ~i5 alternative Would require the addition of a mini~um of six balf-tae CSOs and a supervisor for enforcement purposes. Additional Ravenue Collections per&onne~ would also be needed in order to handle the anticipated. increase of bardship permit requests~ It is difficu~t to estimate at this time the exact number of additional Revenue Collections staff that would be required due to the uncertainty of the number of households needinq peraits. Resldenta would :be required to park on private property resulting in possible parking' ·crunch-tor locations with liaited ott-street parkinq. CMR:263:91 ." --~----~-------~-~------------- o o Page Eight The workload for Police Department statt would increase due to the h"ndlinq of complaints .... oci"ted with overnight park1nq. Additional expenditure. associated with increased parking citation issuance processing coste ~ould be anticipated_ ~. BDaet r~e14ent-oDlJ parkiDq or41DaDe. that vo~14 allow red4."t. to park direetlJ iD frODt or their he.... .n.r ohta1Dinq • parait. Advantages: Only r_idents" cars would be allowed. to park in front ot boaes. Illegally abandoned/stored vehicles would be abated .more quickl.y. IlIlllicAtloDS: This alternative presents significant enforce::JIent difficulties due to property Line and vehicle identi-tica.tion owne.rship issues. Judicia.l acceptance Of this alternative is problematic because it is different than the usual fOrE of preferential parkinq proqrams previously considered and sustained by the courts. Additional Revenue Collections staff would be needed to handle issuance of perm! ts. A .inaum of six half-time esos 1iOUld be needed for enforceJlent purposes .. statt antiCipates increased neiqhborhood disputes and a correspondinq increase in police calls for service. Numerous vehicles would be leqally parked on the streets and therefore the aesthetics and street sweeping issues would not be resolved. This would require postinq of oiqns. Aclditional siqns woul.d raise aesthetic concerns. Option #3 partially -meets the parking enforcement issuas that council haa addressed. 4. BDact parkiDg ., .. uleUo .. that "o~14 require vehicl" 1D rea14eatial area. to b • .ovedl ODce a w •• k durinq .pec.iric 4ayt:.ia. hour. to allov ~or .tre.t ." •• plDg_ Adyantog e §: Storedjabandoned vehicles would be acre readily identified. The city would realize a&:Utional revenue from increased citation issuance. CMR:26l:91 ., / Page Nine option '4 specifically addresses the street sweeping issue addres.ed by Council and aay have an i1D:pact on other-parkinq related iaaues .. l»pltcatSong: This alternative would require the addition of at least two eso. for a.ntorcement. Significant coats associated with sign installation/main tenance would be incurred. Street sweepinq could occur only during restricted hours. Due. to frequent equip.ent breakdowns and staffing shortages (vacation, sick leave, etc.) streets clear of vehicles llay not be swept during the apecified times. An increase in the nuaber of coaplaints aay be expected if Vehicles were cited and the streets were not actually swept. Tbe requireaent of 8iqns would have an adverse aesthe.tics illp8Ct. 5. CoatiDued eatorc-.ent of AbaD4oa.ac1 vell.lcle (cve •• Ot.iOZl 2245'" .,,4 .ton4 velllaU CPUC .. otio" 10.".030) a" aocplalnt bad_. Advantaqgs: No additional costs associated with enforcement. Implications: This alternative would .un that a li1D.ited number o~ vehicles WOUld continue to be stored/abandoned on tbe streets of Palo Alto until reportetl to the Pollce. Department, and a fev streets may not be swept every week. ~Dclu.19p After examining the extent of tha problea, together with the legal t.plications, workload and staffinq considerations. staff believes that the current level of enforceaent of state and local regulationa for overnight parking and abandoned/stored vehicles is adequate. RMrn-pOat:iPR staff recomaends that no changes be made to the existing overniqht parking and abandoned vehicle requlations. CMR:26] :91 Page Ten Attacbment -Appendix A cc: Evelyn Ander.on 890 S .. le Avenue Palo A1to, CA 94303 A. Gladya stavn 2222 Oberlin Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 lU<:hard Castleberry 154 Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 walter E. Wallis 2844 Wave:ley street Palo Alto, CA 94]06 Xicbael Wasylysbyn Gail Gra.. Mark Haun J210 Xiddlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:263:9l Lorraine Harper 817 Xiplinq street Palo Alto, CA g4301 Bob Moss 4010 OrIle street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Jeanne Hauser 2120 H~rvard Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Andrew Herceg 2311 Princeton Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 .. ~ '.'-_.,,_ .,. _____ ~' YC'1I"C"h'lrn ltPPlIJI)JlC A ONP HOURS PI!RIIITS LEVEL 01" ClTATIONS ~ QlI2Xtwfs:B nAU: EIIl'ORCED ISSUED EIIl'ORCEIIElIT ISSllED San Jo •• yea 1 CSO/patl:'01 2-6 a ••• no .. 1n1_1 offioers plu" atr.et oQllplaint ..... epinq basi • Mountain View yea patrol 2-9 & .•• y •• /f_ very infl:'OIqUent ottioers per year oOllplaint bad. ()'10 Park ye. 2 CSO. 2-5 a .•• y •• /25Q proaotiv. 6,570 aita. ;/ I per year par year '\ .\ Campbell ye. patrol/ 2"5 a.m. yes/few very infrequent park1nq par year aomplaint bade oHioan Redwood City yeo patrol 2-.5 a~m. no very intr~ent ot:rioara complaint basis " " Los Altos yes patrol 2-6 a.D.. no very intrequent , officers co_plaint baai. ,,', San Kateo yea patrol 2-4 a.lI. no very infrequent ,> ( ) ofticars oo.plaint baais -'.' Burlinqame ye. patrol/ 2-6 a.m. yes/fa., oomplaint ba81. 300 cit .. ,:r:,. re.erve per year per year offioers Beverly Hill. yes 3 parkinq 2:30 -ye8/3,650 proaatiVtt 54,000 cit .. officers 5:30 a.lI. per year per year Alhalllbra yes 5 parkinq 1-6 8.)1\. yea/10,800 proactive 50,000 cit •• I""" '; " " ,.'.,Z",. , \-. cadets per year peu: year r~"" " , • ~~'i;'! ,",1 , • 1-" ~ ~ " , ~w""'!.)I,l!l~ { I"![ ... tt'lili ~ '. We , , ! APPJl:NOIX A P&CjJ. Two .cln San FrAnoiaoo o Mll ..... uk.a Hayward Pretaont Belmont Milpitas (J Gatos San Carlos wa.taonville ONP ORDIlWfCE ye./oertain beaoh area. only yea no no no no no no no lI:W'Z st .. t.. polioe patrol officera 5 p .. trol otfioers HOlJRS EftPOBClm 10 p.lD.. - 6 1l.1I. 1-6 a.m. PERMITS :rSSPED no yas/unknown number isaueel LEVBL OF EftPORClOO!!!T proAotive proacttve CITATIONS ISSUI!O 1,200 oite. per year 300,000 oit •• par year ",. '. i ,~ , " . ,,~ I '.~ ,