Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-01-29; City Council; 21121; Oversized Vehicles Parking Restrictions Exceptions
8 CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# 21.121 OVERSIZED AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS DEPT. DIRECTOR^;\Y MTG. 1/29/13 OVERSIZED AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS CITY ATTORNEY UK DEPT. TRAN OVERSIZED AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce Ordinance No. CS-204 amending Title 10, Chapter 10.40 by adding section 10.40.180 to establish mles of conduct regarding the parking of oversized and recreational vehicles on city streets and rights of way. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City of Carlsbad has received a number of complaints from concerned residents and business owners regarding oversized or recreational vehicles parking and how existing parking practices are creating impacts to the quality of life for many residents and business owners. The complaints are largely focused on quality of life and health and safety issues, including illegal dumping, traffic hazards, blight, reduced driver visibility, and restricted access to residential areas, businesses, and tourist attractions. To address this issue, an internal team consisting of the Police Department, Housing & Neighborhood Services Department and Transportation Department was formed to evaluate our current practices and enforcement tools along with surveying what adjacent communities and other beach communities have in place so we could develop appropriate recommendations. The existing enforcement tools and laws are limiting the Carlsbad Police Departments ability to effectively address these quality of life and health and safety issues regarding parking of oversized or recreational vehicles. Most of our Carlsbad residents that use oversized or recreational vehicles either already have oversized or recreational vehicles parking at their place of residence on-site or store their oversized or recreational vehicles at a storage facility, so that their oversized or recreational vehicles are not parked on public streets for long durations of time or for multiple nights. The City of Carlsbad wants to continue to allow residents and tourists the ability to enjoy our great coastal weather and attractions in their oversized or recreational vehicles during the day. To address current resident and business concerns, staff recommended at the October 16, 2012 city council workshop that a city-wide ordinance be adopted to restrict overnight parking of or camping in oversized or recreational vehicles on public streets and public property. The recommendation included a one year pilot program starting after the second reading of the ordinance and if determined successful by city council to reduce complaints and problems associated with oversized or recreational vehicles will become permanent law. Overnight parking and camping is defined between the hours of 2 AM and 5 AM each night. The recommendation also included having three exceptions outlined in the language of the attached ordinance. A no fee permit can be picked up at the Faraday Building issued by the front counter. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Bryan Jones 760-602-2431 bryan.jones(@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED • CONTINUED • WITHDF^WN • AMENDED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN • RETURNED TO STAFF • OTHER " SEE MINUTES • Page 2 A parking citation would be issued by the Carlsbad Police Department to any oversized or recreational vehicle not complying with the language of the attached ordinance. After five unpaid citations within a 12-month period the oversized or recreational vehicles can be towed and impounded by the Carlsbad Police Department. Staff drafted an ordinance based on the direction from city council at the workshop and posted it on the city website along with a Questions and Answers sheet during the first week in January. A media release was also posted on the city website drawing attention to the draft ordinance for review and input from the community. This media release was covered in multiple media outlets. In addition, city staff purchased an address list of approximately 800 oversized or recreational vehicles users and owners within the city and mailed out post cards highlighting the potential changes, and seeking their input on the ordinance. Exhibit 2 reflects the comments received from the public in response to our outreach. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT: At the conclusion of the one year pilot program the costs associated with administering the program will be analyzed. At this point in time, it is not anticipated that the cost will be significant. However, staff recommends revisiting this issue with the City Council in January of 2014 to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program and make changes as necessary. The authority to pass such an ordinance restricting parking is granted in the California Vehicle Code 22507 and does require signage. Staff recommends ordering approximately thirty (30) signs with language to communicate restricted oversized or recreational vehicles parking without a permit and specifically citing the Carlsbad Municipal Code on the sign. The cost of the signs and installation is estimated to be less than $15,000 and can be funded within the Transportation Department budget. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance No. CS-2Q4 amending Title 10, Chapter 10.40 by adding secfion 10.40.180 to establish rules of conduct regarding the parking of oversized and recreational vehicles on city streets and rights of way. 2. Written comments from the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. CS-204 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.40 BY ADDING SECTION 10.40.180 TO ESTABLISH RULES OF CONDUCT REGARDING THE PARKING OF OVERSIZED AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS AND RIGHTS OF WAY. WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has seen an increase in complaints regarding the parking and/or storage of Oversized Vehicles in residential and commercial areas throughout the City; and WHEREAS, safety issues such as inadequate sight distance from driveways and intersections result when such Oversized Vehicles are parked on public Streets or rights of way in the City; and WHEREAS, health concerns resulfing from the illegal dumping of sewage waste from oversized vehicles is known to occur; and WHEREAS, the parking and/or storage of oversized vehicles causes visual blight in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That Title 10, Chapter 10.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended with the addifion of Secfion 10.40.180 as follows: PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES (a) Definitions. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (1) "Loading and Unloading" shall mean actively moving items to or from an Oversized Vehicle including the activities required to prepare the vehicle for travel or storage. (2) "Out-of-Town Visitor" shall mean any person who does not reside in the City of Carlsbad, who is temporarily visifing as a guest of a resident ofthe City, and who has applied for and obtained an oversized vehicle overnight parking permit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) "Oversized Vehicle" shall mean any motorized vehicle as defined of Section 670 of the Vehicle Code or combination of motorized vehicles and/or non-motorized vehicles or trailers that meets or exceeds twenty- two (22) feet in length at any time or a combination of the two following criteria, exclusive of fixtures, accessories or property: seven (7) feet in height and seven (7) feet in width. (i) To determine the height, width or length of the vehicles defined in this section, any extension to the vehicle caused by mirrors, air conditioners, or similar attachments as allowed by 35109, 35110 or 35111 of the Vehicle Code as may be amended shall not be included. (ii) Oversized Vehicle does not include pickup trucks, vans, or sport utility vehicles, which are less than twenty-five (25) feet in length and eight (8) feet in height. (4) "Resident" shall mean a person who customarily resides and maintains a place of abode or who owns land within the City of Carlsbad. It shall not mean a person who maintains an address at a post office box, mailbox drop, or who rents a room without it being the primary place of abode. (b) Overnight Parking Prohibition. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any Oversized Vehicle on any public highway, street or city parking lot at any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. unless othen/vise authorized by this article. (c) Utility Connections Prohibited. No person shall permit, cause or allow any electrical, water, gas, telephone or other utility connection (such as electrical cords, extension cords, hoses, cables, or other items) to encroach into any public right of way including across or above any street or sidewalk from a residential or commercial property to an Oversized Vehicle or trailer parked on a public highway, street or city parking lot. (d) Overnight Parking Exceptions to Prohibitions. The provisions of Section 10.40.180(b) shall not apply to any ofthe following: (1) Oversized Vehicles owned by a Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor displaying a permit for overnight parking issued by the City Manager or his/her designee in accordance with this article. The issuance of a permit shall not allow any other activity otherwise prohibited by law. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) Oversized Vehicles displaying a permit issued by the City Manager to a Hotel as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.185 or a Motel as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Secfion 21.04.273 for the exclusive use of its registered guests. (3) Oversized Vehicles involved in an emergency or being repaired under emergency conditions. Emergency parking may be allowed for twenty-four (24) consecutive hours where an Oversized Vehicle is left standing at the roadside because of mechanical breakdown or because of the driver's physical incapacity to proceed. (4) Oversized Vehicles belonging to federal, state or local authorities or public utilifies that are temporarily parked while the operator ofthe Oversized Vehicle is conducting official business. (5) Oversized Vehicles actively engaged in the Loading and Unloading and deliveries of person, merchandise, wares, supplies, goods or other materials in the course of construction or other work from or to any adjacent building or structure. (6) The prohibifions provided in this article shall not apply to the parking of any Oversized Vehicle during the pendency of any state of emergency declared to exist within the City of Carlsbad by the City Council, City Manager or Governor. (e) Overniaht Parking Permit Conditions. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle registered to them adjacent to his/her residence. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle belonging to an Out-of-Town Visitor. The City Manager or his/her designee may issue a permit for overnight parking of an Oversized Vehicle to any Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor subject to the following provisions: (1) The Oversized Vehicle shall be owned, leased, rented by, or registered to, a Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor. (2) The Oversized Vehicle shall park at the street curb immediately adjacent to the residence, or within four hundred (400) feet of that person's residence if this area is not available for parking due to curb configuration or codified parking restrictions. (3) The Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit shall be prominently displayed in the lower driver's side of the windshield or the nearest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 window of the vehicle. The permit shall be clearly visible from the exterior of the Oversized Vehicle and shall not cover the Vehicle Identificafion Number. Trailers shall display the permit on the side of the trailer so that the permit is visible from the street. (4) The Oversized Vehicle shall not be used for camping, lodging, residing or for accommodafion purposes. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit sleeping or camping in a vehicle as prohibited by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. (5) All Oversized Vehicle permit holders shall comply with the City of Carlsbad street sweeping parking regulations pursuant to the Carlsbad Municipal Code Secfion 10.40.150. (6) The City Manager or his/her designee may deny or revoke an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit if, upon a review of the location where the Oversized Vehicle will be parked, the City Manager or his/her designee determines that it would create a traffic hazard or othen/vise would adversely affect public safety, traffic flow or access. (f) Overnight Parking Permit Duration. (1) Each Resident Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit shall be valid for one (1) year. A Resident Oversized Vehicle permit allows a resident to park an Oversized Vehicle for four (4) periods of up to seventy-two (72) consecutive hours per calendar month. The Oversized Vehicle must be absent from the location authorized by section 10.40.180(e)(2) for a minimum of twenty-four (24) consecutive hours to be lawfully parked overnight at the location again. (2) Each Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit issued to an Out- of-Town Visitor shall be valid for a maximum of seventy-two (72) hours. (3) No more than six (6) Out-of-Town Visitor permits shall be issued to a Resident in a calendar year. (g) Fraudulent Permit Penalty. Every person who displays a fraudulent, forged, altered or counterfeit Oversized Vehicle parking permit or permit number is guilty of a misdemeanor. (h) Overnight Parking Permit Denial. The City may deny the issuance of an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit for up to one year if the City Manager or his/her designee finds that any of the following condifions exist: (1)The applicant or the person the applicant is visiting is not a bona fide Resident. 1 (2) The Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor guests of a Resident have been 2 issued two or more citations in the same calendar year for either exceeding the allotted seventy-two (72) hour permit fime and/or parking 3 greater than four hundred (400) feet from the designated residence or land owned address. 4 5 (3) The Out-of-Town Visitor is not a guest of the Resident applicant (4) An owner of an Oversized Vehicle has procured any Oversized Vehicle parking permit through fraud or misrepresentafion, for example, the information submitted by the applicant is materially false. (5) The hotel or motel establishment is issuing Oversized Vehicle 9 permits to non-paying guests of the commercial establishment and/or the guests are camping in the vehicle rather than residing in the commercial establishment. 11 12 13 // 14 15 " 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 22 " 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, 2 and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the 3 ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least 4 once in a newspaper of general circulafion in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its 5 adoption. 6 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meefing of the Carlsbad City Council on 7 the 29th day of January 2013, and thereafter. 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meefing of the City Council of the 9 City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2013, by the following vote to wit: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 27 28 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY 19 CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney 20 21 22 MATT HALL, Mayor 23 ATTEST: 24 25 KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk 26 (SEAL) EXHIBIT 2 WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:53 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: I am against RV parking on city streets From: Pecore, Joel Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:10 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: I am against RV parking on city streets 10 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: INPUT ON POSSIBLE NEW RV RULES From: ReEtte Riosl Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:06 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: INPUT ON POSSIBLE NEW RV RULES We are owners of an RV and feel the proposed new rules to be fair and reasonable. We have noticed many of our streets abused by non-resident ovemight street parkers who do not respect or consider the residents whose house they are parking adjacent to. The new rules would not interfere with residents and/or their guests who require street access to their RV near their home for loading and loading and it would retum some privacy back to the resident who are confronted with ovemight non-resident boon Dockers. My husband and I are in favor of the passage of the proposed ovemight parking rules. ReEtte Rios Retired and Loving it (760) 438-0316 Rose Williams From- Bryan Jones Sent:" Monday, January 14, 2013 5:28 PM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad From: Michele Masterson On Behalf Of CDAdmin Sent: Monday, Janiary 14, 2013 5:16 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: FW: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad CITV OF CARLSBAD Michele A. Masterson Senior Management Analyst P: 760-602-4615 F: 760-602-8560 Michele.Masterson(5)carlsbadca.gov From: Chris Sexton Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 4:24 PM To: CDAdmin Subject: RE: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad Hi LT, Brian Jones was actually taking the issue of RV parking to City Council. He was trying to initiate a permit for people wanting to park in their RV in the public street for a couple of days when they retumed from a camping trip or something of that sort. If this is parking on the street it should go to Brian Jones up in Transporation. Chris From: Leticia Trevino-Reyes On Behalf Of CDAdmin Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 4:22 PM To: Chris Sexton Subject: FW: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad Hey Chris. © Do you know who I should forward this to? From: Darlene and Dan Fahey j Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:59 PM To: CDAdmin Subject: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad I am not sure if this is the appropriate department to be addressing this issue with and if not, I hope that you will forward it to the appropriate individual (s). A few weeks ago, I read in the newspaper that Carlsbad was considering passing some sort of ordinances regarding individuals who are parking their motorhomes on the streets of Carlsbad - perhaps they live in them or perhaps they are simply moving them around to store them in favor of not having to pay for monthly storage. The article invited comments from the citizens ofCarlsbad. I live on Jerez Court on the La Costa Golf Course and have a lovely location. Unfortunately there are many people including boat owners who seem to think that Gibraltar (just off La Costa avenue) is their personal parking space. I and many others resent the fact that people seem to be able to come up with the money to buy their toys and then expect those of us who do not house such large items to be inconvenienced with looking at them and avoiding them as we drive up and down our streets. If they don't have personal parking for their boats and trailers and motorhomes, why should the rest of us have to put up with their purchases. I am all for - no parking space, no toys. I hope there is something being done about this. Hope to hear from you. Darlene Fahey concemed resident of Carlsbad 3 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:29 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Please pass ordinance —Original Message- From: Justin Peel Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:40 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Please pass ordinance Please pass this ordinance, thank you! Kind Regards, Justin Peek Sent from my iPhone/iPad, please excuse any typos! Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 9:54 AM To' Rose Williams Subject: FW: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE: PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Whom do these go to? From: JOHN F STETSONj^ Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:34 PM ^ To: Transportation-Internet Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE: PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES I am very much in favor of the adoption of an ordinance pertaining to restricting the parking of recreational vehicles within Carlsbad. We have many streets in Carlsbad where homeowners park their oversized vehicles on the streets; occasionally moving them to the other side of the street, or just a few feet to circumvent compliance with current regulations. These oversized vehicles can be hazardous as they often impair visibility at intersections. An added benefit of adopting an ordinance regulating the parking of recreational vehicles on Carlsbad's streets is that code compliance officials could address any violations with the backing of the city ordinance and avoid the time consuming practice of issuing warnings for repeat violators as seems to be the current practice. The proposed ordinance by the City of Carlsbad containing the provision of a permit for up to 72 hours variance for the parking of the RV on the street, and allowing this up to 4 times a month is too lenient. I am in favor of an ordinance to address the problem of residents parking RVs on city streets, but suggest an allowance of 24 hours to unload or load an RV before and after a trip, with this 24 hour period allowed up to 4 times a month. Ifthe allowance for up to 72 hours for the parking of an RV on the city streets is adopted, how will this provision be regulated? Tire markings to indicate the start of a 72-hour period? Unless a street with an RV is patrolled every day and records maintained, this allowance for 72 hours up to 4 times a month will be abused by many and, thus, the problem not solved. Please consider an ordinance that will address the problem of RVs on city streets. An allowance for 24 hours to park the RV on the City street is ample enough to unload or load an RV before and after a trip. AND, up to 4 times a month is a very generous allowance for this parking variance. Thank you for your consideration, John and Kathy Stetson Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Proposed RV ordinance changes From: Janet Jone* Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:48 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Proposed RV ordinance changes I personally see no problem with the proposed changes to the ordinance. However, I believe that RV owner's may now want to park their vehicles on their property. I have read Ordinance 21.44.060 and found the Table which outlines the criteria for parking vehicles on their property, specifically oversized and recreational vehicles. I would like to see a review ofthe exceptions in this ordinance and adopt stricter criteria. There is an RV located at the comer of Kingston and Victoria. I assume that the owner received a variance from the City of Carlsbad to constmct a parking area for his large RV and the fence, is not tall enough to conceal the RV. There is a home located at the intersection of Pontiac and Victoria where a boat has been stored in the front yard. Because ofthe hedge in the front yard, you are unable to see the boat on the trailer. (I did notice that they have poured concrete next to and behind the driveway and hopefully they plan to store the boat at the side ofthe home.) These are just two instances within the area in which I live. The first example does not portray the neighborhood nor the City of Carlsbad in an esthetically pleasing light. I understand that the people own their property and should be able to use their property to their advantage. There are some people who do not take into consideration the needs of others and that is why there are laws and ordinances. I would like to see the City ofCarlsbad review this portion of the ordinance at the same time as the proposed changes. I think these two sections work hand in hand. Janet Jones Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:29 AM Rose Williams FW: Proposed RV Parking Ordinance 1/8 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:01 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: Proposed RV Parking Ordinance From: Brad Shockley( Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:06 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Proposed RV Parking Ordinance I am in full support of the proposed ordinance. Thank you! Bradley A. Shockley, NCARB Senior Vice President I Design & Construction I'jpjs.- nhiUi- riotf nir n.v. ^f.>lrtna lU'M'h ,«|rln'^s filU"! I'.IV lf'%\ '''Mi,111 <*<j| if'->*<. ,«il,.r. i>«i)t.- H+M'i. iti. t.HA-l .>-. (Ml- I* .1 '-t'-'"''"-' i^fiiMi .irno-rir"!! *.V>tlU.jln SISVLS-' .-t-H!...iJiK I . ;M ^isl-l v>= Si «. n Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Proposed RV parking ordinance From: Craig Thomas Elliott Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:11 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Proposed RV parking ordinance Gentie Persons; I suggest that a few words be added somewhere in the proposed ordinance to make clear that trailered boats and other large towed vehicles be included in the parking ban. Thank you, Craig T Elliott Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Monday, January 14, 2013 8:33 AM Rose Williams FW: Proposed RV Parking Permits 1/14 From: I Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:42 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Proposed RV Parking Permits RE: Proposed 72 hour RV parking permits regulation. Please consider including parking RVs in driveways for 72 hours (or even only 48 hours) as well. I have room for my RV in my driveway and would like to load and unload it off the street. It is easier and safer than parking it on the street for the same purpose. Including even a 48 hour limit for parking in my driveway, for loading and loading purposes, would be a sufficient length of time. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Keith R. Bowen Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:59 AM Rose Williams FW: RV ordinance 1/8(3) —Original Message— From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:25 AM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV ordinance —Original Message- From: Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 10:19 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV ordinance Att: Brian Jones A group of us have recently begun to consider the plight of homeless RVers in our precious, beachside city The current ordinance to be reviewed by the city council does not address adequate space for homeless people to live in our city. In the interest of fairness, kindness, caring, we encourage the city of Carlsbad to consider adequate parking for this group of people. Paid permits would allow people to live for a time in designated spots in the city. We even envision sanitary facilities in these areas. We have in our group the potential for volunteers to help in this endeavor in order to decrease costs to the city. I will appreciate your reaction to all this. Thanks, Arty Sternberg -20 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:36 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Ordinance 4 —Original Message— From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Ordinance Original Message- From: Lamia Nahoul Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:08 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Ordinance I am glad to see that the city council is finally addressing this issue however, in reading the overview, I think that the proposal is too lenient by allowing residents the 3 or 4 times a month to park their RV by their homes- again, that is not fair for the neighbors. I lived in Orange County and such lenient ordinances was never tolerated. We trust that The city council is continuously looking for ways to enhance this city - as is,the city has many unkept areas, old buildings etc....a walk on the boardwalk particularly during the summer is unbearable with the RVs parked there and owners are cooking and practically camped along Carlsbad Blvd. Sent from my iPad 21 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:26 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Ordinance to go into effect on January 29. 2013 From: Evelyn Montalbano Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:48 PM To: Transportation-Internet Cc: Christine Davis -^MH^W Diane Jones; Donna Bechthold; Sue Tran; James Carter; Subject: RV Ordinance to go into effect on January 29. 2013 As we have written before, we do not think that La Costa Avenue should have any RV parking, at all. As you know, traffic calnning safety measures were implemented on La Costa Avenue. With the coming ofthe La Costa Town Square, these measures will be negatively impacted by the traffic congestion caused by the new development. Yes, congestion does impact safety. The sight lines will be affected. Now, add to that the RV parking. I do not think the Judge, who mandated safety measures for La Costa Avenue, meant to establish those measures; then, obliterate them. I am writing a letter to the City Manager to address the City Council with regard to La Costa Avenue and the big game changer coming: The La Costa Town Square. This changes everything; we need more measures, not less. Evelyn and Peter Montalbano Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:34 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 8 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking Fromi Bill Wisener _ Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:12 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking They also should protect the parking lots of shopping centers when they pass the parking law. Right now on a weekend in the summer there are up to 8 RVs parked in the Ralphs center on Avenue Encinas that thought they could just come to the state campground and found it full. When street parking is not allowed many will try to park in business lots to avoid having to pay for storage. Bill Wisener 22 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:26 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Parking at Beach/Ponto From: tom struble Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 7:16 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking at Beach/Ponto let's go ahead and get it over with, never thought i'd say it, but, put in meters the size of an average car. it someone wants to park their 40 footer they can pay for as much space as they take up. and while we're at it, pave the parking that isn't already paved, people no longer know how to park politely so as to not block you in. this is particularly tme for the volley-ballers. personally, i no longer go there on weekends and generally not during the summer, between the above issues, the new hotel and Jr Lifeguards in the summer the place, Ponto, has tumed into a mess anyway. name with held by request Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:28 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV parking in Carlsbad From: chris wigley Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:37 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV parking in Carlsbad As a resident ofthe city these huge RVs that take up and block the coast highway spots ( Ponto Beach area ) drive me nuts. In my humble opinion there is nothing worse than biking along the beach or trying to get around one of these things with a surfboard in hand. It also does a great job of blocking any view anyone could have ofthe beach and they take up 2-3 parking spaces. With that said, I know if I had one I would go for front row parking at the beach also. Why not require any RV or vehicle over a certain length to obtain a day permit to park along coast highway. In essence make them pay for the privilege to have a door to the beach or take more than one parking spot. I know the campground is $50 a night for a spot over looking the ocean. Seems a good way to generate some revenue for the city that we could pump back into our beaches and maybe deter a few RVers from parking in the prime spots. Those willing to pay for the priveledge can enjoy all day. Christopher R, Wigley AEI LOGISTICS GROUP How can we exceed your expectations 25 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:28 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV parking on streets From:< Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:23 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RE: RV parking on streets I am not sure if you are the person I should address this to, however I do have input regarding the Street parking. In addifion to RV parking I would suggest adding parking boats on the street to that ordinance. In my area which is Carlsbad Blvd and Maple (a very narrow street) and Garfield, there is very often a SUV or truck with a large boat attached parking on the street. The owner does move it every 72 hours, however twice that I observed the Waste Mgt truck had barely made it down Maple to make its pickups. And having it parked on the corner of Garfield and Maple creates a visual hazard in seeing oncoming cars. If you are not the person I should be sending this too, please respond as so whom it should be sent. Sincerely, Anita Hammond 2C. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:23 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Parking Ordinance From: Stipe, Tim Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:11 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Ordinance I just finished reading the draft regarding the parking of oversized vehicles on city streets. It seem's like it's just overnight parking or extended parking on residential streets. Will this be enforced only between the hours of 2am - Sam along the coast 101 highway? Is there anyway to expand on this to include ALL hours along the coast highway in the city limits? As pointed out in a previous letter I had written on this subject. The problem a lot of Carlsbad residents (families) are having are the RVs that take up the space of up to 5-6 normal sized vehicles. Not only are they securing spots along the coast before Sam, but most are pulling trailers, toy haulers that have the back end fold down, securing the rear of their rv's with caution tape and cones to enclose chairs, bbq's or just holding the spot for another person. It's frustrating trying to find a spot and seeing 10-20 of these from south Tamarack to Cannon rd. As pointed out in a previous letter, most ofthe rv'ers do not contribute $$$ to the community because they are self sufficient. Please include a size limit or the amount of parking that can be secured along the coast between the hours of 5am-2- am. Thank You (again) Tim stipe and family of Carlsbad. © 21 COVEYCOMMERCIAL Real Estate Services RECEIVED NOV 08 im X, K A on.o TRANSPORTATION November 6, 2012 DEPART". .F.NT Attn: City Council City of Carlsbad - City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Ban on Overnight RV Parking Dear City Council: We are writing to you regarding the recent consideration to ban overnight RV Parking. I am the acting agent for Carlsbad Ranch Maintenance Association 11 and we would like to express our support of the ban and request that the ban become effective citywide and discourage a coastal- only ban. By only banning overnight RV Parking to the west of 1-5, it would only intensify the issues we are already experiencing with RV activity in our surrounding areas, Just east of 1-5 between Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road, and adjacent to Armada Drive. Additionally, we are particularly concerned about the e.xception to allow hotel guests to park on the street next to their accommodations if the hotel's parking is not sufficient. This directly impacts our area and would cause us further issues. Please consider our concerns and request when drafting the proposed ordinance. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at Sincerely, COVEYCOMMERCIAL Aseiit for Carlsbad Ranch Maintenance Association II Jeaif Muldoon Property Manager cc: Brian Jones, Deputy Director, City Traffic Engineering www.coveycommercial.com Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Parking Proposal From: I Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:55 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Proposal Based on the 1/4/13 article in the UT, I believe that the proposed parking rule is too lax. I live in Encinitas but go to the Carlsbad promenade several times a week to walk. Throughout the year, RVs take up an inordinate number of parking spaces especially on Carlsbad Blvd. The number of allowed 72-hour passes is far, far too much in three ways. 1. It should be a 6-hour pass during daytime hours, not allowing several parking spaces to be filled for 3-days. 2. The nunriber of passes should be a lower number for visitors and residents. Parking RVs on city streets at the beach is convenient for some but inconvenient for many, many more. 3. No mention was made in the article about issuing passes or enforcement. Issuing must be strict and well-documented, and a fee charged adequate to fund firm enforcement and fines. Presently, I am seldom able to use the beach due to always having to park blocks (and sometimes blocks and blocks) away frorn the beach, nor to find parking to frequent the merchants in the area. Thank you Bruce Kesler ChFC REBC CLU RHU 2^ Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking Regulations From: Karen Ludlow Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:59 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Regulations As a previous RV owner, I know how difficult it is to adhere to both city and HOA regulations with regards to parking. Although we paid for private storage, you need to be aware that it can easily take 2-3 days (72 hours) to load, sen/ice, prepare a motor home for a trip, and the same timing 2-3 days (72 hours) to unload, clean, prepare for storage, etc., upon the return of a trip. The proposed regulation says that residents can apply for a 72-hour permit 4 times a year; if I understand that correctly, you would use two of those 72 hour periods for just one trip (to prepare for the trip and then return) - thus, you would only be "legal" twice a year. I think this is an unreasonable expectation, an infringement on RV owners' rights and possibly a limitation that exceeds Carlsbad Police Dept. laws which limit you to 72 hours, but I don't believe it limits you to 4 tims a year. With regards to visitors coming to Carlsbad to visit friends, it is virutally impossible to find camp sites during the "high season" so there is nowhere else to park but on the street. Do we tell friends who are traveling in their motor homes that they can't stay in Carlsbad? I understand that parking RVs on neighborhood streets for lengthy periods of time can be a problem, but I believe that limiting it to 4 times a year (or two times if you have to use one permit for packing and one for unpacking) is punitive and unfair. I also feel that the period for visitors should be increased to 4-5 days when they are staying with friends or family - again, this could be by permit. Karen Ludlow Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:00 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams; Skip Hammann FW: RV parking From: GN Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:57 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV parking To Whom It May Concern: I work and pay taxes, alot of taxes to support this city. I find it quite disturbing that when I want to go to the water there are all the RVs parked, taking up 2-3 spots. I have to pay an additional fee to park near the water. Tamarack. I am a senior citizen and sometimes cannot walk the distance to get down to the water. Let the RV's have a special parking area not in front of the water. Find a parking lot to house this big vehicles and let them pay a fee for all the Carlsbad amenities. As far as guests parking in front ofa home I think we need to try to allow more time as a personal space as long as it does not bother the neighbors. We have difficultlly putting out our garbage cans out because of the large vehicles parked on the street. NO more freebies for non residents. We pay for the mess they make, for the fire dept, police dept and the beautiful safe city we live in. Don't let them continue to be in our way. Thanks, Georgia Neil permanent resident 3 Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:54 AM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: new rv ordinance FY! From: Neal Vance Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 7:55 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: new rv ordinance To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the new rv ordinance for the following reasons: Your link to the full text ofthe ordinance does not work and the postcard is more of an political advertisement than a fact sheet. How many complaints have been received? How big of an increase over previous years? 1, 2, 5,10 avg? Temp pass for guest: how much will it cost the city, how much will it cost the public, how will the public know of such weird law? Yearly permit: how much will it cost the city, how much will it cost the public, how will the public know of such weird law? Commercial permit: how much will it cost the city, how much will it cost the public, how will the public know of such weird law? Are there any differences between permits and costs to admin vs cost to public RV owners 'NOT' cooperating with police is not an excuse for creating more laws. Enforce the current laws. When I moved here 12 years ago, I got caught with the 72 hour parking rule and was issued a ticket for my RV. My RV was a 5^^ wheel so I got a ticket on my pickup truck and on the RV trailer. I have not parked my RV for more than 72 hours on a public street since. RAW sewage on street: Call environmental cleanup firm and give bill to RV owner, they will not do that again. 1 believe the feds/state/city already have the laws necessary to put such a person in jail, pursue that course of action. 1 don't want any walking the streets that is willing to dump raw sewage on them. How is a new law going to stop that environmental hazard from occurring? How will a new law allow law enforcement to 'address these types of cases more easily with fewer resources'? How will the permits etc be handled? Is the city going to farm this out to a third party or give more responsibilities to existing city staffer are we going to hire more workers? How about we enforce the current laws we have, punish those that heed to be punished and not create additional burdens for the rest of us. HOW ABOUT PUTTING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONEL IN THE SCHOOLS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN? PERHAPS A POSITIVE SIDE EFFECT; LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONEL MIGHT MAKE FRIENDS WITH AND / OR BE MENTORS FOR OUR NEXT GENERATION? Thanks, Neal Vance Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:32 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Per a phone call to you today: Bryon, here's the proposed survey (attached) that the city and our organization can team up and draft together. Oc{^{tXC^^ ^yMU\S/ From: U.S.JusticeSystemAnAbomination Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:35 PM To: Council Internet Email; Transportation-Internet Subject: Per a phone call to you today: Bryon, here's the proposed survey (attached) that the city and our organization can team up and draft together. We can work out the logistics of where it goes to as far as residents and where the retumed responses are sent to. If the city declines, "Carlsbad Homeless Alliance" is poised to draft it itself, pass them out near known RV parking areas and receive back the responses. Thereafter it will be shared with the city. Please contact the appropriate people for the proposal and get back to me in a timely manner. Thanks, Rich ^4 Rose Williams From: Tanya Wilson Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:13 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: Re: FW: Proposed new RV ordinance Thank you for your response. After attending the last city council meeting I think I see what the real problem that is trying to be corrected , that is the long time non resident ovemight campers . And they are trying to include the residential RV parking in front of their tax paying residence . This is really two different issues and need to be address separately. As a long time resident ofCarlsbad my real issue is the cost and enforcement ofthe Resident RV street parking within the 72 hour limit. I feel ifthe City council is willing to give a free annual permit to park within the 72 hour limit for up to 12 days per month why can't they forgo the additional 18-19 days and charge residents $125.00 per year parking permit to park ONLY IN FRONT of their resident for the 72 hour limit and move the RV and re parked IN FRONT OF THEIR RESIDENT Keeping mileage log posted on the drivers side in view. This way there is record of these addresses on file and should avoid the one on one calls for vehicle abandoned and free up our law enforcement to provide the needed safety within the city limits... This annual permit if passed, it would bring in revenue for the city and help with enforcing the real problem of the ovemight camping issue of non property owners within the city limits. Because of economic changes and lost of jobs we have had to park our RV on the street in front of our residence for the last 4 years. We move our RV within the 72 hours and keep a mileage log posted in the front drivers side for view. Personally the only time a policeman/ police volunteer marks our RV is when a neighbor complains as a abandoned vehicle on the street. DMV inquiry will show a current license and registered to the address where the RV is parked , our residence that we pay property and street taxes on. Comments from the police/volunteers, that they have responded because of a call to our residence ,yes it is a nuisance, not for over parking the 72 hours but as a abandoned vehicle in the area.. I asked if they are marking all the other RV in the area also, and they responded no, but if we would like to issue a complaint and give them the address they would mark the RVs for the 72 hours As noted in the UT article there are a FEW residents that are complaining. This I feel is harassment. If a annual RV parking permit is approved most of the City residents could leam to live in harmony and enhance the living condition with in the CITY What will be the cost ofthe signs and labor to install all these new signs on all Carlsbad city streets, along with the cost of enforcement for ALL the streets between the restricted hours 2 am to 5 am. Or again is this only going to be based on a resident call in complaint as it is now. Tanya J Wilson 35 year Tax paying resident of Carlsbad 35 Rose Williams From: Bryan Jones Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:37 PM Subject: Voicemail January 14 Richard, Thank you for your voicemail today. 1 heard you make four points; • That city staff confirm your emails have been received and also confirm others emails have been received. • That you have others have formed a Carlsbad Homeless Alliance. • That you and the alliance have created a survey that you are offering the cityto utilize to find the root ofthe problems. • That you and the alliance have an alternate proposal to the ordinance that will be forthcoming for our review and consideration. My responses to your points. Our staff this week are going through each ofthe emails we have received and providing a confirmation that we have received them email. Thank you for sharing with us that you and others have formed a Carlsbad Homeless Alliance. At this time, we will not be utilizing your survey to solicit information. We are soliciting feedback and input via our media release and website for which people are writing emails to Transportation@CarlsbadCA.gov We will review your alternate proposal to the ordinance when we receive it. Bryan From: Bryan Jones Sent; Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:23 PM To:flHH|BHHi Subject: Voicemail January 9 Richard, Thank you for your suggesfions on the voicemail. We are receiving a number of emails that we are reading through. Staff is unable to spend one on one time with each person on the phone and that is why we have requested all suggestions in writing to Transportation(5)CarlsbadCA.gov or mailed to the Faraday Building attention Transportation Department. Your comments and suggestions will be part of the official record and public information to be considered by staff and City Council. Carlsbad understands there are strong opinions on this issue and have been receiving them via email. Bryan From: Bryan Jones Sent: Tuesday, Januar/ 08, 2013 12:43 PM To:flnHHHBBHi Subject: Memo to City Council at October 16 workshop 1 3/. Rose Williams From: Bryan Jones Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:39 PM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: Carlsbad Proposed RV Ordinance From: Council Internet Email Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:39 PM To: Skip Hammann Cc: Bryan Jones; Cynthia Haas Subject: FW: Carlsbad Proposed RV Ordinance From: Chuck & Anita Lewis Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:19 AM To: Council Internet Email; Transportation-Internet Cc: Chuck and Anita Lewis Subject: Carlsbad Proposed RV Ordinance Subject: Carlsbad Proposed RV Ordinance Date: 1/14/2013 From: Charles and Anita Lewis We are Carlsbad residents and owners of a 39' 11" motorhome which we store in San Marcos. Our home is in Alta Mira 2, a condominium complex. We do not believe you have taken into consideration the complexities of parking a large RV in or near a condominium or apartment complex. Due to the curb configuration and the narrowness of Caminito Estrada and due to the fact that our RV would present a traffic hazard if we could park there, we are forced to park our motorhome on Paseo del Norte to load and unload. We park on the east side of Paseo del Norte (next to the Poinsettia Park designated habitat conservation area) to avoid creating a traffic hazard for cars pulling in or out of Caminito Estrada and/or the driveway entrances to the condos on Paseo del Norte. A straight line measurement from our condo to the nearest parking on the east side of Paseo del Norte is over 400'. We live on one of the closer driveways to Paseo del Norte. RV owners living on the driveways further west off of either Caminito Estrada or Caminito Madrigal would be well over 400' to even the west side of Paseo del Norte. We believe that the city needs to amend the proposed ordinance to take into consideration situations such as those existing in our and other condo/apartment complexes. We would suggest that in these situations, a distance of 1000' to 1500' be permitted, or the proposed 3.1 ordinance could be amended to include something like "In the case of condominium or apartment complexes, the Oversized Vehicle shall park at a street curb within four hundred (400) feet of the complex." This would alleviate potential traffic hazards caused by parking large RVs on narrow streets or close to comers and/or driveways. We would like to mention that we did not receive the RV ordinance postcard sent out by the city even though our vehicle has been registered at this address since 2003. Fortunately, we became aware of the proposed ordinance by other means. We suggest that an additional effort be made to inform RV owners of the proposed ordinance. The sections of the proposed ordinance shown below are those that concern us. (e) Overnight Parking Permit Conditions. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle ovemight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle registered to them adjacent to his/her residence. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle ovemight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle belonging to an Out-of-Town Visitor. The City Manager, or his/her representative, may issue a permit for ovemight parking of an Oversized Vehicle to any Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor subject to the following provisions: (1) The Oversized Vehicle shall be owned, leased, or rented by, or registered to, a Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor. (2) The Oversized Vehicle shall park at the street curb immediately adjacent to the residence, orwithln four hundred (400) feet of that person's residence if this area is not available for parking due to curb configuration or codified parking restrictions. (h) Overnight Parking Permit Denial. The City may deny the issuance of an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit for up to one year if the City Manager or representative finds that any of the following conditions exist: (2) The Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor guests of a Resident have been issued two or more citations in the same calendar year for either exceeding the allotted 72 hour permit time and/or parking greater than four hundred (400) feet from the designated residence or land owned address. e. (6) The City Traffic Engineer may deny or revoke an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit if, upon a review of the location where the Oversized Vehicle will be parked, the City Traffic Engineer determines that it would create a traffic hazard or otherwise would adversely affect public safety, traffic fiow or access. 3g Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:17 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: Comments on new RV Parking Ordinance From: Chris Wildermuth Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:17 PM To: Transportation-Internet; Council Internet Email Subject: Comments on new RV Parking Ordinance Dear Mr. Jones and members of the City Council, As a 13-year resident of Carlsbad, this is the first fime I've felt compelled to write about a proposed ordinance. The RV Parking ordinance being proposed by the City Council seems to take a sledgehammer approach to killing flies, tt also seems rather cumbersome and in some ways more onerous for residents than for hoteliers/hotel guests! In my view as an RV owner living in Carlsbad, the proposed ordinance may remedy a few issues, but it creates even more issues for othenA/ise law-abiding residents. My RV is at a community storage Ipt and my driveway is long enough to hold my RV. To my knowledge there has never been a complaint about my RV when I've parked it on the street for 1-2 days before/after camping. However I know I'm lucky and frankly I have more empathy for area RV owners and their guests than I do for those driving this ordinance. I have read the complete proposal and I have some quesfions and comments about the proposed ordinance: - Why does a permit need to be issued on an annual basis? This is an unnecessary burden on residents. Why not simply a permanent permit that isn't transferable and is void when the owner is no longer a resident of Carlsbad? - Why do hotel guests have potentially longer parking rights than property owners? Under this ordinance either a property owner or their guest is limited to a 72-hour period. However, if a hotel guest has an RV and is staying two weeks, this ordinance allows that person to park their RV on the street for two weeks. While unlikely, this seems to favor out-of-town guests rather than constituents. In addifion, it doesn't appear that hoteliers are required to renew their permits annually. Why? - Why is a 30' RV restricted but a 30' stretch limo or 30' storage trailer (whose dimensions are less than 7' height/width) not restricted? Isn't an oversized vehicle/trailer oversized, whether its a flat-bed, toy hauler or diesel pusher RV? - It seems odd to not allow "utility connections" (usually electrical and water) as long as the connecfion is properly marked for safety (i.e. taped down with warning tape, marked with other caufion warnings). Under this ordinance, someone in an RV would be forced to use a generator (usually gas or propane) ff they needed to re-charge batteries or use the RV utilifies (which is permitted by law during non-quiet hours). If they had a refrigerator/freezer the RV would be using 3 a propane to power the unit (most RVs have dual-power LP/electric refrigerators). Burning propane and gasoline adds greenhouse gases and noise that is more disruptive for residenfial neighbors than an electrical extension cord. - Why does the ordinance not allow overnight occupancy for RVs with permits? If grandparents, family and friends are visifing and there isn't enough room inside the house for the guests, it is absurd to force them away, especially since the only local public RV campground, So. Carlsbad Beach, is nearly always sold out months in advance. Are they supposed to park in Vista, Encinitas or Oceanside where such ordinances don't exist? I understand cracking down on long-term occupancy, or even occupancy under a resident permit. I do not understand banning occasional overnight occupancy by Guest RV permit holders. - Why does this ordinance even mention sewage dumping? Dumping raw sewage is already illegal anywhere in the state. Every RV owner knows this. A permitfing process won't affect sewage dumping. Its like saying, "because RVs have been obsen/ed parked in fire lanes." - Is there a cost for the permit, and what are the penalties? There is no menfion in the resolufion of either of these items. The RV page menfions "fines or towing" but there's no menfion of which of these would take place and why? Why is an ordinance being adopted without any guidance on penalties? As a Carlsbad resident, I would support a very limited permitting process that is without cost to Carlsbad residents and is issued permanently for resident RVs. Guest RVs would obviously need to be done separately and should have some cost to minimize "nuisance" guest permits. However, I think overnight occupancy should be allowed in limited cases (for Guest RV permits, for example) and the prohlbifion against utility connections should be removed, or at least an excepfion for a single electrical connection should be allowed as this would eliminate the need for propane or gas use for either a generator or refrigerator. I would like to make one final point: Tourism is an important industry for Carlsbad. This ordinance comes across as anti-RV, although it is less so than it might first appear, especially with a few modest changes What it really prohibits is long-term and overnight parking without a resident/guest permit. So call it that: "CHANGES TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING LONG-TERM AND OVERNIGHT PARKING FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES," and leave out the "eyesore" and "sewage dumping" that really aren't germane to the ordinance. Considering the thousands of RV-driving tourists who visit and stay in Carlsbad every year, this ordinance as constructed tells every RV owner, "You're not welcome in our town." If this passes as written, I guarantee that the Auto Club/AAA, Good Sam Club and other RV-oriented groups will recommend RV owners avoid Carlsbad when visifing the region. Sincerely, Chris Wildermuth Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: feedback on RV parking From: Roberta Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:34 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: feedback on RV parking The new rules are too permissive, will not be enforced, and are just "a feel good" joke to make the city stop camplaints. People do NOT need 72 hours 3 times a month. This only causes traffic jams, accidents since it becomes impossible to exit a driveway with those beasts blocking the view. I have been blocked at least 10 fimes from leaving my house by RVs left unattended right in front of my driveway, (and no, I am not one who has ever complained or called the cops) Rvs should be prohibited from parking on public streets overnight, or for longer than 6 hours during the day. If someone has the money to pay for an RV and all the gas it takes, they can pay for RV parking too, and use the 6 hours to move whatever they need to move/unload. More than plenty of time. People with boats unload at the dock, they can unload at the RV parking facility if the 6 hours are not enough. As far as visitors the same rule should apply, PAY for parking at a facility or campsite! I do not believe you can pitch a tent overnight in public parks, so why Rv's should be able to use the streets as their own campgrounds? Any car, boat, truck, RV, trailer that exceeds a certain size should not be allowed to block the streets, and NO ONE should be allowed to make the street their own private home! So get the RVs OFF Carlsbad street for good, do not make a mockery of a law. Make a real law: RVs OFF THE STREETS! Thanks Roberta Malaman, Carlsbad resident and home owner 'ii Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Input on proposed RV rules From: GIgl Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 7:20 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Input on proposed RV rules Hello, I would suggest making the proposed permits available online so that residents can buy/print one even when city offices are closed if the need arises. We've had neighbors who had to move their trailer out of their driveway for a couple days (with no notice) because they had to address a water leak under their driveway. And we have had family members drop by without much notice because their RV travels happened to bring them close to our house. Thank you for asking residents for input. Al & Oracle Ramirez Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Bryan Jones Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:19 PM Rose Williams FW: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad From: Leticia Trevino-Reyes On Behalf Of CDAdmin Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:46 AM To: Bryan Jones Subject: FW: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad From: Darlene and Dan Fahey Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:59 PM To: CDAdmin Subject: Motor homes on streets of Carlsbad I am not sure if this is the appropriate department to be addressing this issue with and if not, I hope that you will forward it to the appropriate individual (s). A few weeks ago, I read in the newspaper that Carlsbad was considering passing some sort of ordinances regarding individuals who are parking their motorhomes on the streets of Carlsbad - perhaps they live in them or perhaps they are simply moving them around to store them in favor of not having to pay for monthly storage. The article invited comments from the citizens ofCarlsbad. I live on Jerez Court on the La Costa Golf Course and have a lovely location. Unfortunately there are many people including boat owners who seem to think that Gibraltar (just off La Costa avenue) is their personal parking space. I and many others resent the fact that people seem to be able to come up with the money to buy their toys and then expect those of us who do not house such large items to be inconvenienced with looking at them and avoiding them as we drive up and down our streets. If they don't have personal parking for their boats and trailers and motorhomes, why should the rest of us have to put up with their purchases. I am all for - no parking space, no toys. I hope there is something being done about this. Hope to hear from you. Darlene Fahey concemed resident of Carlsbad Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Proposed new RV ordinance RV ordinance.docx From: Tanya Wilson [| Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:00 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Proposed new RV ordinance In response to the upcoming City RV ordinance there are several issue here that have not been addressed. I and I feel that these need to be addressed and looked into before any ordinance is passed. There are two different issues: 1. West and immediately East of I 5 covering the beach area for overnight parking 2. Carlsbad residents RV street parking Questions to be addressed ifthe standing ordinance if passed is: 1. Who is going to police these offenders that park overnight. Does the city really have the monies and police force to patrol all ofthe City ofCarlsbad streets to enforce this ordinance between the hours of 2 am and 5 a.m. on all the city streets or is this going to be case by case issue as it is now or CITY WIDE. As it is right now the majority of the complaint are calls from residence on these issues and are not being enforced at the time of the volition due to man power. Will this still be the generating factor for enforcing this new ordinance? As stated in the article in UT dated January 4, 2013 "Some rules already apply to RVs, but it can be hard catching people who violate them" stated by Brian Jones. And if the city cannot fully enforce the now City restriction how are they now going to be able to enforce the city wide no overnight RV parking on all the city streets. Overnight camping in RV or vehicles Residential RV parking in front of their residence Campers dumping waste in street or storm drains. The UT article also noted that approximately 800 RV registered owners for the City OF Carlsbad's with a population of over 100,000. Not all these RV are being parked on a city street so the few RV that are parked on the street within now city ordinance of 72 hours are being addressed. This can be looked as harassment to these few long time residence and tax payers. Due to the change of our economy these few RV have been moved from storage to the street and ifthe residence is in compliance now ofthe 72 hour restriction, why should they be required to find storage / or sell their personal property to satisfy the few residential complaints. Question to be asked if this not a personal attack of an individual rights how many RV are now being parked in front of a tax paying resident of all the streets within the City limits and are all these getting a compliant calls or are these being singled out in certain neighborhoods. Fact is if neighbors on one street call in complaints about RV parking these are issued a notice to move within 72 hours hours, however 4 streets over neighbors are really neighbors and do not complaint and that RV does not get the same note to move even if it has been there over the 72 hours. The City council really needs to re address this ordinance to be beneficial to the City and residence. 1. Patrol and enforce the overnight beach parking West and immediacy along the East side of I 5 where most of these violators are. Change the restricted hours to be posted in these areas to: 12 mid night to 6 am as NO PARKING. 2. Provide a reasonable cost of a annual RV residential street parking permit ( example 100.00 to 125.00) for residence that need to park their RV in front of their residence and or provide a fenced city area where they can park these RV of f the street, therefore gernating revenue for the City to cover the cost of additional patrol for enforcing beach area overnight parking. 3. And not to be selective in enforcing the ordinance be CITYWIDE not by only complaints. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Friday January 11, 2013 8:50 AM Rose Williams FW: PROPOSED RV PARKING ORDINANCE 1/10 From: Joseph Welch _ Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 6:05 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: PROPOSED RV PARKING ORDINANCE So now the city is going to require me to obtain a "free" parking permit for my RV just to park it over night. Ifthe police could not or cannot manage RV parking now how are they going to be able to make sure I am not parking in front of my house more than four times a month? Are you going to require me to notify the city whenever I use my RV? Is this another way to require me to pay some sort of a tax/fee to the city, at a later date? At this time when people are talking about the government taking away their rights the city is going to require me to put a sticker/permit on my private property I. e., my RV? Now how is this going to prevent me from parking my RV at my house for more than 72 hours or more than the prescribed times authorized by the city. As I said before, the police cannot enforce the parking on the city streets now, how is this going to change that problem? The parking enforcement officer is still going to have to patrol the streets and mark the tires of all RVs to make sure they will only be parking in that spot for the authorized 72 hours, up to four times a month. It seems to me that this proposed ordinance is NOT going to improve the RV parking problem of the city. How is the city going to treat the people who visit our fair city two, three months from now. Is the city going to greet RVers by giving them a ticket because they did not obtain a parking permit? The police say they cannot ticket an RV that is parked along the side of the road now, why can't they mark the tires of the vehicles and issue a citation if the vehicle has not been moved at the end of the 72 hour parking time allowed now or have the RV towed at the owner's expense? This should solve the problem without making everyone in the city, who owns an RV, to get a parking permit. These are just some ofthe questions the city should consider before they contemplate approving this ordinance because it cannot be enforced any better after passing than it is now. Joseph Welch HI Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RVs parking on city streets From: RAYMOND KILLEEN Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:14 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RVs parking on city streets I live in Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Community facing Christiansen St with a view of a block of Garfield St loaded with 7 to nine RVs for the past MONTH. This an eyesore and a potential hazard to the neighborhood and the pedestrians that walk this block. Why can't your senoir patrol officers give a substanfial ficket to these people who cause the problem? If you need a new ordinance, please pass it promptly. Thank you Ray Killeen, M.D. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RVs From:^ ^ Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:01 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RVs On the West side of Garfield between Beech Ave and Chrisfianson Way, this area has had up to 8 RVs parked there for weeks at a time. I believe they are using the area just to store their vehicles and maybe one or two are used for living in. One fime I did catch one discharging waste water during a heavy rain. I called the police and they came, and I believe, just gave him a warning. I do not believe that the streets should be used for the storage of RVs. Yours truly, Odvar S, Holm Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Friday, January 11, 2013 8:03 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Parking of RVs between sidewalk and property lines 2012-10-01 11.01.39.jpg From: Jeff White Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:18 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Parking of RVs between sidewalk and property lines What are the provisions for parking along the inside ofthe sidewalk, off the street (between the sidewalk and fence of adjacent property)? There is an RV parked in front of my home that is parked in what looks to be a median area. Is this in violation of a city lawn parking ordinance? I have attached a photograph to illustrate what I am referring to. Regards, Jeff White Cell: Email 50 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bryan Jones Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:00 PM Transportation-Internet; Rose Williams John Maashoff RE: RV input somewhat tardy comment: From: Lance Johannsen Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:02 AM To: Transportation-Internet cc:MHHHIiHHBV Subject: RV input somewhat tardy comment... The City's attention to the dilemma of RVs on city streets is something that is needed. However, being a resident of Terramar, I am a witness the the City's dereliction of duty, regarding parked, unhitched trailers. There is a specific city code ordinance regarding the prohibition of leaving unhitched trailers on city streets (with the exception of loading or unloading). At any one time, I can find 2 or 3 unhitched trailers parked on El Arbol or Los Robles (the ordinance does not differentiate between utility trailers or travel trailers). When one defines "street right of way" doesn't it mean "all the public right of way"? However, the City police and staff continue to cast a blind eye to instances trailer parking in the parkway behind the curb line. Mav I remind the Citv staff and police, that the parkway is public right of way, and therefore the owners of trailers that are parked on public land,are illegally using publicly owned land without compensation to the City. Also, the City may be liable for not enforcing its own ordinance or other problems arising from the unauthorized parking. Obviously, the owners of the trailers are taking advantage of "non-enforcement"! What galls me the most is that \f I were to park an unhitched trailer of any sort on the parkway/public right of way, in front of my house on Carlsbad Blvd, it would certainly catch the eye of someone and I would have to remove it. tt only makes sense that all ofthe trailers should be parked off the streets, to keep our neighborhood from becoming a clutter of "trailers". I have pointed this sttuation out on numerous occasions to Lt. Reno, who never seems to reply to my complaints. I would love to hear what the City would say, \f I brought the issue to a City Council Meeting during public comment time. Gerald Lance Johannsen,! Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday January 22, 2013 7:35 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Proposed AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.40 BY ADDING SECTION 10.40.180 From:<_ Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:30 AM To: Transportation-Internet Cc:MBHHBkfl* Sulflect: RE:"Proposed AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.40 BY ADDING SECTION 10.40.180 This message is intended for Mr. Brian Jones, City of Carlsbad Deputy Director of Transportation. Please confirm receipt of this email. Dear Mr. Jones, I am writing with concems ofthe proposed addition to SECTION I. Title 10, Chapter 10.40 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code being amended with the addition of Section 10.40.180; and regarding the "Homeless Motor Home" issue. The amendment appears to me to be discriminatory against and dangerous for the homeless population of Carlsbad. As I know you are aware, many of these people would literally be living in Carlsbad's bushes were they not able to park motor homes on the streets of Carlsbad. It is completely understandable why the City of Carlsbad would not want motor homes parked on its street for unlimited periods of time as permanent residences. However, your proposed ordinance amendment appears to go overboard in its proposed control this while putting the health and safety of those less fortunate, the City's homeless, at greater risk. It appears that while trying to control liability for the City of Carlsbad from the "Homeless Motor Home" matter, this proposed ordinance amendment could actually increase the potential for liability for the City should anyone be harmed by the loss of ability to sleep in the safety of a locked motor home. For the good of the City its taxpayers and the safety of those who are homeless in Carlsbad; I urge you to go back to the drawing board on this proposed amendment and humanely take into consideration the needs and protection of the City's less fortunate. Sincerely, Sharon Kramer Cn Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 17,2013 7:35 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: proposed RV ordinance OPEN LETTER TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION.docx Froma Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:52 PM To: Transportafion-Internet Subject: proposed RV ordinance Attn: Bryan Jones Enclosed you will find my comments re: proposed ordinance. Thank you for your efforts. Jonnie Johnson OPEN LETTER TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION BYRAN JONES January 16, 2013 RE: PROPOSED RV PARKING ORDINANCE I want to commend the City Traffic Division for bringing this issue to the forefront. This proposed ordinance is long over-due. There seems to be a two-part problem, 1) long-term street storage and 2) over-night camping Being a beach community, we see many tourists. Carlsbad promotes its tourism and is self-described as an "upscale" community. Yet as we drive down Avenidas Encinas, aka "hotel row", we see long-term parking of RVs, commercial trucks, car-transportation vehicles, etc. As a regular driver along road, I have monitored these vehicles. The average has been 20 vehicles on this street alone. Many of these RVs "store" them on our streets and most of them have not been moved in months. Since this is not a residenfial area, RV owners know no one will complain. The police don't monitor these vehicles because no complaints have been lodged. Reports show that many of these vehicles' owners do not even live in Carlsbad. Living in the southwest quadrant, we see many RVs parked along the Boulevard. Carlsbad ordinances prohibit parking along the beach after 11 p.m. That's when many out-of-town RVs start looking for overnight parking. Many have come into my neighborhood. For several nights, a well-worn RV drove down our streets with no headlights and parked in our neighborhood. They rolled out their drainage hose and stuck it down the street drainage holes. Yes, the holes that have "it drains to the ocean" painted on them. In addition to the "over-night" guests, we have neighbors whose relatives come every year and "camp" on our streets for a week at a time. Even though the city has a "no camping" ordinance, "permanent RVers" know not to answer a knock at their door. It's a game they play with the police. Even with phone calls to the police and registering my complaint with the City's Traffic Commission, there was no hope of action. I researched other beach communities, such as Encinitas, Del Mar, Redondo Beach, Hunfington Beach, etc. These cities have banned over-night RV parking except for over-night permits to residents. The long-term storage RVs are a blight to the city's image. Responsible RV owners have to consider long-term storage when they purchase such a vehicle whether they live in Phoenix or Carlsbad. The citizens of Carlsbad don't pay the taxes they do, to see these depilated RVs parked on the streets and they certainly don't help the City's image. As a beach community, we want to attract visitors. But we must provide over-night RVers a place to go. There are no commercial campgrounds in Carlsbad. The State Beach Campgrounds are very popular and leave last-minute RVs without overnight accommodations to fend for themselves. This proposed ordinance is the first step in solving this problem. However, the City needs to take it a step farther and find a location for these vehicles. It could be a source of revenue and get these vehicles off our streets. I highly recommend the adoption of this ordinance and recommend the city look for over-night RV parking. Sincerely, Jonnie Johnson 5^ Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 14, 2013 9:57 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Ordinance - REQUIRED NOW From: Sent: Monday, January 14, To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Ordinance - REQUIRED NOW City of Carlsbad Input on pending ordinance on RV parking: This ordinance is very necessary for both residents who seem to feel they can park their RVs for extended periods of time as well as our visitors who stay on the streets too long. My only addition to the existing proposed ordinance is to make sure that the permits and permit charges are sufficient to enforce the ordinance and cover the city costs in policing the RVs in our city. This should be a cost neutral ordinance, not create new cost over-runs and cover the cost of enforcement by all our city personnel required. RVs owners need to provide the funds to support their parking in our city. Mike Sapien 59 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:33 AM Rose Williams FW: RV parking 6 —Original Message—-- From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV parking —Original Message- From: Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:41 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV parking I am an RV owner and my concern is in the enforceability of the proposed ordinance. This will take additional resources ^'nd could compromise'the ability ofthe City's law enforcement branch to do the more relevant and important enforcement activities. • Secondly, and perhaps subservient to the issue of resourcing, as a taxpayer, I have as much right to park my RV in front of my home as my neighbor has to park his Chevy Tahoe which is almost the same size. Limiting me to an arbitrary 72 hours four times a month is ludicrous. How do you propose to enforce this and why is it even relevant? If the RV is parked in front of the home of the owner, it should be permitted unless the City is willing to make ALL on street parking between 2am and 6am illegal. The city of Wheaton Illinois has such an ordinance. Maybe this is the solufion? My RV lives in a storage facility in San Marcos. I will occasionally park the RV in front of my home before or after a trip. I have every expectation that the city will not limit parking for me in any way other than how that it limits parking of any resident's vehicles in front of their home. Having to apply for annual permits, tracking compliance, and enforcement are an expense that the City needs to consider. I have every expectation that the City keep all commenters to this website informed regarding when and ifthe ordinance is discussed at a future council meeting. It's your responsibility as my public servant to ensure that his happens. If the council is interested in establishing a community-based resource to help develop this strategy, I am happy to volunteer my time. Regards Andreas Pleil, PhD Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bryan Jones Monday, January 14, 2013 12:14 PM Rose Williams FW: UPDATE UPDATE..PARKING PROBLEMS letter to city mgr. 2.rtf From: Council Internet Email Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:55 AM To: Skip Hammann Cc: Bryan Jones; Cynthia Haas Subject: FW: UPDATE UPDATE..PARKING PROBLEMS From:l Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:32 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Fw: UPDATE UPDATE..PARKING PROBLEMS UPDATE - UPDATE The situatlion hasn 7 changed. As of Thursday evening, 01/10/13, there were seven R V vehicles, plus support vehicles, parked on the west side of Garfield St. between Beech St. and Chrlstensen Way. More support vehicles in and out on the east side of Garfield St.. These people are not tax paying citizens ofCarlsbad and are taking advantage of the parks, and all the utilities and amenities that the citizens of Carlsbad have to pay for. — On Sun, 3/11/12, Dan O'Reilly From: Dan O'Reilly Subject: PARKING PROBLEMS To: council@carlsbadca.gov Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012, 11:07 PM ^7 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:35 AM Rose Williams; Bryan Jones FW: CARLSBAD LIMITS FOR RVs PARKING Oversized Vehicles, 20Jan2013 (1 of 3).jpg; Oversized Vehicles, 20Jan2013 (2 of 3).jpg; Oversized Vehicles, 20Jan2013 (3 of 3)Jpg From: Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:00 Pf To: Transportation-Internet Subject: CARLSBAD LIMITS FOR RVs PARKING I live adjacent to the Seapointe Resort Time Share, sometimes their guest arrives in a RV or commercial truck. Parking in very limited in this area, resulting in parking on La Costa Downs subdivision residential streets. Recommend the following wording be added, ''OVERSIZED VEHICLES SHALL BE CONTAINED WTTHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDRIES OF THE HOTEL OR TIME SHARE". Oversize vehicle parking during the summer, holidays and warm winter days on the coast. Oversized vehicles hog parking, take up 2 to 3 parking spaces and usually park all day and well into the evening or night. It would be nice if parking could be limited to 4 hours and no oversized vehicle parking between 11pm and Sam. This slight restriction would give other people that visit the beach a fair chance. Attached are several photos, how will the Oversize Vehicle Policy address this? Tom White t Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:34 AM Bryan Jones; Rose Williams FW: Ordinance on banning overnight RV parking From: Sent: Thursday, January 17,2013 9:28 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Re: Ordinance on banning overnight RV parking Hello- First of all, my name is Craig Gee, and I am a Carlsbad resident. I have read your proposed Ordinance on the ban of ovemight parking of RVs within the City ofCarlsbad. I think that it is very irresponsible. Many ofthe people who have to live in their RVs are not doing so by choice, but by necessity. If this Ordinance is passed, where are these people supposed to go? Ovemight parking is already banned by the beach and throughout the Village...is it really necessary to baa the ovemight parking throughout Carlsbad? Do we really want to exhaust additional money enforcing this Ordinance? I think we should focus on more pressing issues within Carlsbad... Many of us are a paycheck or two away from being in the same situation...please do right by your fellow man!!! I would appreciate your feedback and confirmation that you recieved this email. Regards Craig Gee Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:33 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: parking amendment to 1040. (1040.180) From: russell gregory Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:24 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: parking amendment td 1040. (1040.180) We pay a tax when we register our vehicles. This license is good throughout the United States. We should be able to park anywhere it is safe. There should be a minum setback from the comer mle of at least twenty feet regarding parking of any vehicle as there are many unsafe blind intersections in Carlsbad with vehicles parking too close to the comer. This would satisfy the safety issue. I am a bonafide resident ofCarlsbad. So are my sisters, and my mother. I drive an 18 wheeler and when I park near my family, I appreciate not having to spend too much on a cab , or ask them to drive across town to get me. It also enables me to keep an eye on my rig; Big rigs are stolen at an alarming rate. It would greatly inconvenience me to have to Park in another area. But of even greater importance is the fact that when we drive these tmcks it is tiring and when we need a place to rest is is so comforting to be able to pull off nand have a place to park, without haveing to always go through the hassel of getting a motel. Any honest tmcker will agree that there are times when you need to sleep even though you have hours available on your log book. I've always held Carlsbad in high esteem because ofthe nondiscriminatory attitude toward the traveling man. We travelors do not litter, spend way more on the road than what space we take, and are the very heart of America. Everything you see or touch was delivered at some point by a tmck. Our interstate highway tmcking industry is the ONLY area that USA is absolutely indisputably ranks #1 and is the envy ofthe world. Please do not disrespect tmckers and travelling men. FREEDOM! People who live in motorhomes should not be discriminated against. They have rights too. What kink ofa Facist nation have we become where you must "show your papers " as in Nazi Germany. This is appalling and discriminatory and whowver it is who drafted it should be ashamed of themselves. It is a right to declare your residency. If you rent a room you are just as much a resident. What in the world has becom of loving your fellow man/neighbor as the Bible says? Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:26 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV parking 2 —Original Message— From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportafion-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV parking —Original Message- From: Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:49 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV parking We are Carlsbad residents that live off of Avenue Encinas and Poinsettia. Over time more and more RVs are parking on both sides of Avenue Encinas and we believe are spending their nights there. It is close enough to walk to the beach for these folks. We are in complete agreement with the Ordinance in process. Having a hodgepodge of huge and small RVs there is very unsightly, and in some cases, dangerous as cars try to make left turns from the Japanese Restaurant. Don't suppose there is some large property currently unused that Carlsbad could retrieve rents from these owners for daily parking? Another suggestion, in the winter months how about allowing them to park in the Tamarack beach parking for a special daily/weekly rate? It would bring in some money to the City. That particular parking lot is not full once Summer has passed. Thank you for allowing us to express some opinions! Bruce and Catherine Broker Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:28 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 3 —Original Message— From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportafion-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking —Original Message- From: John hair^ Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:01 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking I am in favor of restricting RV parking on public streets in Carlsbad, especially along Carlsbad Blvd. Their parking along the beach restricts resident and visitor views. Not only are they an eyesore, but they take up parking space that otherwise two or more cars might occupy. This is an ordinance that is long overdue. There are, perhaps, other, less intrusive areas that could be made available for overnight RV visitors, such as along Avenida Encinas north of the Coaster station. They should not be allowed to stay there more than one or two nights. (a Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:32 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 4 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:28 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking From: anthonyi Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:07 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking I am in favor of permits for RV parking in Carlsbad. They are a problem with transients sleeping inside and the police cannot take control of this problem. Having RVs owners get permits would surely help the police reduce the issue. On HWYlOl along the coast the RVs take up to 4 car lengths to park and is not fair to others with a car who want to park there and enjoy the coast Tks Sincerely M Spagnolo longtime resident of Carlsbad. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:33 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 7 —Original Message— From: John Maashoff On Behalf Qf Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:26 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking —Original Message From:^ Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:06 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking This is an issue which certainly needs to be addressed. My wife and I go to the beach almost every day of the year and recognize that summer parking is just a question of being lucky and being at the right place at the right time. But, when I drive past Ponto on any summer day, 1 know that the sight of numerous RVs means that I may as well go elsewhere. There is no "being in the right place at the right time" because all the parking spots have been consumed by just a handful of RVs whose owners think nothing of it. The RVs are there for the long haul, making it impossible for anyone else. Here is my take about parking which I hope you will consider! Most people who normally use the beaches in Carlsbad are parked for a few hours at a time: surfers spend an hour or two and leave; families with children come early and leave early, or come later and don't stay too long. This creates an ebb and a flow which frees parking spots at different times'throughout the day. I can always find a parking spot, with a little patience of course. But, once the RVs come early in the morning, they remain all day, and there is never that movement, that ebb and flow, which allows the residents ofCarlsbad, like myself, to enjoy the beaches in the summer. RVs should be banned from parking at the beaches. They create an environment that is almost hotel-like, with the contents of their homes laid out on huge plots of sand. It is unfair, period. RVs belong in campgrounds, not taking up valuable summertime parking for residents or visitors. One Rv'takes up at least three spots for cars; 5 RVs parked in a row, which is not unusual, takes up 15 spots for cars. But, if you followed my logic about the ebb and flow of normal beach goers, who stay for short periods of time (unlike RVs who park themselves for the durafion), it would probably equate to 45 available parking spots as people leave and people arrive. Please, please, ban RV parking! Sent from my iPad ^1 Anonymous Input-In Favor Thank you for your work on this ordinance. We have had issues wtth neighbors parking motorhomes on our street for over the past year. This has caused angst and pitted neighbor against neighbor. It has also created a safety hazard for both autos and pedestrians on our street. My only concern is how this will be enforced. Who will ensure that these motorhome owners adhere to the rules? There has been a motorhome parked across the street from my home for over a year. The owner moves tt forward or back 10 feet and feels he is complying wtth the rule. He wipes off the marks that the police leave on his tires, and nothing ever seems to happen. The motorhome is always there. &0 Rose Williams Prom- John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent:" Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc Rose Williams Suijject: FW: RV PARKING LIMITS ORDINANCE From: Edward Bartosiki Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:01 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV PARKING LIMITS ORDINANCE January 6, 2013 Carlsbad Transportation Department: Upon reading the January 4, 2013 Union Tribune article titled CARLSBAD CITY PROPOSES LIMITS FOR PARKING OF RVs and long-term stops in residential neighborhoods, we wish to submit a written comment. The following licensed RVs, and many times even others not listed, are parked behind St. Michaels Church on Garfield Street between Christiansen and Beech. These RVs have been parked (moving periodically short distances up and down the street) all of 2012. Here it is 2013 and they are preparing to camp in their vehicles for another year. People and animals live in these RVs and are seen repeatedly repairing their vehicles, walking their pets, and dumping their sewage, while essentially living full-time on the street. INHABITED RV LICENSE PLATE NUMBERS & RV TYPE CA 6RZD844 - Bounder CA 6MSZ775 - Southwind Delaware RV1169 - Hurricane CA 1MGV956 - Southwind CA 6XZX741 - Mini-Mirage Camper CA 5JLT655 - Grey Cortez During the busy summer season, many beach visitors are unable to utilize these parking spaces because the above mentioned RVs are always parked along the entire block. People walking down the sidewalk next to the RVs have to continually contend with dogs barking at them from the vehicles, waste disposal, pet waste, and trash bags. The passage of an ordinance to limit RV parking, especially west of the 15 Freeway, is definitely needed and would be an asset to the city of Carlsbad. Respectfully, Edward and Gail Bartosik Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:29 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Parking on City of Carlsbad Streets From: Mare Doyle Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:54 PM^ To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking on City of Carlsbad Streets I fully support greater regulations of RVs parked on City streets often, I see owners moving the RVs from one block to another parking in front of other homes to evade 72 hour notices....seems many of these RVs are also in disrepair leaking oil, etc. I've also seen RV trailers unhooked and parked in my neighborhood to avoid having to secure a storage area. These RVs that are parked on City streets for extended times also invite vandalism and theft to the area. I'd also like to see restrictions placed on RVs who take up all the coastal highway parking spaces ovemight and leave little parking for City residents, possibly a permit system for non- residents make sense on scarce coastal hwy parking areas. Thank you, Marc Doyle 70 Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:35 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking on City Streets 3 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking on City Streets From: Brooke Flynn( Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:53 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking on City Streets My husband and I are happy to see an ordinance conceming the RVers who have gotten out of hand. We particularly had a good laugh over the newspaper comentary from one RV owner who wants consideration for hardship. This would demonstrate that he sees our beach front parking as free all day parking, vice parking at one of our State Campgrounds. Otherwise why not use his car like most of us? If owning an RV and paying for camping is a hardship, perhaps RV Ownership whould be reconsidered. Anyway we hope to see an RV Ordinance passed, particularly at the beach area and the eysore along some of the highways and streets. Thank you, Brooke and Noel Flynn Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:14 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Parking on City Streets From:^ Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:59 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking on City Streets I've always been of the opinion that one can tell the quality of a community by the vehicles parked on the streets. I find this to be certainly true during the daylight hours, but especially true during the nighttime. Having RVs more or less permanently parked on city streets, whether those streets are commercial or residential, lessens the perceived value/desirability of the area. Parking an RV on a city street for an extended period of time would seem to be the result of either a cost saving maneuver of the owner or simply the convenience of having the RV constantly located nearby for whatever reason. Neither of these situations would seem to be a need overriding the general appearance of the community as a whole. The permits in discussion for short term street parking appear to be generous in meeting needs of those RV owners who may have an occasional need for on street parking. My husband and I relocated to the La Costa area of Carlsbad from northern California over a year ago. It did not even occur to us to inquire whether or not the RV parked down the block from us was permanently located on the street. Some other areas of Carlsbad have designated parking areas for RVs, and those neighborhoods are well sen/ed by not having various recreational vehicles permanently parked on their streets. Let all of Carlsbad benefit by restricting the kind and duration of time of vehicles parked on city streets. Thank you, Trud^ Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:50 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking Ordinance 1/10 From: Carolyn Sullivanl Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:28 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Ordinance Dear Sir or Madam, I have read the proposed ordinance and I am 100% in favor of its adoption. This should have happened years ago! I have one concern, however. Nothing in the ordinance indicates how the use of the residents' permit will be tracked. If we are to rely on enforcement officers to write down and track the number of times a particular RV is seen in a month I doubt that enforcement of the statute will be rigorous. I would like to see the permit have some way of showing on its face when it has been used. This could be a place to write In the dates of use (in ink), a punch-out calendar, a sticker system (non-removable once used) where only the appropriate number of four per month is issued, or any other feasible method. It must be obvious to law enforcement and to passers-by alike that the RV owner is In compliance with every requirement of the ordinance. I live near a family which has stored their large RV on the street for more than 20 years, and they have flaunted current law for all of that time. If all they have to do is display a non-dated permit I can see that their cooperation with the ordinance will not change. If the neighbors have to call every time the vehicle is on the street for more than three days, and then law enforcement has to document it and wait another three days, and this has to happen four times in a month before they can be cited, the ordinance will not be very effective. Using my suggestion, an offender could be cited immediately if the permit shows that the permitted 12 days per month have been used. I urge the City Council to identify and adopt some way that this might happen. Thank you, Carolyn Sullivan \/(^fARM^hy A\/e _ ^ .j^AMsZAA^'^A.S^^ - - 2i^M.TiMi>P^glMi'M as^/^ _ - C^A RlSEAh '5> iJAi^tJ^ 4 J^MAC^e. . in I'f'l'j^A^jS^ iAl>Djt6^!> 77//g /S?/^^<^4'.' ^If/AiuAm ^ARLSS4A B/^(^^ Z\JpA/^f^i^^ /Oc>%> \(3AcUco pAte)^< [A.uj^Ht ^4 ^/jc/A^^s AUtj/i ms i:^^^5^i^5£f:^-.i^^ y^Mf^ "^cP ^^^^ „ Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV parking ordinance From:L Sent: Monday, January (i/, 2013 7:44 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV parking ordinance Thank you for addressing the issue of RV parking on City of Carlsbad streets. As a resident of Waters End (off of Avenida Encinas) this issue is one of great concern for many reasons including the safety of our neighborhood/residents. I believe this proposed ordinance needs to be taken a step further by narrowing the 72 hour limit to 24 or 36 hours for residenfial areas and not allowing any overnight parking from 11 pm to Sam. People are using Avenida Encinas as their own personal RV park. Most of these RVs are actual long term living accommodations for people—not just a "recreational" vehicle (RV). The red zone for parking close to the two exit gates from Waters End onto Avenida Encinas needs to be extended for all parking—it is very difficult to see oncoming traffic (induding cylclists) when exiting our neighborhood. Thank you for making this issue a priority and responding to Carlsbad resident's concerns. Rosalind Hodgins 7r Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday January 07, 2013 12:28 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV parking proposed ordianance From: WilHam^fsenault^_ Sent: iViday, January 04, 2013 6:25 AM To: Transportafion-Internet Subject: RV parking proposed ordianance As a Carlsbad resident, I strongly support this ordinance. I also would like to see it deal with the parking of the RV parking along Carlsbad Blvd. Their should be a length and height limit as it presents a danger to cyclist and joggers when you cannot see dangers between them. Also it robs parking from others has they take up four or five spots, and then some actually put out parking cones or lawn chairs to save spots for their tow vehicles. It is time this stops. Thank you for you time and service to our community. Bill Arsenault Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Friday, January 11, 2013 8:50 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Regulation 1/10 From: Gisela Riveral Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:01 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Regulation Thank you for all the work involved in putting this ordinance together and for asking for citizen input. Here are my suggestions: 1. Charge a fee for any permits. 2. Limit the resident's yearly permit guideline to 72 hours, 1 time per month. 3. Limit the temporary permit guideline to 4 times yearly. I appreciate the attention paid to this issue, especially as it impacts safety in our neighborhoods. Thanks again for your hard work! Ms. Gisela Rivera y.^^ ^ ^^^^^ — ^^^^ -A. ^ Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:23 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV Regulations From: Oddone, Rober Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:55 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Regulations First, thanks for addressing this issue that has been a problem for too long. I think the regulations will help a lot. Below are my comments/concerns. 1) Yearly Permit for City Residents - 72 hours to load or unload an RV is too long. 24 hours is adequate. I don't know anybody who takes three days to load or unload an RV. 2) Temporary Permit for visitors - Again, 72 hours is too long and six times per year is too many. I anticipate residents with RVs will use this temporary permit as a loophole to allow themselves to park their own RV at their residences longer than 72 hours and for more than 4 times per year. (For example, I could use my neighbor to request a visitor permit for my RV.) I think each visiting RV (use license plate for ID) shall be granted a temporary permit only once per year (regardless of who requests the permit). This would discourage RV owners from using various neighbors to request multiple temporary permits. 3) Commercial Property Permit. Like the temporary permits for visitors, I think this is a potential loophole for RV owners. The commercial permits must be tied to specific RVs (license plate numbers) to prevent abuse. Each RV shall be allowed a maximum number of days to park on city streets (7 days for example). I can see a black market emerging for the commercial permits. Thanks for reading my comments. Next, please address the other problem plaguing our beautiful city...noisy motorcycles (and cars to a lesser degree). It is crazy how many motorcycles drive thru our beach streets setting off car alarms and ruining family and tourist street-side activities (jogging, enjoying the many sidewalk cafes, walking dogs, etc.). Rob Oddone .i4 7^ Rose Williams From- John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent:" Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Suijject: FW: RV rules input From: Charles R Welty( Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:57 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV rules input To the Carlsbad City Council I am writing to you regarding restricting ovemight parking of recreational and oversize vehicles in Carlsbad. I have spent the better part of my 60 years as a resident of Carlsbad and have come to the conclusion the city isn't interested in it's citizens enjoying the beaches. Most if not all holidays and the entire summer, parking has been taken over by out of town or out of state visitors with their RVs, taking not 1 or 2 but sometimes 3 & 4 parking spaces, beginning at Cherry street and Carlsbad Blvd, going south all the way to South Ponto As proof, I offer a picture courtesy of google maps: RVs parked on street http://maps.google.com/maps?q=carlsbad+ca&ll=33.148919,- 117.346584&spn=0.Q0044.0.000488&hnear=Carlsbad.+San+Diego.+Califomia&t=h&z-21 To further deprive residents ofthe beach, one individual parked his 5th wheel RV, take 3 parking spaces. If memory serves me, there is NO ovemight parking along the beach and along these parking spaces, yet I've tried to park during the summer as early as SAM and found NO parking available. I trust the City Council will see through this and pass an ordinance against these RVs and their irresponsible owners. Sincerely, Charles R Welty $0 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:02 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV rules ordinance From: _ Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:15 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV rules ordinance To all concerned with this proposed ordinance regulating RV parking in Carlsbad: I firmly support this ordinance for our City. Oversized vehicles parking in residential areas are unsightly and a detriment to housing values and quality of living. They also are a sight hazard for walkers and for those needing to safely pull out of driveways into roads. Part of the expense of owning a large RV is storing it in proper parking areas so that your neighbors do not have to look at the ugly things every time they look out their windows! I hope the City continues to pursue ways to enact laws and to enforce existing ordinances to improve neighborhoods and quality of living. In my neighborhood, there are many non operational cars, many cars parked on lawns, trash in front yards, and other violations that should be enforced. Clean up of these violations would go a long way to making our neighisorhood much nicer to live in and add to the value of our property. Thank you for considering this proposed RV ordinance. I sincerely hope that City Council supports it. Sincerely, Cathrine Greene Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV —--Original Message From: Linda i Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:14 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Regarding the proposed rule to remove RVs from city streets: I agree that they should be banned. Linda Petrucci Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Whoops From: Karen Ludlow^ Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:04 PM To: Transpo^ation-Internet | Subject: Whoops 1 misread the proposed policy and see that it allows four 3-day permits PER MONTH, not per year. Good for you for developing a workable plan. I would still like to see a longer time for visitors who arrive in their motor homes as there is no place else for them to park except on the street where they are visiting friends. Karen Ludlow Rose Williams From: Bryan Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:43 PM To: Transportation-Internet; rcglennon@roadrunner.com Cc: Rose Williams Subject: RE: RV Regulations At this point the ordinance is planned to go to city council on January 29, 2013 at 6pm at City Hall. More informafion on .^he ordinance is available at httB^/^/news.carlsbadca^Wx>r/ca/c4tv-seeks-input-Qn-rv-rules- 242318.aspx From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:44 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Regulations From: Bob Glen non j Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:39 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Regulations Can you give me an update on where the proposed new city ordinance stands? As the President ofthe Tamarack Point Homeowners Assn, I can attest that RV street parking, mostly by residents and their guests, has been and continues to be a problem for us. We would welcome the new restrictions posed by the proposed ordinance. Bob Glennon U Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:28 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Ban on RVs From: Peter Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 8:05 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Ban on RVs Great initiative. Please proceed, I'm all for it! All the Best, Peter Haenebalcke iS Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:32 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Proposed RV Parking Regulations From: Shirley Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:32 PM To: Transportation-Internet Cc: Council Internet Email Subject: Proposed RV Parking Regulations I bought my first RV in 1960, and have had one or another ever since. While living in Vista, we had an RV pad complete with water and electricity right next to the garage. After moving to Carlsbad in 1988, we were unable to construct a similar pad as the configuration of the property wasn't conducive to such an arrangement. Therefore we have stored our RV off the property for 24 years while all the time resenting the number of RVs we have seen parked on the street day after day and year after year. We heartily welcome your planned parking regulations. However, I am concerned about the wording in section I paragraph (c) referring to utility connecfions. Whenever we bring the RV out of Storage to pack for an outing, it is necessary to recharge the batteries, and refill the fresh water tank. This will be impossible without bringing a hose and electrical cord across the sidewalk. We would appreciate a re-wording of this paragraph to permit such activity. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Don Bursvold Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:23 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: R.V.'s From: Fiebing, Art] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2 To: Transportation-Internet Subject: R.V.'s I live in Carlsbad and am in favor of banning R.V'S from parking on the street. Art Fiebingj Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:25 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Rv draft rules —Original Messager-— From: John & Geri M'arshal Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:54 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Rv draft rules Thank you for taking a broader look at all vehicles that clog city streets. Please consider including the vehicles that are often used to tow large trailers such as travel trailers, '5th wheels' and 'toy boxes', many with 6 wheels. I have a neighbor who typically parks a 'dually' on the street in front of his home, rather than store it with his trailers, wherever they are. It appears not to be used for work or routine transportation and is one of perhaps 5 vehicles at the residence. An additional consideration is a resident that uses public streets as a personal parking lot, often using their garage for storage or as habitable space. Perhaps there is an existing municipal code that addresses this. It is a pleasure to live in a very well managed city. Everyone I've met that works for the city understands the 'service' in Public Servant. Thanks, John Marshall m Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Monday, January 14, 2013 2:11 PM Rose Williams FW: RV Ordinance 1/14 From: Carl Popej Sent: Monday, JahuaryT4,201312:4] To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Ordinance J believe the ordinance is a step in the right direction and support it. I feel that anywhere a street does not meet a minimum safe width, that NO RVs or wide vehicles should be allowed to park. A good example is Sunnyhill Drive south of Tamarack. Thank you, Carl Pope. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Monday, January 14, 2013 8:34 AM Rose Williams FW: RV ordinance 1/14 —Original Message- From: Jennifer Keiley( Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:07 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV ordinance The beach and streets adjacent to it are public and paid for by taxes. It is unacceptable that we are not able to access the beach readily on warm summer days due to RVs that command three to five parking spots. I would like to see this ordinance ban parking recreational vehicles along the boulevard. There are campgrounds within city limits that are designed to accommodate these large vehicles. These people buy their food and gas elsewhere, so they are not really tourists who feed our city with tourism dollars. Instead, they limit locals and tourists from accessing the beaches. I welcome tourism, but we should encourage the kind that brings money into the city via hotels, restaurants and shopping. Allowing them to command so much parking limits the public from enjoying what we pay for. Thank you for your time. Jennifer Kelley Sent from my iPad ^0 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:29 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Ordinance 2 —Original Message— From: John Maashoff Qh Behalf Of Transportafion-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:24 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Ordinance —Original Message- From: Lamia Nahoulj Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:08 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Ordinance I am glad to see that the city council is finally addressing this issue however, in reading the overview, I think that the proposal is too lenient by allowing residents the 3 or 4 times a month to park their RV by their homes- again, that is not fair for the neighbors. I lived in Orange County and such lenient ordinances was never tolerated. We tmst that The city council is continuously looking for ways to enhance this city - as is,the city has many unkept areas, old buildings etc....a walk on the boardwalk particularly during the summer is unbearable with the RVs parked there and owners are cooking and pracfically camped along Carlsbad Blvd. Sent from my iPad Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Bryan Jones Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:14 PM Rose Williams FW: RV ordinance From: Kim Stankavich On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:59 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: FW: RV ordinance Hi Bryan, Sec below. © From: Margie Carusc ^ Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:48 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV ordinance To Whom It May Concem: I am in complete support ofthe city's new ordinance that would restrict ovemight parking of recreational and oversized vehicles citywide. Thank you Carlsbad for always looking out for what is in the best interest of our beautiful city. Margaret Camso Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:31 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 1/8 (2) From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:02 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking From: Scott Morganj Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:30 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Hello, I do not own an RV and I do think it is a goocf idea to have strict restrictions of parking these vehicles in Carlsbad community neighborhoods. Perhaps, however a quick suggestion. Is there anyway to have permit overnight parking along, for example, Carlsbad Blvd (Highway 1) next to the power station. The parking fee would go to the City and would allow more visitors to visit our city during peak times. I appreciate there may be probables with waste dumping etc, but perhaps this could be worked out with the State Park, which I believe has the facilities. Thanks. ^3 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Friday, January 11, 2013 8:51 AM Rose Williams FW: RV Parking 1/10 From: Cheryl Freeman I Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:15 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking As a home owner that lives pretty close to the beach, we usually get RV travelers vacationing on our city streets and neighborhoods during the summer months. This is a problem for our neighborhoods that have to deal with these people, they take up parking, they run their generators at odd times, leave trash behind, have all their beach equipment sprawled out as if our neighborhood is a camp site and to make matter worse, it seems like they return the following year because nobody does anything about it. It seems like it is getting worse every year. I am so happy the City of Carlsbad is finally going to address this growing problem. Thank you!!! Kind Regards, Cheryl Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:41 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Cartsbadistan Feedback From: sallyeyans Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:36 PM To: Transport:ation-Internet Subject: Carlsbadistan Feedback I am very pleased to see the RV restriction ordinance being considered. We are currently looking to relocate to Carlsbad and this was one of our objecfions. The parking of RVs on the street is very unsightly and does not belong in residential neighborhoods. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:23 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: City seeks input on RV rules From: Sfipe, Tir ^ Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 8:29 AM To: Transport:ation-Internet Subject: City seeks input on RV rules Thank you for bringing this topic to the table for review and hopefully implementation. These RVers have been a thorn in the residents of Carlsbad that want to enjoy our beaches for years. The biggest problems are the one's that park along the 101 from south of Tamarack to The power plant. A 20' tow vehicle pulling a 35' toy hauler with the 10' back end dropped down 10'-20' of additional space roped off with caution tape and cones to accommodate the table and bbq is way over the top and needs to be addressed and enforced by our city. During a nice summer day there could be 20+ of these "set-ups" along this stretch leaving no parking for an average size car. Most are self sufficient and spend no revenue in our city. They set up on the street; they set up a potluck on the beach. At the end of the day leaving the trash cans and surrounding area full of trash, broken chairs, broken easy ups, etc... Three to four vehicles (families) can fit in the space they take up. These families usually spend money in our city because they didn't bring their house with them. I keep reading that a ficket cannot be given unless someone answers the door of the RV? Really? Will the new ordnance allow a citation to be issued and left on the window like a parking ticket? Also, from what I've heard from RV owners that practice this parking along our beaches is that the cost of the citations given is worth the price to park beach side. So, please make the cost ofthe ticket a deterrent. Thank You Tim Stipe and Family Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:34 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: rv regulations 3 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:26 PM To: Bryan Jones; Rose Williams Subject: FW: rv regulations From: Teri Polley-Mlchea Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 7:55 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: rv regulations Dear Mr Jones, I felt compelled to respond to your request for feedback regarding the RV parking regulations. I have been a resident ofCarlsbad for neariy 20 years. I have a motorhome and am lucky enough to have parking where I reside. I feel that limiting ovemight parking discriminates against a group of people who otherwise would not have a place to sleep at night. What i have heard from others is that Carlsbad has tumed into an elitist city that has no HEART for poor people. If the ordinance is about image then you are doing more harm than good. If the city feels that this group is posing such a problem that it feels it must regulate all RV owners and visitors in our city because of trash and sanitary concems then I am sure the city will go ahead with the Ronpas groups request to limit the parking around the high school as it too is violating the community's right to a clean and safe environment to live, walk and work in. I don't believe it would be fair to dicriminate against one group and disregard the other. Ifthe city goes through with this ordinance I hope they provide and altemative place where these people may go. Using the campground is not an altemative. I have tried on many occasions over the past 10 years to get a camp site in Carlsbad, Oceanside, and at San Elijo State Beach and have only been able to secure a camp site 3 times over the years, it is nearly impossible and is expensive! I think it would be in the best interest ofthe city and OUR COMMUNITY to regulate the few and not punish the people who follow the mles. As far as the beach parking, several times a year we do take our motorhome down to the beach. This is why we have purchased a home in a beach community. We do get up at 4:30 am so we can get a "good" spot. ANYONE can plan ahead and get up early and do the same. Some of us take the RV down out of necessity. Many of us have medical conditions that require additional help, these vehicles allow us the freedom to enjoy that which we have chose to pay higher taxes for. They give us the ability to enjoy the beach. I could go on and on but I won't. I would hope that the city does not pass this ordinance and does not take on the role of city home owner association. Work with the group you have issues with. Have them come up with options, please do not regulate the law abiding citizens and visitors of our fine city, DON'T DISCRIMINATE! SINCERELY, Teri Pollev Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Wednesday January 09, 2013 7:30 AM To: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking 1/8 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:01 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RV Parking From: Jay Wiesfiing Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:09 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV Parking Transportation Department, I am a 27-year resident of this city. I am writing to oppose the city wide ban on ovemight parking of RVs. I have owned RVs for the last 26 years. Due to regulation already in place in the city, I have to park my trailer in San Marcos, where I work. It is essential that, when going on trips, I pick up my trailer the day before departure, on my way home from work, for preparations and loading. This ordinance would obviously affect me. I live on Victoria Avenue, a long way from the beach. We don't have a problem with people parking RVs on Victoria. We do have problems with people driving 70 mph on Victoria. Maybe we should focus on what is important. The people in the northeast quadrant of the city do not need this ordinance, though we could use some help with speeders, on Victoria. We already have the 72-hour ordinance. Why is this not enough? Can it not be enforced? If not, can the new ordinance be enforced, or will the only compliance come from the law abiding citizens, and once again, only the scofflaws will be parking on the streets. Let's not over regulate and tum this into the Soviet Union ofCarlsbad. If you feel compelled to double-ordinance this situation, I would encourage you to support Mayor Hall's thought that the new ordinance should only apply west of Interstate 5. Do not punish every resident ofthe city because of a few trouble makers. Finally, I know you will allow me to apply for annual permit to park ovemight. I don't know what the cost of this permit will be. Regardless, I should not have to apply for a permit, to park my RV on the street ovemight, in America. Thank you. Jay Wiestling n Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Wednesday January 16, 2013 9:00 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: rv ordinance —Original Message- From: Brody Christine Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:51 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: rv ordinance There are many folks out there who are house-less and need to sleep in their vehicles. I for one would like to afford them that opportunity. Making it illegal does not make the reality of their desperate situation any different. John Brody Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: Rose Williams Friday, January 11, 2013 8:51 AM Rose Williams FW: RV ordinance 1/10 —Original Message— From: Turk Trautvetter Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:52 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV ordinance To whom it may concern. I have been a resident of San Diego North County for some 26 years. I owned a home in San Marcos for the last 19 years. Unfortunately,the mortgage bubble and a physical disability forced me to sell my home at a NOT so profitable time. 1 bought myself a small van/motorhome and live in it full time. The current parking restricfions and the proposed RV parking limitations of Carlsbad run counter to my lifestyle as a responsible and respectable U.S. cttizen. Turk Trautvetter Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:29 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV restrictions --—Original Message- From: Mike Merkt Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:27 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV restrictions I'm a 35 plus years Carlsbad homeowner/resident and it seems we already have rules and regulations to cover this problem that are not being enforced presently. Who is going to enforce these new rules? I heard a rumor that the city is going to have the fire dept. doing the checking and enforcement. I hope that was a joke but I'd be interested to know who will be doing the enforcement. I envision a coming surcharge/fee for RV owners in Carlsbad to cover this enforcement? I happen to be an RV owner and can only see problems with measured and correct enforcement. I pay to store my unit until I use it at which time I bring it to my home to load and leave for a trip. Ukewise when I return I unload and clean my RV before I return it to storage. 1 will be telling everyone I come in contact with to avoid the stores,restaurants, shops etc. in RV unfriendly Carlsbad. Just enforce what we have and stop dead beats from living on our city streets in RVs that obviously are being used as residences. We residents are being penalized because the city cannot do measured enforcement. Sent from my iPad 0 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:23 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: RV rules From: Mike Colvin [1 Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:52 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: RV rules I am not in favor of adding additional rules to the existing particular and the US in general is very RV unfriendly. The existing rules are already too strict. California in Traveling the CA in particular and the US in general it is very hard to stop and sleep without considerable planning and expense. We would do well to follow a more European style toward RV travel where it is easy stop at many government sponsored camping areas while traveling. RVing is a very American pastime and should be encouraged not discouraged. It is a great way for families to spend time together and see our great country. For those less fortunate who are the victims of our down economy some are living in RVs. This has to be very hard and we shouldn't look on them as a blight to society. It may be a temporary necessity while they get back on their feet. 1 know in some cases RVs can be a nuisance but that is all they are, a nuisance to a few vocal people. Rvers I'v come across are almost always very courteous, friendly, helpful and conscientious. They are not a great problem and I believe extra rules make our society more restrictive than it already is. If anything, I suggest we relax the existing rules to make it easier to spend the night. Please consider not adding to our already complicated lives with more rules. Thank you for your consideration, Mike Colvin Mike D. Colvin Superintendent COMPANY Rose Williams From: Rose Williams Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:30 AM To- Rose Williams Subject: FW: RVs 1/8 From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transport:ation-Internet Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:02 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams Subject: FW: RVs From: Steve Rayner' Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:29 AM To: Transport:ation-Internet Subject: RVs To whom it may concem, I am a current RV owner who resides in Carlsbad. I would take a guess that nobody on the staff owns an RV or has minimal knowledge ofthe lifestyle. I have seen other cities impose signage that disallows vehicles of certain size being parked ovemight (height ,weight & length). I think that this is a better way to for the city to resolve the problems on the street. It would allow police to enforce the code. No parking during certain periods ofthe night will work too. This already exists on the Coast HWY. I know that the people living in the RVs are on the coast( Avenida Encinas and surrounding areas). I'm not seeing this happen in other residential areas of the other 4 zipcodes ofCarlsbad. If it is happening, it is minimal. Don't make this issue about the entire city when it is a small area you're dealing with. I understand that there are few Rv's in the city that are of concem. Why punish the rest ofthe law abiding residents? Why is it that the minority mles? It is punishment for the rest of us having to apply for so called free permits. It is not free! There is an associated cost of such a program. I believe the city budget can be spent in more beneficial ways to the city and residents. Why is it that the citizens who are not the problem are the ones that have to do this? It isn't our problem, but it seems that the city now wants it to be. It is the way of life of RVing to find a place to pull over in a parking lot or street to rest. This happens nationwide! as we travel to our destinations! There are plenty of RVs that transit the area as they make their way to their destination. Sometimes they stop because they need to rest for a few hours because they have been driving for hours to arrive at their destination (Carlsbad). It is impossible to plan to arrive during daylight hours. They would be in violation and subject to fines because they wouldn't have anyway of knowing about the ordinance. Are you going to put up signs on every street? What is the cost of doing that? It is not reasonable to expect visitors who happen to be in transit through the area to know about the ordinance. If they were to be fined, I'm thinking they are not going to support local businesses to purchase gas or groceries or anything else they might need. Unwilling to spend time here because they received a ticket! From an unfriendly coastal city! I would not want to spend my hard eamed dollars in a city that was unfriendly to RVing! The word will spread of the nonsense and it will hurt local business which effects the cities economy, ft's Bad for business. to' Not being able to hook up electricity to the RV. I guess I will have to mn my noisy generator all night long to provide power to my RV. I guess you will soon change the mles to load/unload during daylight hours? Neighbors will not want to put up with this either! RVs need power to pre-cool refrigerators, and provide power for such things as simple lighting for early moming departures. This is unreasonable! I guess I can start the engine and let it mn in the early hours. My neighbors will like that I'm sure! My list of why this should not happen is too long to list. This is not a good decision to impose the majority of the people who are law abiding residents to this ordinance since the majority of us are responsible citizens. It is the clear minority (2 coastal neighborhood streets and maybe a dozen RVs) are the cities problem. While I agree with finding a solution to fixing the problem, I completely disagree with this ordinance proposal! All this because we can't control a dozen RVs? The tail is wagging the dog here! We need LESS city government intruding into our lives telling us what we can do with our personal property! I think our city is better than this! We should not let a few bad apples spoil the cart. Find another solution to the problem without penalizing others who have nothing to do with it! Just because other cities have similar ordinances doesn't mean it works for us! Find harmony between the law abiding RV owners and the streets! regards, Steve Rayner A proud Carlsbad resident PS. GO RVing you might like it! and have a greater understanding! Rose Williams Prom- Bryan Jones Sent:" Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:04 PM To: " Rose Williams Subject: FW: Voicemail January 9 From: U.S.JustlceSystemAnAbomination Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:57 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: Re: Voicemail January 9 have you been receiving any emails addressed to transportation(S)carlsbad.gov since that was copied and pasted from a city website by many people and now turns out to be wrong. From: Bryan Jones <Bryan.Jones(g)carlsbadca,floy> To:'••••••••••••HHHIMf Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Voicemail January 9 Richard, Thank you for your suggestions on the voicemail. We are receiving a number of emails that we are reading throuoh Staff is unable to spend one on one time with each person on the phone and that is why we have requested all suggestions in writing to Transportation(a).CarlsbadCA.gov or mailed to the Faraday Buildmg attention Transportation Department. Your comments and suggestions will be part of the official record and public information to be considered by staff and City Council. Carlsbad understands there are strong opinions on this issue and have been receiving them via email. Bryan From: Bryan Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:43 PM To:0H||^^HHi Subject: Memo to City Council at October 16 workshop Richard, Per your request I am sending you the memo given to City Council on October 16^^ Council workshop. Bryan Rose Williams From: Bryan Jones Sent: Thursday January 10, 2013 3:08 PM To: Skip Hammann; Rose Williams Subject: Fwd: Voicemail January 9 Begin forwarded message: From: U.S.JusticeSystemAnAbomination Date: January 10, 2013, 11:30:27 AM PST To: Bryan Jones <Brvan.Jones(g>carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Re: Voicemail January 9 Reply-To: U.S.JusticeSystemAnAbomination One more thing on this email of yours: The "city's" statement of: ''Carlsbad understands there are strong opinions on this issue and have been receiving them via email." in my humble "opinion," after witnessing years of dealing head on with govemment workers, is that when many of them are confronted with HARD, COLD facts, their pattern is to attempt to turn the discussion to, and characterize the opposition's statements as, "opinion or feelings." There is nothing of opinion or feeling here. The facts are as solid as the concrete in the Carlsbad Seawall. And those that are truly not known at this time (those ofthe residents and business operators) should be afforded a meticulous and methodical survey in the surrounding areas where the majority of these type RVers park to get the hard, cold truth about that. Thouh you may think I'm opinionated, emotional, or passionate about this issue, none can be further from the truth. I've involved myself because I see the vast people in this society, in essence, bending over, and saying how wide do you want me to spread'm, concerning the rape of their fundamental human rights in this country. My opinions, emotions and passions lie in things like my real job (carpentry), my invocation, playing guitar, and fbr lack ofa better word, solipsism, not in spending nearly my entire life fighting such inane, asinine and primitive nonsense that comes from otherwise very intelligent and clever individuals in government who have learned how to "game" the system by creating more and more rules so they can have more and more work and more and more power. I have no problem acting like a robot in expressing the simple truth that I do. But people then would surely accuse me of being "weird." So I act naturally and that outer "look" happens to be my involuntary "personality gament." So the long and short of it, with all due respect, I ask you sincerely to keep this discussion to the hard, cold facts of the matter, and not play games that what's coming from your opposition is their mere feelings, opinions, emotions or the otherwise illlogical, irrational or unreasonable aspects of the human being unrelated to the facts of the subject, thereafter which, of course, can legitimately and appropriately be discarded as irrelevant. Rich From: Bryan Jones <Brvan.Jones@carlsbj To: Sent: Wednesday, January 9. 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Voicemail January 9 Richard, Thank you for your suggestions on the voicemail. We are receiving a number of emails that we are reading through. Staff is unable to spend one on one time with each person on the phone and that is why we have requested all suggestions in writing to Transportation@CarlsbadCA.gov or mailed to the Faraday Building attention Transportation Department. Your comments and suggestions will be part ofthe official record and public infonnation to be considered by staff and City Council. Carlsbad understands there are strong opinions on this issue and have been receiving them via email. Brvan From: Bryan Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:43 PM To.MHBiHHHHi Subject: Memo to City Council at October 16 workshop Richard, th Per your request I am sending you the memo given to City Council on October 16 Council workshop. Bryan 07 Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Subject: U.S.J usticeSystem An Abom i nation Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:16 AM Rose Williams Re: Richard Shapiro's Response/Comments to (first) proposed overnight RV ban ordinance (attached) Thank you. I also sent several other documents discussing various angles of this issue. I would request that all those documents be officially recognized and placed in the official record as well. If you need me to send them again, let me know, Richard Shapiro HHHHHHi From: Rose Williams <Rose.Fonseca(@carlsbadca.qov> To: li^^HBHHi^HBHHMMHBV Sent: Wednesday, January 16,201311:11 AM ^ ^. , u Subject: FW: Richard Shapiro's Response/Comments to (first) proposed overnight RV ban ordinance (attached) Dear Carlsbad Resident: Thank you for your comments on the proposed Draft RV Ordinance. Your comments will be part ofthe official record and public informafion to be considered by City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider introducing the ordinance on Jan. 29, 2013. Ifthe ordinance is approved it would be brought back for adoption at a subsequent meeting and go into effect 30 days after its adoption. Sincerely, The City ofCarlsbad Transportafion Department From: John Maashoff On Behalf Of Transportation-Internet Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:29 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Rose Williams ^ Subject: FW: Richard Shapiro's Response/Comments to (first) proposed ovemight RV ban ordmance (attached) From: U.S.JusticeSystemAnAbomination Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:29 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Richard Shapiro's Response/Comments to (first) proposed ovemight RV ban ordinance (attached) Please confirm you received this email. Richard Shapiro's response comments to first proposed RV overnight parking ban: 1. The main glaring omission here is that the city does not, per one word, mention or deal with the central issue here in any of its internal documents or those posted to the public: homeless people needing to stay in their vehicles because thev have no other way to shelter themselves. This is not found in (1) the Brochure put out to the public, (2) the Memo put out to council members in October of 2012, (3) the proposed ordinance itself, (3) the "frequently asked quesfions" sheet put out on the city's website, or (4) its "news release." This total glaring omission speaks volumes ofthe true motives of the city for anyone who values tethering themselves and their reasoning to unassailable realities and truth. 2. The city builds its "reasoning" for this Ordinance on sheer false or naked presumpfion and/or assertion, offering no evidence whatsoever to accompany it, otherthan a vacant statement: "what they have found." This is why the city needs to slow down, and take advantage ofthe 10's of 10's in this "RV situation" who are poised to step fonA/ard and volunteer to (1) find out the facts ofthe overall situafion concerning RV inhabitants (en- cloaking, of course, all that the city has suggested is the case), as well as offer their volunteer services themselves in politely policing any serious or objectively reasonable concerns the residents, business operators or the city itself might have. 3. The city has a responsibility to the homeless people living in this city, morally, ethically and legally via local, state and federal law. Some parameters, of course, must be applied to limit the number of homeless people inhabifing its territory for health and safety reasons amongst maintaining a semblance of quality of life. However, by the city's own admission The city of Carlsbad is nowhere near any such limit concerning the homeless occupying RVs, by any measure. In the Recreational and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance Memorandum, (hereafter "Memo"), the city's own study shows some percentage under 219 RVs are parked year around in the city. Hardly a burden to any residents or businesses in a city this size if allowed to park in quite, out ofthe way legal spots for the approximate 72 hour limit on street parking. 4.1 have lived here since 2005, an eight year resident of this city. First in an apartment for several years, then in my vehicle for the remainder. Legally, morally, and ethically, I take high umbrage to anyone stafing that I am not a resident of this city. That leads to a larger point, the city attempts to label people not owning land or a house "non-residents" which is an illegal determinafion (federal citation omitted). The majority of these "live-in" RVers are long time residents of Carlsbad, and for them to move would prove an extraordinary hardship if not fatal. So called RVs "not registered to Carlsbad Residents" is another outrageous falsehood given a common sense and respectful definifion of resident. 5. My personal contact with residents, via any negative contact that is, has always been that they think they not only own the public parking on the public street right outside their homes but own all the parking all along the street where they live for as far as the eye can see. If s a common nasty trait of the human being to feel more and more possessive given the circumstance where they already own something (their home, lets say) coveted by many in society. I had a neighbor once threaten to kill me because I, his neighbor in the next house, parked my car in front of his house. This is a common enough pattern that the city actually should pay rapped attenfion to and notify those who harbor such nonsense. I'm not saying here that RVers should ever park in front of a strangers house or business while casually occupying it for the mere couth in respecting the fact that most of these homeowners and business people feel rather "strange" with such parked right outside their establishment. Irrational but understandable. 6. The infimafion, without any evidence, that RVers are causing crime in a particular area where they tend to amass is a pathefic ploy to smear them and pander to the mainstream fear of crime. Statements like: "it is believed that many ofthe crime reports are directly associated with the occupants of these vehicles parked overnight in Carlsbad." are slanderous and reasonably good circumstanfial evidence in a court of law. (See: "Memo'). Assuming Arguendo that there are an increase in crime reports near where these type RVers collect, the basic reasoning behind it using therefore that the closest fixed shelters for human beings are the likely safe houses for them to escape to. With this reasoning, in any particular area where there has been an increase in crime reports, the people in the adjacent housing units (houses or apartments) would automafically become prime suspects. This is absurd in the extreme. 7. The issue of "blight" can be a legitimate concern. However, the "blight" the city is ostensibly concerned about is older RVs (one assumes). Thus, an issue of "blight," the law protecfing its residents from seeing much other than "beautiful" things around it does not outweigh the right to human existence. Thus the price to pay in a free and human society is that we live with a certain amount of "blight," ugliness," and the like in order to afford people a fioor supporting their basic rights to human existence. Moreover, many of these people could only afford an older RV to live in. Perhaps ifthe city is so concerned about these older RVs, it should harass and terrorize them less so they have to do far less in the way of recuperating from such, then fighting such polifically and inside of court, thereafter leaving them with more time to find work, have more money, and either be able to beautify their RV or get a more up to date one already beautiful. 8. The whole business about the blanket assertions that: there are traffic_hazards, reduced driver visibility, and restricted access to residenfial areas, businesses, and tourist attractions completely baffles me. If, for instance, there are traffic hazards, restricfions to all these areas aforementioned, simple ordinances addressing those specific sites can be enacted with the concomitant signage posted. Given every kind of vehicle on the road conceivable today, I quite frankly don't see the great restrictions only these RVs are having disallowing access to these places. Not once have I witnessed this in my eight years in Carslbad, and I get out quite often. Most of this can be reasonably dealt with and negotiated by a licensed driver whom which is trained to drive defensively and caufiously. In any event, absolutely no evidence has been given by the city to support any of this. This is another reason why the city should put this proposed ordinance on hold unfil the RVers themselves do an extensive survey into what residents and business operators see as real problems with RVs, and not relying on naked bigotry and discriminafion. I" 9. Simply because the surrounding towns are passing "Jim Crow" laws like they are going out of style doesn't afford any city in California, or the United States, the ethical, moral or legal justification to so follow suit. Yes, the sad fact is is that we now have an ovenA/helming amount of these local laws that prohibit poor people from seeking shelter, not only in RVs but from sitting and lying in many public places where others are freely so allowed. The discriminafion is at a fever pitch and if the city of Carlsbad really cares about its residents, businesses and visitors it needs to, as a prestigious and well respected public entity, get involved with the proposed piece of legislation working its way through the legislature right now which would orderly and decently allow poor people the right to use public property for life sustaining activifies. Yes, of course Carlsbad is effected by these laws elsewhere for obvious reasons. But instead of giving into whats popular, Carlsbad should stand against, and alone, if necessary, in showing its true colors protecfing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. (See: "Memo'). 10. The city's statement that "This is a known cost of owning or using a RV," referring to the ownership of any RV is (1) silly, (2) not, or should not, somehow be automafically know by every RVer, and (3), obviously per the situation in which the city is obviously targefing, the living in an RV for survival, the subject of storing it is blatantly ludicrous. (See: "Memo'). 11. As for the issue of dumping sewage. In my four years on the street in a vehicle, I have never seen once, both in the Encinas area or the Garfield area, or any other place I parked my vehicle, someone dumping, leaving sewage under their rig, or sewage left after they were gone. Assuming Arguendo that the city is right about this, the smaller RVs (under 22 feet) and cars, trucks and vans are far more likely to be a sewage dumping risk since in these smaller RVs the holding tanks are very small, anywhere from 5 gallons to 25 gallons, where as in said larger RVs the holding tanks approach a hundred gallons. These larger RVs simply go to approved dumping stafions and off load their sewage and take on clean water. The smaller RVs and the other smaller vehicles menfioned (which has no holding tanks), given the hypothetical fact that the inhabitants 1(2- are irresponsible, are unassailably more of a problem since all they have to do is put the waste in a bucket, dump it outside their door, and drive away. The likelihood of them being caught is almost nil. First, the proposed ordinance and permit system does not effect these smaller RVs, cars and trucks. The only thing affecfing (mostly the smaller RVs) will remain the 72 hour law. These are much more mobile than the larger RVs giving them free rein to act as they wish and be long gone. Lastly, in my humble experience living on the street now for four years, there are far more people living in these smaller RVs, cars and trucks than even approaches the larger RVs. So in summary, given the hypothefical that this ordinance passes, it will do absolutely nothing about the vast majority of people living in their vehicles that the city is obviously targefing. 12. All the camping laws of Carlsbad, and of any other city, cannot be enforced if the person exercises their constitutional rights to refuse entry to law enforcement into their vehicle. This underlines the fundamental "Jim Crow" aspect of these laws. There is no way law enforcement can get a warrant on a non-moving infraction suspicion such as camping in a vehicle (seen even by our woefully corrupt courts as a "casfist rule," in other words petty in the extreme, pitted against the profound and abiding constitutional right to remain silent and not allow such entry without a warrant. This underlying combinafion reality undermines the true motives of this law to anyone of valor. The statement "They have also learned to not answer the door to law enforcement officers" ("See Memo") is an outrageous affront to people's exercise of their fundamental, inalienable and god given constitufion rights. 13. Now I have remained in my vehicle mostly on Garfield street, and for a short fime on Encinas. As for Garfield, I have personally hopped the fence of the vacant field at the corner of Garfield and Beech Avenue and cleaned that enfire half acre lot picking up 6 huge bags of garbage, including, but not limited to, every assorted liquor bottle under the sun, abandoned beech wear, every type of fast food packaging, etcetera, etcetera. In addifion, I've cleaned up the same crap along the parking stalls on Garfield. Lastly, I've swept up the enfire side walk along that street, and periodically sweep up outside 1(5 my vehicle. You can eat off that sidewalk when I'm done. I've seen other RVers do the same picking-up and sweeping but on a smaller scale. I did similar action when I was staying along Encinas, but all in all know far less about that area other than through informafion from others (who by the way all say they have never witnessed sewage in or around any RV while they were there. Trash maybe an issue there, but that can be easily dealt with by either legal citafions or RVers themselves self-policing, in a peaceful but firm manner, this kind of irresponsibility. So, the stunningly false accusation that the Garfield area is trashy or sewery per RVers reported supposedly by residents appears to be just more ofthe same smear campaign conducted through the transportation department. This note again, is further impetus to allow a "real" study of what surrounding residents think on the matter, whether conducted jointly between the RV community and the city, or just left to the RV community to implement. 14. As for the permit system proposed, beside it being an affront to a house owners peripheral rights to park a vehicle of his choice near his house, it completely ignores the very people it targets to banish. Ifthe city is so inclined, a reasonable permit, perhaps issued for a period of a year or so, can be issued to a limited people of RVers needing to reside in their RV on the basis of following certain basic rules, such as, not remaining in one parking spot for certainly not more than a week, leaving the half mile radius are for a certain amount of days, keeping clean the area around the RV, not dumping any sewage, do not park directly in front of any business or resident, and overall maintain a respect and deference for reasonable neighboring concerns. This could be a free permit or a nominal charge. This type of permit could be revoked if there was any serious breach of the permit condifions. This type of permit, along with a partnership between Resident RVers (as part ofthe "Outreach Program) and the City to "peacefully" but firmly deal with any aforementioned real problems, not the imaginations, shady agendas and bigotry of residents, business operators or the police, would fully address any concerns any reasonable person could have about this situation. I anficipate any such problems as being very rare due my actual witness ofthe hard, cold facts of what is taking place with these type of RVers. Mi 15. As for the city's "Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions" \Nebs\te post, it addresses, once again, nothing about the quesfions and concerns the people needing to live in their vehicles have, never mind those ofthe house owners and business operators who have an abiding conscience about such fundamental needs of others, not just for themselves, who have been raising these issues for years now. The city is surely intelligent and keen enough to know that anyone of ordinary intelligence and courageous spirit can see right through the smoke screen the city is puffing out with regards to what the main questions and concerns are with this subject, but it brazenly goes ahead with it akin to an Ostrich's head in the sand thinking no one will notice. What can be said to this level of immaturity? 16. The only consistent problem I see with a fracfion of the live-in RVers out there here in Carlsbad is that they stay in one spot for weeks and even months. An ordinance similar to Oceanside's, in place for a long fime now and proven very effective, provides that after a person receives a 72 our nofice, he must move such vehicle a half a mile away from such site and stay away for three days. Of course this could be modified one way or the other but it is a full proof way to keep an RVer from hoarding a parking space for longer than is reasonable. As well, the RV community volunteers could peacefully, politely, but firmly, remind that person of such common courtesy. 17. Here's the final note to this response, pulling the lens back to see the widest possible picture here: In my 55 years on the planet, I've noticed that man is a self- fertilizing animal; it either evolves out of its own shit, or not at all. I'm the first to have my own nose rubbed in my own shit. Thats how I cut through the crap and get real about everything. I invite you and the city to do the same (however mainstream unpopular that may be). We are all dangling by a thread, could die in the next five minutes the next five years or the next fifty. No one has a clue ofthe "when" about this. Yet we live as if we are permanent residents on this planet coveting all the possessiveness that must subsequently follow such deluded thinking. Life involves risk, pain, struggle and all the rest. To think we can guard against all the dangers of life, and, moreover, that which comes with the freedoms of self exploration means that we never really live life at all. but reside in a murky, mulfiply filtered [working] sleep equivalent to the difference between a six year old and a sixty year old. 18. The following interspersed comments accompanying the demarcation "MAIN" are the surface summafion ofthe hard, cold facts ofthe city's assertions and presumfions: Further down the proposed Ordinance is quesfionable or down right inconsistencies and discrepancies in the proposed ordinance's thinking: Below is the editorialized Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.40 BY ADDING SECTION 10.40.180 TO ESTABLISH RULES OF CONDUCT REGARDING THE PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS AND RIGHTS OF WAY. "MAIN" WHEREAS, the Citv of Carlsbad has seen an increase in complaints regarding the parking and/or storage of Oversized Vehicles in residential and commercial areas throughout the Citv: and NO PROOF SO FAR "MAIN" WHEREAS, safety issues such as inadequate sight distance from driveways and intersections result when such oversized vehicles are parked on public streets or rights of way in the City; and SEPARATE ORDINANCE OF 10' OR MORE FROM INTERSECTION CAN TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM "MAIN" WHEREAS, health concerns resulting from the illegal dumping of sewage waste from oversized vehicles is known to occur; and NO PROOF SO FAR "MAIN" WHEREAS, the parking and/or storage of oversized vehicles causes visual blight in the City TARGETS OLDER RVS, VERY SUBJECTIVE TERM, PITS VISUAL BEAUTY MANDATED TO RESIDENTS AGAINST THE RIGHT TO HUMAN EXISTENCE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That Tifie 10, Chapter 10.40 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended with the addifion of Secfion 10.40.180 as follows: PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES (a) Definitions. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (1) "Loading and Unloading" shall mean actively moving items to or from an Oversized Vehicle including the activities required to prepare the vehicle for travel or storage. (2) "Out-of-Town Visitor" shall mean any person who does not reside in the City of Carlsbad, who is temporarily visiting as a guest of a resident ofthe City, and who has applied for and obtained an oversized vehicle overnight parking permit. 2 (3) "Oversized Vehicle" shall mean any motorized vehicle as defined of Section 670 of the Vehicle Code or combination of motorized vehicles and/or non-motorized vehicles or trailers that meets or exceeds twenty-two (22) feet in length at any time or a combination of the two following criteria, exclusive of fixtures, accessories or property: seven (7) feet in height and seven (7) feet in width. THE LATTER WHICH WOULD MEAN MOST TRUCKS AND VANS??? (i) To determine the height, width or length ofthe vehicles defined in this section, any extension to the vehicle caused by mirrors, air conditioners, or similar attachments as allowed by 35109, 35110 or 35111 of the Vehicle Code as may be amended shall not be included. (ii) Oversized Vehicle does not include pickup trucks, vans, or sport utility vehicles, which are less than twenty-five (25) feet in length and eight (8) feet in height. ???? (4) "Resident" shall mean a person who customarily resides and maintains a place of abode or who owns land within the City of Cartsbad. It shall not mean a person who maintains an address at a post office box, mailbox drop, or who rents a room without it being the primary place of abode. ???? (b) Overnight Parking Prohibition. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any Oversized Vehicle on any public highway, street or city parking lot at any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. unless otherwise authorized by this article. (c) Ufility Connections Prohibited. No person shall permit, cause or allow any electncal, water, gas, telephone or other utility connection (such as electrical cords, extension cords, hoses, cables, or other items) to encroach into any public right of way including across or above any street or sidewalk from a residential or commercial property to an Oversized Vehicle or trailer parked on a public highway, street or city parking lot. (d) Overnight Parking Excepfions to Prohibitions. The provisions of Section 10.40.180(b) shall not apply to any of the following: (1) Oversized Vehicles owned by a Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor displaying a permit for overnight parking issued by the City Manager or his/her designee in accordance with this In article. The issuance of a permit shall not allow any other activity otherwise prohibited by law. 3 (2) Oversized Vehicles displaying a permit issued by the City Manager to a Hotel as defined Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.185 or a Motel as defined in Carisbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.273 forthe exclusive use of its registered guests. (3) Oversized Vehicles involved in an emergency or being repaired under emergency conditions. Emergency parking may be allowed for twenty-four (24) consecutive hours where a vehicle is left standing at the roadside because of mechanical breakdown or because ofthe driver's physical incapacity to proceed. (4) Oversized Vehicles belonging to federal, state or local authorities or public utilities that are temporarily parked while the operator ofthe vehicle is conducting official business. (5) Oversized Vehicles actively engaged in the Loading and Unloading and deliveries of person, merchandise, wares, supplies, goods or other materials in the course of construction or other work from or to any adjacent building or structure. (6) The prohibitions provided in this article shall not apply to the parking of any Oversized Vehicle during the pendency of any state of emergency declared to exist within the City of Carlsbad by the City Council, City Manager or Governor. (e) Overnight Parking Permit Conditions. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle registered to them adjacent to his/her residence. Any Resident may obtain an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit to park an Oversized Vehicle belonging to an Out-of-Town Visitor. The City Manager (ONLY, as well as nine to five hours?), or his/her representative, may issue a permit for overnight parking of an Oversized Vehicle to any Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor subject to the following provisions: (1) The Oversized Vehicle shall be owned, leased, or rented by, or registered to, a Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor. (2) The Oversized Vehicle shall park at the street curb immediately adjacent to the residence, or within four hundred (400) feet of that person's residence if this area is not available for parking due to curb configuration or codified parking restrictions. 4 (3) The Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit shall be prominentiy displayed in the lower driver's side of the windshield or the nearest window of the vehicle. The permit shall be cleariy visible from the exterior of the oversized vehicle and shall not cover the Vehicle Identification Number. Trailers shall display the Oversized Vehicle permits on the side ofthe trailer so that the permit is visible from the street (ILLEGAL ALREADY TO LEAVE A TRAILOR LEFT ALONE ON STREET. (CMC 10.40.151) (4) The Oversized Vehicle shall not be used for camping, lodging, residing or for accommodation purposes. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit sleeping or camping in a vehicle as prohibited bv the Carisbad Municipal Code. (5) All Oversized Vehicle permit holders shall comply with the City of Carisbad street sweeping parking regulafions pursuant to the Carisbad Municipal Code Section 10.40.150. (6) The City Traffic Engineer may deny or revoke an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit if, upon a review ofthe location where the Oversized Vehicle will be parked, the City Traffic Engineer determines that it would create a traffic hazard or otherwise would adversely affect public safety, traffic flow or access. (f) Overnight Parking Permit Duration. (1) Each Resident Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit shall be valid for one (1) year. A Resident Oversized Vehicle permit allows a resident to park an Oversized Vehicle for four (4) periods of up to seventy-two (72) consecutive hours per calendar month. The Oversized Vehicle must be absent from the location authorized by section 10.40.180(e)(2) for a minimum of twenty-four (24) consecutive hours to be lawfully parked overnight at the location again. (2) Each Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit issued to an Out-of-Town Visitor shall be valid for a maximum of seventy-two (72) hours. (3) No more than six (6) Out-of-Town Visitor permits shall be issued to a residence/land owner in a calendar year. (g) Fraudulent Permits Penalties. Every person who displays a fraudulent, forged, altered or counterfeit Oversized Vehicle parking permit or permit number is guilty of a misdemeanor. (h) Overnight Parking Permit Denial. The City may deny the issuance of an Oversized Vehicle overnight parking permit for up to one year if the City Manager or representative finds that any ofthe following conditions exist: (1) The applicant or the person the applicant is visiting is not a bona fide city resident or owner of land. (2) The Resident or Out-of-Town Visitor guests of a Resident have been issued two or more citations in the same calendar year for either exceeding the allotted 72 hour permit fime and/or parking greater than four hundred (400) feet from the designated residence or land owned address. (3) The Out-of-Town Visitor is not a guest of the Resident applicant. (4) An owner of an Oversized Vehicle has procured any Oversized Vehicle parking permit through fraud or misrepresentafion, for example, the informafion submitted by the applicant is materially false. (5) The hotel or motel establishment is issuing Oversized Vehicle permits to non-paying guests of the commercial establishment and/or the guests are camping in the vehicle rather than residing in the commercial establishment. [>9 Rose Williams From: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Sent:" Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:32 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc- Rose Williams Subject: FW: Bryon, per a mistake in the email address used to send correspondence to you re the RV issue Attachments- FIRST EMAIL TO TRANS DEP. 12,29,12.docx; SECOND EMAIL TO TRANS DEP 12,29,12.docx; ARTICLE ON HOMELESS BILL.docx; CAL HOMELESS BILL OF RIGHTS SHEET.doc; ARTICLE GARY SENT ME ON WORK TWO ATTORNEYS ARE DOING.docx; SAN LOUIS OPISPO JUDGE STOPS RV OVERNIGHT PARKING LAW.docx; MASTER PROBLEM LIST.docx; SLO Homeless Alliance v. City of SLO, CV12-0204.pdf; SPEACH 1,8,13 RE RV ISSUE.docx From: U.S.JusticeSystemAnAbomination Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:51 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Bryon, per a mistake in the email address used to send correspondence to you re the RV issue ....I believe all the emails I've sent to you up until today have not been sent to the correct address. I've been using transportation(a)carlsbad.gov instead of transportation(5)carlsbadca.gov therefore, I've attached the previously sent emails to you to ensure that you get them. Please, as well, confirm to all senders of comments on this RV issue that you got their emails. Too often things are lost via the internet and no one knows it until it's too late, and usually at the detriment to the people commenting on government actions/inactions Thankc Rir.h transportation@carlsbad.gov <transportation@carlsbad.gov>; Email (1) re submitted comments on proposed ordinance, from Richard Shapiro, directed to transportation department officials of Carlsbad: Bryon Jones/Skip Haman 1. For starters, the "information" brochure a Carlsbad Resident showed me on 12/29/12 appears to be, for lack of a better word, a "rail road" to enact an ordinance that has not been based on verifiable facts, rather naked assertions or presumptions that the city expects the residency of Carlsbad to start from, and base, its opinion on the matter. Next, (technically) the brochure directs people to a website: www.carlsbadca.gov/transportation which only brings up a webpage that states such a page does not exist. This has been attempted by three people. Finally, to date, the city has offered no written or oral factual bases whatsoever for any of its following claims in the brochure: A. There is no evidence proffered to date as to complaints coming from businesses or residents of Carlsbad. Several RVers' own inquiry into this "complaint" point with police themselves yield only "We cannot divulge such information due the complainant's legal right to confidentiality. Any further inquiry having been made into this point by several members of the public have yielded no datafication on the complaints themselves or their sources. B. The issue of dumping sewage from a vehicle of any kind is of course a legitimate issue, however it is already codified into state law and can be enforced by law enforcement, code enforcement, the health department, or a plethora of other city and county agencies (HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 18871-18871.11). I, in my three years of living in a vehicle in Carlsbad, have never once seen anyone dumping sewage, or having left sewage after an RV has left. I'm informed by five other people in the same situation that they have never witnessed such. However the chances of this happening appearing to be exceedingly rare, given human aberrant behavior nature and statistics, I'm sure it happens from time to time. However, this is hardly a reason to come after a whole class of people (the bum the bam down to cook the pig syndrome) for the aberrant behavior of a few. As stated above, this can be easily monitored and cited via state law and local enforcement. The proposed Carlsbad ordinance would do nothing to stop such behavior in and of itself C. Not cooperating with law enforcement is a fundamental U.S and California Constitutional right. All that legally needs to be given to any police officer is their I.D., meaning a govemment issued I.D., or their name and birth date. It's called a "Terry Stop." That's it. "No cooperation required." The right to remain silent is a well established constitutional right, not any reason to target anyone or any specific group. As well, no one is required to open up their home or their vehicle upon the request or demand of an officer for inspection or otherwise without a warrant. This appears as another wholly piece of propaganda meant to sway the unsuspecting and uninformed citizens of Carlsbad who lack basic understanding of our basic constitutional rights. D. The parking or "storage" as the city's synonym is intentionally used is already addressed by a well known 72 hour state law restricfing parking for longer than that. Parking a car as an RV is parking, not storage. If it is moved in a reasonable time guided by said state law, the word "storage" can only be seen as a mischaracterization of the act of parking. This is a separate issue, can and has been enforced by local communities since its enactment. There are many ways a LEO can detect that a vehicle has not been moved for over 72 hours. By in large, RVers, along with cars, stay roughly around that time, never remaining more than a week in one place. Abandoned issue is very rare. E. The issue of blocking intersections (signage, the like) is a legitimate one. But this issue is certainly not limited to RVs. Many tmcks, vans, buses, etc., create the same visual impediment. Thus, a reasonable Ordinance prohibiting any oversized vehicle from parking say 25 to 50 feet from an intersection is reasonable. Anything beyond that is excessive and is incumbent upon the driver to gamer his "licensed" driver skills to look for signage (say stop sign) and whatever presents in the intersection. There are many visual impediments to seeing the roadway, intersections and signage, including the distraction of signage itself, and many other permanent stmctures, never mind all types of vehicles which commonly obstmct a motorists' visual sight, without deliberate efforts to make necessary efforts to view and do what is necessary in order to drive safely. F. The excuse of making more and more restrictions on a particular class of vehicle in order to allegedly "free up police resources" to deploy to higher priorities in the community is intentional false information. The 72 hour statute is already employed by largely volunteer officers. Second, the 72 hour statute applies to all vehicles and is easily identified by repeated sightings ofa vehicle in a particular place by a city official, volunteer, or a member of the public who calls in. Tires can be marked, speedometers read, etc., to mark the starting point of the 72 hour waming along with markings on tires and in other inconspicuous places. This is routine duties of a traffic division of a city's law enforcement arm. No appreciable drain of man power or resources are expended on such duties. In addition, if there is a problem with vehicles staying too long in a parking space, or area, an ordinance can be devised where they get a waming, on top of the 72 hour restriction, that they are not allowed to park within that same spot, say within a tenth of a mile from that spot, for an additional, say, three days, ensuring a vehicle has not just ridden around the block and parked right back in the same spot. G. Conspicuously, the last point does not manifestly or explicitly address the main points and reasoning for this proposed ordinance whatsoever: (i) First it implies the people the city of Carlsbad is actually targeting ~ (a point I believe we can all agree on, please inform me if this is not the case) ~ are people sleeping in their vehicles, (ii) Other than the "camping law" that is already on the books in Carlsbad, the people actually and solely sleeping in their vehicles are perfectly legal via the the letter and spirit of our laws, barring any particulars to the contrary. The "camping law" can be reasonably argued, in a court of law, to be a violation of not only the DMV handbook (which states it is a requirement for a motorist to stop and rest when he is tired); Federal and state law (appellate cases not cited here) that states a person has the right to his papers and personal effects, even when homeless and a govemment agency may not seize or otherwise impede with said absence compelling cause, and, more importantly, a person has a biological necessity of sleep (appellate cases not cited here), and where there is no other viable option for that person, he is protected in sleeping in a public place to the extent there is no appreciable interference with the usage of that public space or risk to health and safety of the community. Much of the time, the general public does not even know anyone is inside most of these RVs, vans, tmcks, even cars. The long and short of this last point addressed in the first paragraph of this brochure, is that the city of Carlsbad appears to be pretending that RVs are only used, and legally required to be used, as purely recreational vehicles and that most if not all RVs are owned by people who can afford such a luxury item, and who therefore by logical corollary be able to afford storage fees on such vehicles. This appears to be more pure, deflective propaganda by the city to rid its city of the homeless who actually have protection from the weather, some security, some privacy, some place to store their belongings, some place to cook, go to the bathroom and a safe, sanitary place to sleep. 2. Addressed by the second paragraph of this brochure is exceptions (or permits) that can be obtained by the RVer for certain purposes. None of these purposes addresses the very reason why the city is proposing and apparently mshing through this ordinance, that of the individual who must, and has no other altemative, but the bushes, to live and sleep in his RV, van, tmck, car, etc.. 3. Other than the dumping of sewage and the visual blockage of intersections, the only other legitimate and arguable concem of a city and its residents are too many RVs or other vehicular dwellers on its streets at any given time. This of course is now caused by virtually every city in Califomia jumping on the band wagon outlawing RV parking on their streets ovemight. Thus pushing these desperate people further and further into one location that it is de facto allowed. The true answer to this problem is a state law banning cities from targeting this group. Since that is no where in the pipe line as of yet we must deal with the issue locally. The addressed group in the brochure is not the actual addressed group for the ordinance, therefore there is no need for permits dealing with apparent faux problem issues "addressing" "house owner visitor" RVers, "home owner resident RVers ," "hotel guest RVers." As an aside, "this faux address" permit issue doesn't address the hundreds of RVer travelers coming through the city knowing no homeowner (which I have been repeatedly told are by far the biggest offenders of trashing a place (litter, etc.). In addition, no such "permit" system will stop, or enable the enforcement to stop, such problems the city enlists in its brochure such as sewage dumpage or blocking intersection signage or general littering by these type eligible recipients of the proposed permits. A. A sensible and reasonable regulation, if the city insists, which many in the public (able to testify to such) sees no need for, is a permit, perhaps issued once a year, which costs a nominal fee, to dwell in a vehicle on the street. It can be regulated as to the vehicle's mnning condition, waste facilities and afford pertinent state and city law information that applies to RVs and other vehicle dwelling individuals. The city can have reasonable limits on these permits, say five hundred for example. This affords bona fide residents who must live in these vehicles protection from arbitrary law enforcement and the peace of mind that they are in compliance and legally recognized by the city. 4. The proposal Carlsbad has put forth, and found in this brochiu"e, is a complete ignoring of: (i) the very purpose of the ordinance, (ii) the very biological necessity for people to be living in them in the first place, (iii) the conditions causing this situation more each day, a severe recession that has been going on for over eight years, (iv) the blatant and dire needs of homeless and/or unemployed veterans, the elderly, senior citizens, the disabled, etc, (v) and the fact that if this ordinance passes, it will not only exponentially compound the problem of the RV dwellers themselves, devastating their lives, but cause very, very serious health and safety problems for the city (spreading disease, fecal matter, mental illness, etc.) throughout the city in its most raw and uncontainable form, a person literally living on the street, in bushes, under over passes, etc.. A. There are no equivalent altematives for people who have a clean, sealed and self-contained RV to live in. (i) Shelters are rare and can take in only a fraction of the homeless population. They are, in many cases, unsafe, unsanitary, lacking fully in privacy and the capacity to store one's papers and effects. They often have many restrictive mles that conflict with finding and having work and attending other commitments. Lastly, many of them are run by religious organizations that proselytize which many people find tremendously offensive just in order to have a roof over their head for one night. B. HUD and other government low income housing agencies have waiting lists for up to five years provided one is able to reach eligibility for the program at all. C. Apartment rents, even for rooms in a house or apartment, are well beyond the capacity for many vehicle dwellers to afford, much less continue over months and years. D. The chances of a homeless person physically surviving, once commenced literally living from the street, diminishes exponentially via a whole host of instant and immediate dangers. 5. In short, so far, barring new information from the city, this law will be a disaster. Per this mshed action to advance such clearly unsupported and constitutionally violative ordinance, several members of the public, with firm legal standing, who find they will directly be affected by such law will immediately file separate federal lawsuits, and its concomitant petitions for injunction, against the city of Carlsbad, upon being cited for such enacted law, pursuant to fourteenth amendment violations and other federal, state and local statutory provisions and clear appellate holdings which prohibit such underlying legislative purposes. In addition, I will encourage more and more of these filings until we have some sanity and honesty here in this city on this 'fundamental human right to exist' issue. 6. I hereby request a public/private meeting/fomm/workshop(s) between a growing base of concemed citizens and the appropriate officials of the city to solidify (i) what the actual, verifiable problems are, and to address (ii) how to narrowly and effectively address those legitimate and actual problems. In my experience, the city council is not an appropriate forum due its lack of fi*ee flow back and forth discussion on the issues. This is the only way this issue can be thoroughly vetted. Several concemed citizens have committed to me that they will attend all such meetings. Also attached with this email is a four part questionnaire: "what the city's problems appear to be," what the RVer's problems with RVs appear to be," "what the assertions or presumptions the city appears to be making," and "what the actual verifiable facts are conceming the RV issue. The city, the transportation department, or any other appropriate department or agent is encouraged to chime in with additional thought and input to this questionnaire, and send such Tillable Microsoft word document back to me with that additional input added on (in an attachment please). Available any time: Richard A. Shapiro transportation@carlsbad.gov <transportation(^carlsbad.gov> Email (2\ addendum to: Email (1) re submitted comments on proposed ordinance, from Richard Shapiro, directed to transportation department officials of Carlsbad: Bryon Jones/Skip Haman Pursuant to a complete exposition for number 4., in first submitted comments (of Email (1)), I failed to cover the lack of RV parks that can or will accommodate people in the situation aforementioned in Email (1): (This list is pursuant to extensive research into the matter) 4. C. 1: Most private RV parks will not accept an RV older than 10 years old (the very age in majority use in which these homeless individuals must live). C.2: Most private RV parks are as expensive, or more expensive, than renting an apartment. C.3: The amount of private RV parks and their capacity is dwarfed by the demand of those needing to live in their RVs, here in Califomia C.4: Many RV parks are located vast distances from cities where RVers work, get services or benefits or need to fulfill other commitments. C.5: In many of these private RV parks one must move his RV every so many months and stay away for a matter of weeks to months and there is no guarantee one can get back in. C.6: As for public RV parks, they mainly serve as nature camping sites with a maximum of a two week stay. C.7: In some private RV parks, the waifing list to get in is very long. C.8: In many private RV parks, the rates may be affordable for some in the winter, but the price is often doubled or tripled in the camping season, the summer. C.9: Many private RV parks have many parameters and restrictions on exactiy what kind of vehicle they will take, for instance, they will only take certain sized RVs, and they won't take van, tmck, car, or other vehicular conversions altered to live in, etc.. Available any time: Richard A. Shapiro Found at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/04/5091499/california-lawmaker-proposes- homeless.html California lawmaker proposes 'homeless bill of rights' By Jim Sanders jsanders(5)sacbee.com By Jim Sanders The Sacramento Bee Last modified: 2013-01-06T22:56:55Z Published: Friday, Jan. 4, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page lA Last Modified: Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013 - 2:56 pm Copyright 2013 The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. California law protects its residents from discrimination based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation. Now a state lawmaker is pushing to add another category to the list: homelessness. New legislation titled the "Homeless Bill of Rights" by Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco is meant to keep communities from rousting people who have nowhere to turn. The measure Is sure to be controversial in cities such as Sacramento, which has battled for years over "tent cities" for homeless people, and San Francisco, where voters passed an ordinance barring sitting or lying on sidewalks. The heart of Assembly Bill 5 would give legal protection to people engaging in life- sustaining activities on public property. Among other activities, it specifically mentions sleeping, congregating, panhandling, urinating and "collecting and possessing goods for recyling, even if those goods contain alcoholic residue." Ammiano declined to comment to The Bee on Thursday about the bill. His measure also would give homeless residents the right to sleep in cars that are legally parked, to receive funds through public welfare programs, to receive legal counsel when cited - even for infractions - and to possess personal property on public lands. Local officials could not force the homeless into shelters or social service programs. If the bill passes and is signed into law, courts would be left to sort out the extent to which communities could limit the legal rights it conveys - for example, whether local ordinances could close parks during late-night hours for public safety reasons. The bill states that homeless Californians have the right to safe, affordable housing and 24-hour access to clean water and safe restrooms, but Paul Boden, a spokesman for one of its sponsors, said the measure is not meant to require cities and counties to add new facilities. Boden and other advocates of ABS say that existing laws to sweep the homeless from public view are similar to Jim Crow laws of decades ago in the segregated South, and to "anti-Okie" laws ofthe 1930s that prohibited bringing extremely poor people into California. The measure "would require local governments to leave people in peace who are not committing crimes," said Boden, who describes his group as a collective of West Coast social justice organizations. Boden said homeless people routinely tell him they have been harassed for sleeping, loitering or sitting down, and the bill's supporters maintain that constitutes an attack on basic civil rights. "Homelessness is a condition, it's not a voluntary choice," said Sacramento attorney Mark Merin, a longtime advocate for the homeless who spoke at a Capitol rally Thursday supporting the bill. Jack Larson, 52, said he has been a homeless Sacramentan for five years and has been cited dozens of times for panhandling. He said he hopes ABS would enable him to solicit money and sleep in public wfthout harassment. "They need to go catch murderers and burglars - and leave us panhandlers alone," he said. Dianna Buettner, a Stockton high school teacher who attended Thursday's rally, added that "houseless people need to be treated like everybody else - it's not a crime to be without a house." Assemblyman Curt Hagman, a Chino Hills Republican, said he has not seen the bill but that the state should carefully weigh whether \t would violate the rights of Other Californians by giving the homeless legal permission to congregate, sleep and sustain themselves on public property. "We do have a safety net in this society," Hagman said. "If you don't use it, that's your right, but you shouldn't impose your lifestyle on everybody else." Neither the League of California Cities nor the California State Association of Counties has taken a position. But Eva Spiegel, spokeswoman for the league, said the group generally "favors policies that allow local flexibility to address homelessness issues or other land- use issues because ofthe unique circumstances in each jurisdiction." For years, Sacramento has wrestled with how best to respond to hundreds of homeless people who often sleep near the city's two rivers or within walking distance of food distribution or other social service programs. Several months ago, Sacramento city officials agreed to pay $796,000 to 1,143 people whose property was seized and destroyed during raids on illegal campsites since 2005. \}0 Last September, Sacramento County rangers launched night patrols in the American River Parkway in an intensified effort to root out and evict scores of homeless people camping illegally. During Sacramento's offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, more than 100 arrests were made of protesters seeking to remain in Cesar Chavez Plaza after the park's 11 p.m. weekday or midnight weekend curfew. Advocates say the homeless, some of them mentally ill, often are looked down upon, threatened, verbally abused and otherwise harassed because of their appearance or mannerisms. In one ofthe most extreme examples, a Los Angeles woman was doused with a flammable liquid and set ablaze last week while on a bus bench outside a 24-hour Walgreens store. "These people are poor people, our poor people, and if we don't recognize that, then we're lost," said Kevin Carter, urban outreach coordinator for the Occupy Sacramento group. But former Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness, now a Sacramento radio host, said government exists partly to maintain sanitation, discourage the spread of disease, and ensure public safety. "That's the expectation, that's why people pay taxes - that's what they want from the police," McGinness said. The bill could make it easier for a homeless person to subsist, but California might be better served by targeting root problems causing homelessness, he said. "Do you want to see people living like that?" McGinness said. "I don't." Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/04/5091499/california- lawmaker-proposes-homeless.html#storylink=cpy ^1 December 3, 2012 California Homeless Bill of Rights Fact Sheet Laws that segregate, that make criminals of people based on their status rather than their behavior, or that prohibit certain people's right to be in public spaces are not just sad relics from the past: Today, numerous laws infringe on poor people's ability to exist in public space, to acquire housing, employment, and basic services, and to equal protection under the law. The Califomia Homeless Bill of Rights is a response that can help alleviate poverty and homelessness while protecting homeless people from discrimination and ensuring their right to privacy and to their personal property. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D, San Francisco) is the author of the "Califomia Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Acf. The bill is co-sponsored by, Westem Regional Advocacy Project, Westem Center on Law and Poverty, JERICHO: A Voice for Justice and the East Bay Community law Center. The foUowins rishts of homeless people are enumerated in the bill: Freedom from discrimination based on homeless status: • In interactions with law enforcement, security guards, business owners, property managers, or BID agents. • When seeking or maintaining employment. • When seeking or maintaining housing or shelter. • When seeking services (public benefits, medical care, help from police). • In completing all necessary steps to vote. Property rights: • Freedom from unreasonable searches and/or seizures of personal property. Access to public space: • Freedom to use public spaces: to move freely through them, to use them for rest, to own and possess private property in public spaces, to share, accept, and/or give food in public spaces. Right to safety: • The right to the same protections that law enforcement agencies are supposed to afford to all other citizens, including the right to reasonable protection from domestic violence, sexual assault, hate crimes, and robberies. • The right to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to enter into public or private shelters or social service programs. Right to engage in life sustaining activities: • The right to sufficient health and hygiene centers available 24 hours including bathrooms and showers. • The right to sleep, stand, sit, possess personal property, eat, or to engage in other life-sustaining activities. • The right to occupy vehicles while legally parked on public property. Rights to privacy/confidentiality of housing status, poverty status, health status. • The right to confidentiality of personal records regarding housing status, income level, mental illness, physical disability. Right to counsel: • The right to quality defense counsel in criminal hearings and civil warrants, when possible punishment might include jail time or commitment to a public health institution. 1^7 V Rights of homeless schoolchildren: • Counties and municipalities must adhere to the Federal law so homeless children can remain in the same school that they had attended before becoming homeless or immediate enrollment in a new school. Other rights: • The right to restitution if the victim of a crime. • The right to restitution for loss of, damage to, or destroyed property and/or personal belongings. • The right to purchase goods and services. Enforcement: • Monitor enforcement of local ordinances affecting homeless people by ensuring that information regarding the citation of homeless people by law enforcement be available to homeless people and their advocates. The foUowins rights are aspirational in the hill: Right to shelter: • Right to shelter 24/7 for all people. • All shelter shall be sanitary and safe. Right to basic services, income, and to perform life-sustaining activities: • The right to safe, decent, permanent affordable housing. • The right to income. • The right to access medical facilities and quality healthcare. Rights of homeless schoolchildren: • The right to be provided the supplies necessary for academic success (backpacks, textbooks, notebooks, pencils, pens, and appropriate academic technology). Homelessness as it relates to this bill will be defined as: Definition of Homelessness: This bill creates a state standard that defines as "homeless" those who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and who have a primary nighttime residence in a shelter, on the street, in a vehicle, in an enclosure or structure that is not authorized or fit for human habitation, sub-standard apartments, dwellings, doubled up temporarily, or who are staying in transitional housing programs. This includes anyone staying in residential hotels without tenancy rights, and families with children staying in residential hotels whether or not they have tenancy rights". Local Contact Regional Contact Organization's Name Contact Name Contact Phone Number Contact Email Address Organinzation's Website Western Regional Advocacy Project Paul Boden (415) 621-2533 pboden(g). wraphome. org www.wraphome.org WRAP • Western Regional Advocacy Project • 294016th Street, Suite 200-2, San Francisco, CA. 94103 • 415.621.2533 ^3 http://calcoastnews.com/2012/03/free-legal- help-for-san-luis-obispo-homeless/ Free legal help for San Luis Obispo homeless March 26,2012 Stew Jenkins talks with potential homeless clients By KAREN VELIE In an attempt to help homeless subjected to heavy fines from San Luis Obispo police for sleeping in their vehicles, attomeys Stew Jenkins and Saro Rizzo are working pro bono to stop what they see as illegal enforcement. At the behest of Prado Road business owners, police wake up homeless sleeping in their cars and hand them $450 a shot tickets four or five fimes a month. Several homeless unable to keep up with the fines and the $50 a day in late fees, serve time in the San Luis Obispo County Jail to cover their debt. Jenkin's concems — and actions the city could take to remedy the issue — were spelled out in a letter he sent to city council members last week. City Attomey Christine Dietrick said she believes the city's ordinance is legal and will withstand a challenge. Jenkins and Rizzo contend the current implementation of the ordinance is in violation of Califomia law and both the Califomia and U.S. Constitutions, because it criminalizes human existence. On Thursday moming, at the San Luis Obispo Superior Court courtroom at the Veteran's Hall, Rizzo and Jenkins represented several homeless and were successful at having their cases delayed while they work on filing a lawsuit against the city. "When we showed up we asked if anyone there who was homeless needed help because of being ticketed for parking and we ended up with eight people," Jenkins said. "It was obvious that the city's ordinance is burdening an already overtaxed court system. All the seats were fiill and there were people waiting to be heard sitting along the aisles all the way to the counsel table." On Friday aftemoon, Jenkins and Rizzo set up a table behind the statue of the Indian on the comer of Prado Road and Higuera Street where they met more than a dozen homeless to discuss their tickets. Rizzo and Jenkins plan to file a lawsuit that will force the city to suspend its sleeping vehicle ordinance, dismiss pending citations, expunge convictions and return fines to all of the homeless its officers have ticketed since November. J J Judge orders SLO police to stop ticketing homeless July 4. 2012 Stewart Jenkins serving the police department By KAREN VELIE A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction barring police from ticketing homeless who sleep in their vehicles, in a mling on Tuesday. In April, attomeys Saro Rizzo and Stew Jenkins filed a lawsuit accusing the city of San Luis Obispo and the chief of police of discrimination, harassment and the criminalization of homeless people. In addition, Rizzo and Jenkins noted the ordinance the city was utilizing to ticket people for sleeping in their vehicles refers to private property and not public streets. In May, Judge Charles Crandall took the motions under submission, ordered a settlement conference, and urged the city to voluntarily refrain from issuing citations while the issue was under discussion. The city, however, ignored the request and instead ramped up its late night raids. At the June settlement conference, Rizzo and Jenkins offered three different options to resolve the matter. City Attomey Christine Dietrick, who said in March that the city would beat any challenges to its ticketing program, proposed no solutions and did not appear to have the ability to enter into a resolution, Jenkins said. In Febmary, while homeless services coordinator Dee Torres was promofing a safe parking program for those who agree to her management terms, the city changed from directing the homeless to sleep in their vehicles on Prado Road to making it a criminal offense, Crandall said in his ruling. 13 "In addition to using an enforcement strategy that appears to be singling out poor and homeless people for harsher treatment, the court is very uneasy with the specific manner in which the police have apparently been enforcing Standard 015 and issuing criminal citations," Crandall said. "These methods include but are not limited to, the use of late-night police forays needlessly utilizing flashing lights, blaring horns, intimidation, threats and other scare tactics," Crandall added. "These methods are apparently designed not only to force legal compliance, but to also intimidate plaintiffs into leaving the city altogether." In March, amid complaints that the ticketing of the homeless was unconstitutional, the city council voted to approve the CAPSLO pilot parking program. The program allows five cars to park ovemight in the Prado Day Center parking lot without being ticketed for having homeless sleeping inside. San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill, a proponent of the more aggressive ticketing, asked the council not to heed public comments by members of the public who opposed Torres' proposal because the issue of homelessness is too complicated for most lay people to understand. The handful of homeless permitted to utilize the parking program are required to sign over 70 percent of their income to homeless services to be used in securing housing. In addition, homeless services then charges the client $12.50 in administration fees. For example, a homeless man on general assistance, $315 per month, would be left with $82. On June 22, the city launched the parking program filling all five spots. However, two of those utilizing the parking program have already dropped out because of the cost. Kimberly Frey-Griffen, 43, served in Desert Storm and suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. For the past 10 months, she has been homeless. She decided to participate in the safe parking program, but has already dropped out. Frey-Griffen said she is unable to maintain her vehicle and cover her living expenses with the monies left over after doling out 70 percent to homeless services. "The 70 percent is a little too high," Frey-Griffen said. "You have to give us something to live on. Dee Torres said there would be a sliding scale, but that is not tme." "Homelessness is not a criminal offense, however, you get the feeling that you are," Frey-Griffen said. "I am very happy about this mling." f3i POSSIBLE PROBLEMS CITY HAS WITH RVS OR RVERS 1. Drug abuse 2. Child molestation 3. Unsanitary personal hygiene 4. Dumps sewage from tanks 5. Excessive use of city trash cans 6. Biological waste in trash cans 7. Relieving themselves in public places 8. RVs being a visual interference with signage or roadways 9. Remaining in one spot for a long period of time 10. An eye sore 11. Blocking a coveted view 12. Running cords/hoses, etc., from house or business to RV 13. Parking in front of residences or businesses (fill in further "PROBLEMS" you believe or know of that the city has with RVs or RVers) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 132^ CITY'S ASSERTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS CONCERNING RVS OR RVERS 1. RVs are luxury items or purchases 2. They therefore have, or should have, the disposable income to store the RV 2. They are only used for, or should be used for, recreational purposes 3. RVers are "transients, not residents or those who have roots in the community 4. It's not their primary or sole vehicle 5. It's not a commercial vehicle used for their work or for hauling work materials. 6. RVers park their vehicle in front of residences and/or businesses (fill in further "ASSERTIONS/PRESUMPTIONS" you believe or know of that the city has with RVs or RVers) 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. POSSIBLE PROBLEMS RVERS THEMSELVES HAVE WITH RVS OR RVERS 1. Dumps sewage from tanks 2. Relieving themselves In public places 3. Making disturbance outside of RV 4. Making garbage outside the RV 5. RVs being a visual interference with signage or roadways 6. Remaining in one spot for too long a period of time 7. Not respecting the changing demand on any given parking space where they might be staying 8. RVers park their vehicle in front of residences and/or businesses (fill in further "PROBLEMS" you believe or know of that RVers themselves have a problem with RVs or RVers) 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. RVER LIST OF ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE FACTS CONCERNING RVS OR RVERS WHO MUST LIVE IN THEM 1. Often it is their primary or sole vehicle 2. All problems coming from RVers (except the tank dumping issue) comes from people residing in all types of housing in society, homes, apartments, hotels, cars, tents, sleeping bags, and there are already plenty of state and local legislative code to cover each specific problem independently of it occurring in or around an RV. 3. Height/length restrictions eftect all kind of vehicles: trucks/vans/cars with loads on them/buses/couriers/etc. Even a small car with a small load on its roof can reach well over six feet high. 4. Drugs/noise/garbage/child molestation/illegal activity of any kind is a separate issue and is already addressed in the vehicle code, the penal code, and other sections of the California Code. 5. Larger RVs must be moved at least once a week for water, to drain waste tanks, to charge batteries, etc. 6. Veterans, the elderly, senior citizens, the disabled, the unemployed, the underemployed and the homeless are mandated by physical necessity to live in them. 7. Most vehicle dwellers do not have family to fall back on for housing. 8. Most vehicle dwellers cannot get into shelters, or the shelters are normally full and have a very small capacity to the demand for housing. 9. If they can get into shelters, there is a whole host of objective problems with shelters from the lack of privacy, lack of security, lack of storage, lack of ability to keep safe and organized one's papers and effects, lack of quiet atmosphere, etc., etc., which makes such housing unfeasible as an alternative to vehicle dwelling. 10. Waiting lists, if one qualifies, can be up to five years to get into affordable housing such as HUD and other low income housing situations. 11. Once an RV is towed due to too many tickets for, for example, overnight parking of an RV, the likelihood is large that the RVer will not be able to afford to get his RV out of Tow storage. 12. The only alternative to RV living, or other vehicular living, is to literally live on the street. 13. Once on the street, a person is exponentially more susceptible to being the victim of criminal activity of all kind, be susceptible to police contacts of all kinds, be susceptible to all types of hostile weather, unable to maintain his hygiene, belongings, the storage of food, susceptible to mental illness, diseases, drug abuse, and all types of other aberrant behavior due his now primitive living situation. 14. Once on the street, due to the lack of portable toilets, public bathroom limited hour availability and businesses mostly shunning the homeless from using their bathrooms, the health and safety of the public at large is exponentially much more susceptible to an increase of air borne and other modes of contamination of a variety of diseases and biological pathogens by fecal matter and other garbage of all kinds left in public. 15. A person living literally on the street will by necessity seek out shelter under business entrances, public buildings, parks, beaches, etc., thus causing a variety of unintended use problems and annoyance. 16. A person living literally on the street will now by necessity start to beg for food and money from the public whom are often disturbed, annoyed and such an eye sore by such behavior. 17. Health costs burdens of a person literally living on the street is most often completely shouldered by the public tax dollar treasury pursuant the homeless person's often emergency needs taken care of mandatorily by local hospital emergency rooms (the highest costing type medical care). 18. A person living on the street is subjected to a shorting of his life by many months or years. 19. Once on the street it is exponentially more difficult to rise out of such situation into permanent housing and gainful employment than it is from a position of vehicular dwelling. 20. Many employers will not look at a street homeless person twice for even the lowest paying jobs. 21. Smaller RVs, small trucks, vans and cars may not be affected by this proposed law for which there are far more people living in these smaller shelters than bigger shelters like large RVs 22. Vehicular shelter is the only shelter available to hundreds of residents in Carlsbad. 23. We are living in one of the worst recessions for the longest period of time in U. S. history. 24. Unemployment is at an all time high, only getting worse with time. 25. Many people living in their vehicle are highly educated and/or have been very successful in business until this recession took hold. 26. There is an ever increasing homeless population. 27. RVs may be registered as commercial vehicles. 28. Most living in RVs don't have disposable money for parking tickets and/or tow fees. 29. RVs are not luxury items or purchased for primarily recreational use by those needing to live in them. 30. Storing RVs in storage facility would defeat the purpose of those needing to live in the vehicle. (fill in further "VERIFIABLE FACTS" you believe or know of concerning RVS or RVERS who must live in their RV) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. W3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED JUL 03 2012 8Y-« RCOURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SLO HOMELESS ALLIANCE; PHILLIP DYKEMAN; DAVID DOUGLAS MOORE, Plaintiffs, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; STEPHEN GESELL, in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of San Luis Obispo, Defendants. Case No.: CV 12-0204 RULING AND ORDER OVERRULING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER, AND GRANTING PLANTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. Introduction Plaintiffs challenge the validity of section 17.16.015 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations. Located within Chapter 17 (entitled "Zoning Regulations"), Subchapter 16 (entitled "Property Development Standards"), section 17.16.015 (hereinafter "Property Development Standard 015") prohibits the use of recreational vehicles, camper shells, automobiles or similar devices for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, or campground. Several Plaintiffs have been cited for criminal violations of the Property Development Standard 015, and proceedings against them are pending. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Complaint alleges four separate causes of action. Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction that would restrain the City from continuing to enforce supposed violations of Property Development Standard 015. Defendant City of San Luis Obispo ("City") demurs to the entire complaint and opposes the motion for preliminary injunction. As will be explained more fully below, the Court concludes that Property Development Standard 015 was never intended to, and does not, apply to vehicles that are parked on public streets. Further, because the Court has significant concems about the City's methods and manner of enforcing this inapplicable Property Development Standard, the Court is issuing a preliminary injunction restraining the City from further enforcement until such time as a full evidentiary hearing can be held on the merits of this case. II. Statement of Facts Plaintiffs consist of a group of individuals of very modest means who have been living out of their vehicles for the past several years near the Prado Day Center. Plaintiffs claim that they have been told in the past by various City agencies to locate their vehicles near that location, where numerous City and County services are available for homeless and needy people. Located within the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, Property Development Standard 16.015, entitied Recreational Vehicle as dwelling unit, provides as follows: No recreational vehicle, camper shell or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, or campground, except as provided in [Municipal Code] section 17.08.C.4. In turn. Property Maintenance Standard 17.08.C.4, entitled Recreational vehicle as temporary dwelling, clarifies Property Development Standard 015 in the following manner: A recreational vehicle may be parked in a residential parking space or driveway for periods not to exceed seven days, for the purpose of housing guests of on-site residents only. Such recreational vehicles shall not be parked so as to prevent residents of any other dwellings on the site from using their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 assigned parking spaces, nor shall it discharge waste or sewage into the city's sewage system. No hose, electrical cord, pipe, wire, or other device extending from the vehicle may be permitted to encroach on any access easement or sidewalk. Although the City apparently never (or rarely) previously attempted to enforce the provisions of Property Development Standard 015 as against these "campers," in the beginning of 2012, the City suddenly changed course, embarking on a pattern of police enforcement in a concerted effort to force Plaintiffs to move somewhere else. Plaintiffs have filed multiple declarations claiming that organized police units have been arriving with sirens and flashing lights blaring, late at night, to harass Plaintiffs into moving out of town. Plaintiffs also claim that they have been unfairly targeted by the police, who have turned a blind eye toward similar violations of Property Development Standard 015 by property owners who also use their recreational vehicles as living quarters within City limits. In brief. Plaintiffs allege that they are part of a loose community of people, including children, who have no room available for them at the local ovemight shelters. They claim to have lived peaceably for years near the Prado Day Center. They also state that, until very recently, the police have been protective, helpful and supportive. In early 2012, following a loud, prolonged altercation near the Prado Day Center during which the police were called, police officers abmptly changed their tone and their tactics. After that incident (which did not involve people living on Prado Road), the police became very confrontational. Plaintiffs were thereafter awakened in the early moming hours by groups of officers banging on the vehicles and shouting at the people inside, telling them that Plaintiffs had better move out of town and that the officers had orders from the City Council to drive them out of town. Although these police tactics were utilized against the Prado Road homeless community, Plaintiffs claim that the police have completely ignored offending behavior from other City residents who routinely park their recreational vehicles on the street. /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Aside from being terrified of repeated police actions, Plaintiffs claim that they have no other means of living, that their vehicles are in danger of being towed and forfeited, and that criminal prosecutions will cripple them economically. Several Plaintiffs have already been subjected to criminal prosecution under Property Development Standard 015, including fines and subsequent imprisonment, whereas others currently face criminal prosecution, through arraignments scheduled before the Honorable Stephen Sefton on July 12, 2012. III. Discussion Rather than challenging Plaintiffs' factual assertions, the City has filed a demurrer to the entire complaint claiming that Property Development Standard 015 is a valid exercise of municipal powers, and that the complaint is defective in its entirety as a matter of law. The Court will first address the Fourth Cause of Action because the end resuft critically pivots around this claim. A. Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action The Fourth Cause of Action, styled as an "as applied challenge," contends that enforcement of Property Development Standard 015 violates due process of law, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violates equal protection, and impinges upon the right to travel and the right to possess shelter. An "as applied" challenge requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that Property Development Standard 015 has been enforced in a constitutionally impermissible manner. {Tobe V. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1089.) Necessarily, an "as-applied challenge" therefore depends significantly on the facts: An as applied challenge may seek (1) relief from a specific application ofa facially valid statute or ordinance to an individual or class of individuals who are under allegedly impermissible present restraint or disability as a result of the manner or circumstances in which the statute or ordinance has been applied, or (2) an injunction against future application of the statute or ordinance in the allegedly impermissible manner it is shown to have been applied in the past. It contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case or cases to determine the circumstances in which the statute or ordinance has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right. . .. {Tobe, 9 Cal.4th at 1084-85.) Stated somewhat differentiy, an "as applied" challenge contemplates an examination of the facts to determine how the statute or ordinance has been applied, and to consider whether, in those particular circumstances, the application deprived the individuals to whom it was applied of a protected right. {In Re Lewis (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 13, 28.) In such a challenge, the ordinance is presumed to be valid and the Court examines its manner of enforcement. {People v. Vigil (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 485, 504-05.) Plaintiffs' claim that the City's enforcement of Property Development Standard 015 violates due process of law in that this section of the Zoning Regulations was never intended to apply (and, in fact, does not apply as a matter of law) to vehicles parked on public streets. Further, Plaintiffs claim that the City is using arbitrary and irrational criminal enforcement mechanisms and police methods going well beyond what is appropriate and necessary under the circumstances. The due process analysis begins with the presumption that a municipality has broad power to enact ordinances in accord with the public health, safety, and welfare, so long as they do not conflict with general laws. {Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1128-29; Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7.) As a general rule, such ordinances will be upheld against constitutional challenge if they are reasonably related to promoting the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the public, and if the means adopted to accomplish that promotion are reasonably appropriate to the purpose. {Suter, 57 Cal.App.4th at 1128-29; Sunset Amusement Co. V. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 72.) On the other hand, a decision to single out individuals for discriminatory treatment under an ordinance, or enforcement that is shown to be arbitrary or irrational, may result in a violation of due process of law. {See, e.g., Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 472, 482; Samson v. City ofBainbridge Island (9th Cir., June 15, 2012, 10-35352) 2012 WL 2\6Ul\\Loc1iaryy. Kayfetz (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 1150, 1155-56; Bateson v. Geisse (9th Cir. 1988) 857 F.2d 1300, 1303.) In all cases, a clear factual ma 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 showing must be msidQ.{Echevarrieta, 86 Cal.App.4th at 482; Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1227, 1237-38; Kuster v. Foley (9th Cir. 2011) 438 Fed.Appx. 543, 545.) Plaintiffs' multifaceted attack alleges that: (1) section 17.16.015 of the Zoning Regulations is intended to regulate people living out of vehicles on private property (such yards, driveways or vacant land), rather than on public streets; (2) the City's enforcement efforts are more strident than necessary (infraction ticketing and prosecution by police rather than notifications by a Code Enforcement Officer, with an opportunity to correct); (3) no one from the City Attorney's Office exercises prosecutorial discretion over police conduct (i.e., direct citations are issued without review by City Attorney); and, (4) sanctions are wholly out of proportion to the proscribed conduct, including criminal fines, warrants, and the threat of jail. Plaintiffs also allege that actual enforcement of the Property Development Standard 015 has been both arbitrary and irrational. They allege that, for many years. Plaintiffs have been told by various City agencies, including the police, specifically to move their vehicles to, and live in, the industrial areas of the City near the Prado Day Center for the homeless. In Febmary 2012, however, the City suddenly changed course and embarked on a pattern of threats and intimidation in order to force Plaintiffs to move somewhere else. Most often, Plaintiffs allege that organized police units would show up with sirens, flashing lights and bullhorns, between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., on Prado Road, and begin pounding on the walls and doors of Plaintiffs' vehicles in an effort to frighten the occupants (some of which include small children) into coming out. Once out of their vehicles. Plaintiffs claim that they were ticketed and told to "get out of town." Whereas, other (more expensive appearing) recreational vehicles have been allowed to remain on Prado Road, Plaintiffs allege that poor people have been threatened, harassed, and followed to other locations in the City (including shops and markets) where they were subsequently threatened with additional citations. Again, they would be cited under the Property Development Standard 015 and told to get out of town. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs also allege that they are often subjected to notices setting bail at $229 for a first offense and arraignments in Superior Court. Further, if they admit to sleeping or living in their vehicle, fines approach $500, which is more than most Plaintiffs receive in a month. These allegations regarding the Fourth Cause of Action, if proved, are sufficient to state a claim for a violation of substantive due process rights. {Compare Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d at 1303 (finding arbitrary administration of the local building permit regulations); Kayfetz, 917 F.2d at 1155-56 (involving arbitrary or malicious administration of building moratorium based upon misuse of water availability information).) Although courts must be careful not to second-guess the judgment of local municipalities in carrying out their public mandate, the Court cannot ignore conduct that, if proved, demonstrates irrationality, patent unfaimess, or arbitrariness. {Echevarrieta, 86 Cal.App.4th at 482 (alleging that City acted with improper motivation and failed to adhere to procedures required by law); Kuster v. Foley 438 Fed.Appx. at 545 (alleging that permit application had been delayed due to arbitrary and capricious conduct of the Planning Director).) The demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is overruled.' B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from issuing any further citations that allege violations of Property Development Standard 015. The City opposes this request, arguing that Plaintiffs are unlikely to have any success on the merits, and that the City will suffer greater harm because ofthe multiple problems associated with the use of Prado Road as a de facto campground by numerable people. Although the Court has yet to hear all ofthe evidence, the declarations and exhibits that have been submitted to date raise serious issues in the Court's mind about the All causes of action are essentially different theories posed to invalidate Property Development Standard 015 Since Plaintiffs have stated a valid basis for challenge, the Court does not address the denmrrer to the other constitutional challenges. {In re LA. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.) However, the Court observes that Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs are unable to state a cause of action as a matter of law. Accordingly, the demurrer to the first three causes of action is overruled. \<yO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 applicability of the Property Development Standard 015 to public streets, as well as the reasonableness of the City's ongoing enforcement efforts. The Court's first concern has to do with the application of Property Development Standard 015 ofthe Zoning Regulations to public streets. Chapter 17 comprises the San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, ft recites that "land or buildings may be used and stmctures may be erected or altered only in accordance with these regulations." Sub-chapter 16, entitied "Property Development Standards," and in which Standard 015 appears, is designed to address yard setbacks, fences, walls, hedges, parking space requirements, driveways, screening, satellite dishes and wireless communication devices, all on private property. None of these regulations pertains to events that take place on public streets adjacent to private property. Moreover, Property Maintenance Standard 17.08.C.4, to which Property Development Standard 015 is tethered, is an exception that specifically applies to someone's driveway or parking space. Viewed in context, and as plainly stated in the text ofthe Zoning Regulations, these guidelines clearly pertain to how individuals develop and maintain their private property - the underlying rationale being that vehicles used as living quarters in driveways or vacant lots will adversely affect local neighborhoods. Moreover, the City's legislative intent supports the conclusion that Property Development Standard 015 was adopted to address an entirely different problem from the one now facing the Court, i.e., the problem of individuals living out of their vehicles or attempting to establish mobile homes on private property such as yards, driveways or vacant land. "When constming a statute, we may consider its legislative history, including committee and bill reports, and other legislative records. These mles also apply when interpreting local ordinances." {Valley Vista Services, Inc v. City of Monterey Park {2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 881, 889; See also County of Madera v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 665, 668 (The rules applying to the constmction of statutes apply equally to ordinances.).) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As set forth in one 1995 City Council Agenda Report: The City Council directed staff to draft property maintenance regulations, as part of the neighborhood enhancement program. ... The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining of processing to make it easier for the City to require maintenance of both commercial and residential property Primary elements of the regulation are: . . . Visiting RV limits. A time limit on how long a recreational vehicle may "camp" in a driveway, while the campers are visiting the residents ofthe home. . . Prohibition of RV as dwelling. A clarification that the use of recreational vehicles or campers as permanent dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds and mobile home parks. The City receives numerous complaints yearly about conditions that are visible from the street (storage of furniture in yards, broken fences, boats and driveways) and it may pose health or safety problems (RVs camping in driveways, people living in campers). The intent is to get the most for the least. This means that enforcement officer can 1) determine quickly ofa violation exists, 2) explain the situation to the violator easily; and 3) later determine quickly if the problem has been corrected. See Exhibit 2-2 through 2-4. In addition to the wording and location of Property Development Standard 015 within the Zoning Regulations, and the City's stated intent when adopting it, the Court's second major concern has to do with whether reasonable notice is provided to local and state residents about the "street camping" prohibition. Due process requires that individuals receive either actual or inquiry notice about prohibited conduct, especially where criminal violations are possible. {People v. Hodges (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1354 ("Due process requires fair notice of what conduct is prohibited.).) Given Standard 015's location within the Property Development Standard section of the Zoning Regulations, and given that the lone regulatory exception is located within the Property Maintenance Standards in Subchapter 17, the Court cannot conceive of how someone would reasonably be able to understand that the prohibition on "vehicles as living quarters" extends to the public streets as well as private property. Certainly, this patent ambiguity undermines the purpose, if not the letter, of the Vehicle Code, which is to prevent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 local regulations on public streets from becoming a "classic trap for the unwary " {Homes on Wheels v. City of Santa Barbara (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179.) ^ On top ofthe wording and location of Standard 015, its stated purpose, and the lack of reasonable notice regarding its applicability, the Court's third concem has to do with the manner in which Standard 015 has actually been enforced. Typically, the City does not utilize the police to enforce the Zoning Regulations, and it does not immediately resort to the issuance of criminal citations. Instead, Zoning Regulation violations are ordinarily investigated by Code Enforcement Officers who conduct site visits, issue notices of violation, and prepare reports for further action. If voluntary compliance is not achieved, criminal complaints are an enforcement choice of last resort, and they are ordinarily reviewed by the City Attorney's Office before they are filed. {See, e.g.. Exhibit 2-48 through 2-51.) The evidence currentiy before the Court shows that an entirely different enforcement approach has been utilized. Prior to Febmary 2012, or thereabouts (and for reasons yet to be fully developed). City representatives (ranging from police to social workers) have been specifically directing poor people living out of their vehicles to congregate and/or set up residence in the vicinity ofthe Prado Day Center, where social services are readily available. In and around February 2012, the City abmptiy changed course. Rather than having Code Enforcement Officers attempt to achieve voluntary compliance through site visits, notices of violation, or City Attorney involvement, the evidence before the Court is that the City directed the police to immediately cite alleged offenders with criminal process. In addition to using an enforcement strategy that appears to be singling out poor and homeless people for harsher treatment, the Court is very uneasy with the specific manner in which the police have apparently been enforcing Standard 015 and issuing criminal citations. As stated. Plaintiffs have submitted multiple declarations that call into question the appropriateness ofthe police enforcement tactics and that also raise questions as to whether Perhaps this is why, when initially confronted with local residents' complaints about vehicles camped on the streets, the City chose to post the Elics Lane area with waming signage in compliance with the notice requirement of Vehicle Code section 22507. 10 \S3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Specific groups of people are being arbitrarily singled out for enforcement. These methods include, but are not limited to, the use of late-night police forays needlessly utilizing flashing lights, blaring horns, intimidation, threats and other scare tactics. These methods are apparently designed not only to force legal compliance, but also to intimidate Plaintiffs into leaving the City altogether. The City's overall enforcement choices and methods cause this Court grave disquietude. In particular, the Court cannot imagine that similar enforcement methods have been, or ever would be, utilized against homeowners who had recreational vehicles hooked up as "living quarters" in their private driveways or on vacant lots. Likewise, query whether persons sleeping in more prestigious recreational vehicles on public streets would receive the same harsh method of enforcement. Would the police even be utilized or would Code Enforcement Officers instead make initial warning visits? Would the police arrive in the middle of the night with flashing lights and buUhoms? Would individuals be told to move out of the City or else? Would criminal citations be issued prior to explaining the problem to them and affording them an opportunity to correct the problem? The Court seriously doubts that the City would even consider such an approach under the proposed scenarios. Why, then, would a strategy like this be utilized here? Although the City must be given great latitude in the way it chooses to enforce local regulations, there are limits as to what can be considered reasonable and appropriate. Based upon the evidence received so far, appropriate bounds appear to have been exceeded. Weighing the evidence and balancing the harm to the Plaintiffs in the event an injunction were not issued, against the harm to the City if an injunction were issued, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate to enjoin enforcement ofthe Property Development Standard 015 until a full evidentiary hearing takes place. Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the due process claims. Moreover, the financial, psychological and other harms to the Plaintiffs from the actual prosecution and threat of criminal prosecution under a Property Development 11 in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Standard that does not apply as a matter of law far outweigh the harm to the City resulting from the grant of an injunction. An injunction means that the status quo existing as of early January 2012 will be preserved. On the other hand, an injunction will not prevent the City from enforcing all of its other health and safety regulations vis-a-vis Plaintiffs. In other words, living out ofa vehicle near the Prado Day Center pendente lite will not give Plaintiffs the right to litter, disturb the peace, become publicly intoxicated, trespass, vandalize, illegally discharge septic waste, threaten pedestrians, deal dmgs, or commit assaufts or batteries. The City retains the ability to enforce the full panoply of public welfare statutes. Although the City strenuously contends that the Court lacks authority to grant a preliminary injunction under the circumstances, for two reasons, the Court disagrees. First, although the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 526, and Civil Code section 3423, disallow an injunction that would prevent enforcement of a public statute by officers ofthe law, these sections do not apply "when the activity sought to be enjoined is an attempt to apply a statute or ordinance to conduct not within its terms." {Thomsen v. City of Escondido (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 884, 890 (citations omitted); MacLeod v. City of Los Altos (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 364, 369 (same).) That is exactly what is going on here. Second, Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that the Property Development Standard 015 "has been applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner in the past" through a "pattern of impermissible enforcement." (See Tobe v. City of Santa Ana 9 Cal.4th at 1085; Bueneman v. City of Santa Barbara, 8 Cal.2d 405, 407-408.) Evidence of this sort permits an injunction to minimize harm from unconstitutional activities. Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is granted."^ ^ Although' an associational relationship may exist between increased crime and the use of vehicles as living quarters in the vicinity of Elks Lane or the Prado Day Center, there has been no causal connection yet established between increased crime and presence of mobile campers. If campers break the law, they can certainly be prosecuted for the underlying crimes. ^ Because the Court has concluded that Property Development Standard 015 does not apply to public streets and has been impermissibly enforced, it need not reach the issues raised by the City's demurrer with respect to the Plaintiffs' First, Second, or Third Causes of Action for declaratory and injunctive relief Nor 12 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. Conclusion. The Court is certainly not oblivious to the efforts that the City Council is making with respect to providing temporary shelter for the homeless in comiection with its pilot program. Such a program is vitally important if we, as a society, are to take significant steps in the direction of reducing homelessness and poverty. Further, the Court's decision is necessarily preliminary in that no opposing declarations have been submitted and no live testimony has yet been considered. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, the state ofthe evidence currently before the Court ftilly supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction and it is so ORDERED. Counsel should confer about any appropriate language, if any, that may be needed to clarify the scope of the Injunction. The Court intends to allow discovery so that both sides can fully develop their factual positions. Accordingly, the case management conference set on August 14, 2012 is advanced to Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., in Department 9, to discuss all management issues. Dated: July 3, 2012 CSC:jn CH/^LES S. CRANDALL Judge ofthe Superior Court need the Court reach the issue of preemption. For purposes of ruling on the request for preliminary injunction, these issues are moot and remain for decision at a later date. ' A iudicial tribunal ordinarily may consider and determine only an existing controversy, and not a moittrst 0^^^^^^^ [A^] - of the court to moot question or du^ua y v _^„„, fi,pnrPtira1 or abstract Question or proposition, or a act upon or pure {Id. at .p.a decide a moot question or speculative, theoretical or abstract question or P opositior relvTcademic question, or to give an advisory opinion on such a quesUon or propos tion. rely academic q ^ant requirement for justiciability is the availability of • i^e'' rdief-that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical tangible impact on the • conduct or legal status. " ' " 'It is this court's duty " 'to decide actual controversies by a PP "effective parties iuiRmen^^^^^^^ be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract juagmeni wnicu cai ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^j^g propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which camiot affect the matter before it. {In re LA., (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.) case 13 ISO- STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Civil Division CERTIFICATE OF MAILING SLO HOMELESS ALLIANCE VS. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CV120204 Rizzo, Saro G. Attorney for Plaintiff 1457 Marsh Street, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo CA 90401 Jenkins, Stewart D. Attorney for Plaintiff Post Office Box 511 San Luis Obispo CA 93406 0511 Dietrick, Christine J. Attorney for Defendant CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, Room 10 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 3249 Albuquerque, Manuela Attorney for Defendant BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland CA 94 612 3 501 Attached Pleadingr; Ruling and Order, 7/3/12 Under penalty of perjury, I hereby certify that I deposited in the United States mail, at San Luis Obispo, California, first class postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, a copy of the foregoing addressed to each of the above OR If counsel has a pickup box in the Courthouse that a copy was placed in said pickup box this date. SUSAN MATHERLY, Court Executive Officer by ^ VJiJ-^-^ , Deputy Dated: 'l/S/l^ Si 1. First, to stop the shameful propaganda the city is putting out concerning their proposed overnight RV parking ban, I will hold up a sign giving my number out so people can have the actual, unassailable facts to base their opinions on. 2. An important side note, I was told by a person I know, who called councilman Blackburn's office that Councilman /slash/ police officer Blackburn stated to him that all these people staying in their RVs are criminals, drug addicts and sex offenders and is not the element we want here in Carlsbad. I heard this person say this once to me on the phone, and twice in person, after I asked him to confirm what he had said. 3. Now, walking through the afore-referenced propaganda, one: they claim there has been an increase in resident complaints. False. The city has provided no proof of this after repeated requests for such. Given, however, the plausibility that there are such complaints, most complaints I'm familiar wfth concerning residents are those who think they own the public street outside their house and far beyond, along with eagerly sharing their bigotry with police and other officials about people they think are beneath them, or live in ways they don't approve of, never mind the sheer necessities those people have precluding them from living in any other way. Two: they claim RVers are dumping sewage on the streets. They offer no proof of this after repeated requests for such. However, if this ever occurs, it's already illegal per the state Health and Safety Code. Three: they claim that RVers are not cooperating with police in order to avoid expensive "so called camping tickets." The city, along with its attorneys approving the language of this proposed ordinance are fully aware of the Constftutional Right to remain silent and not allow police to enter vehicles unless given explicit consent or after they have a warrant. Four: the city claims RVers are remaining parked for too long in one spot on the streets. There is already state law limiting all vehicle parking for more than 72 hours. If what they desire is that RVers stay away from a general area for a few days, the city can enact an ordinance similar to Oceanside's existing ordinance addressing the same exact objective. Five: the city claims RVs block sight distance near intersections. This can be legitimate and can be regulated by a given parking prohibition near such corners . Six: the city states that RVs are a visual blight. Since when do we criminalize human existence to be-rid some ones' notion of unsightliness? Seven: the city strongly implies that people who must live in these things are "not law-abiding," another obvious falsehood, and lastly Eight: that it's vital to give its police officers a new tool to more easily banish these RVers from the city so they can get to higher priority calls. This proposed ordinance is a full on subterranean assault to criminalize human existence, like so many other cities in California have already done. The repression has gotten so bad, that there is now a "proposed homeless bill of rights" working its way through the California Legislature which would instantly and conclusively repeal these abominably shameful local ordinances all in one fell swoop. 1/8/13; 550 words Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:31 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Carlsbad Parking Ordinance Comment —Original Message- From: Gary Campbell Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:13 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Carlsbad Parking Ordinance Comment The City of Carlsbad has no authority to legislate against an economic class of citizens who have no funds to park in your outrageously expensive or limited RV parking facilities. Most of the people who are parking on the streets of Carlsbad are there because of the good weather and are protected by the constitutional rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, fundamental rights. The fact that residents of this city think they are entitled to "not being bothered with trashy people does not give them or the city of Carlsbad the authority to violate the constitutional rights of those less fortunate than themselves. I predict that the courts will be compelled to find for the plaintiffs in suit against this laughably inadequate proposed ordinance and could possibly cost the city millions of dollars in damages paid to the plaintiffs. America has laws to prevent discrimination based on biases similar to what you are proposing. Homelessness is a growing concern in America today because ofthe criminal actions by banks and an outiaw government and it is the responsibility of the courts to root out this discrimination and make the offenders pay damages. „ , , , . The facts are that a public right of way belongs to the public 23/7, good bad or indifferent and as long as people are not contaminating the environment, for which there are already sufficient laws to deal with offenders and vehicles are parked in such a way so as to allow access to other vehicles the city has no right to stipulate what type of behavior the occupants of said vehicles of whatever type wish to perform whether bmshing their teeth or sleeping. The fact that your residents govemment and police department seem to think that they can sic the police on these people has nothing to do with constitutional rights and may wind up costing the city of Carlsbad enormous amounts of money in fines. ... • • I 1* ^ So tread lightly These situations are the result of economic crimes perpetrated on America by the criminal elite and your citizens are suffering the results and need to attack the criminals who committed the crimes rather than the victims the people living on your streets. So much for the constitution. I say get used to the new reality. It's just starting and it won't be long before many of your offended citizens will be in the same situation as those people down on your streets trying to stay alive. I'd venture to guess that 60% of your citizens are 2-3 weeks fmm living in the streets with the loss of their low paying jobs, which we are on track to have happen in out lifetimes. I advocate for a 72 hour move notice program to keep people from setting up residence in one spot for too long thereby permitting the police to monitor the people and condition of the RVs parked there, keeping homeless people from settling in. They do, however, have a constitutional right to park there and sleep and not be attacked by the minions of the elite! Read your constitution please. It's over, we have rights too! Regards, Gary Campbell \9\ Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:40 AM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: City of Carlsbad - Potential New RV Rules From: Barbara Roth Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 3:49 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: City of Carlsbad - Potential New RV Rules The real question is why are we always creating mles and additional expense because of a few. There will still be the complaints so just take care of the problems instead of creating problems for others. I am a resident ofCarlsbad and 72 hours isn't always enough time to load or unload my RVlIf I get home from a trip on the weekend (usually a Sunday) it usually takes till the following weekend after I get home from a trip to unload because there not only unloading there is also cleaning up the RV before it is put back in storage and this is all done while also having to go to work (usually out of town) during the week. If you've ever taken your dogs on a two week RV ttip you would understand: I'm very aware my neighbors don't want to see my RV on the street for extended periods of time and move it timely. The permit would be free to start but at what point in the future would there be a fee involved, we all know there would be a cost of putting this ordinance in place and then conttolling it. How easy would it be to get a permit could you do it online or would we need to stand in some city office to obtain it. Please don't make owing my RV a hassle for me. My RV trips are suppose to be enjoyable not have to msh clean up , loading, unloading and sometimes I park in front of my sister's house for a weekend so my niece can play in the RV before I put it in storage so now I'd have to have a second permh to do that. Please don't create more rules just take care of the problem RVers when someone complains. Thank you for your consideration Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Monday, January 07, 2013 12:27 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: Motorhomes parking at beach. —Original Message-— From: Cindavike Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:00 AM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: Motorhomes parking at beach. Another regulation that hurts people trying to get on their feet. A lot of these people are one step from living on the street. Instead, why cant you help by charging mabe $2.00 a night. Ticets for trashing. The city makes money, and you help the semi homeless. From someone who lived in a vw for three yrs and raised a child alone at that time. Have mote compassion for those who have lost a lot. Cmorrison. Rose Williams From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Maashoff on behalf of Transportation-Internet Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:29 PM Bryan Jones Rose Williams FW: r.v. proposal input From: D Likens Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:30 PM To: Transportation-Internet Subject: r.v. proposal input to whom it may concem ; best to let the compassionate carisbad people decide -vote on it w/ a ballot - the real american way 1 start w/r.v. issues-at least you'll see if your ideas have the towns'support or not I can any one afford to lose any r. v. ers' biz rt. now in this economy? everyone was so happy when califomians - etc. where staying stateside to vacation -spending there time & money here @ the beach - why run r.v.ers out of town!? in every neighborhood or % of folks theres ' things to work on etc.no need to exterminate any body from the beach in compassionate carisbad. always remember; God knows it could be you in the exact situation @ any moment in time ! think about it... thanks From: Karen Ludlow( Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:30 AM To: Bryan Jones Subject: RV Parking in Carlsbad Good Morning Bryan, I became aware of the RV parking information through my atendance in the Citizens Academy, and am now receiving the Carlsbad City info, via e-mail. With regards to the street parking and getting permits, I would like to see an addition of a limited permit, perhaps once or twice a year per Carlsbad property owner/address, for residents who have traveling guests arrive (particularly during the holidays) and come for 6-7 days. We, along with other neighbors, have family and friends who like to travel and come to stay with their RVs enroute, and camping at our only location on the beach is virtually impossible to get a site. Also, the HOA only allows 48 hours in a drive-way. This permit could be a different color from the others and would have to be placed on the dash so that police and neighbors would know it is a temporary situation. What is Carlsbad's solution to this if you don't allow such a permit? Some Walmart's used to allow overnight parking. I don't know if they still do, but if so, is that going to become an issue for the City of Encinitas? I would appreciate you adding this suggestion to the Council meeting agenda. I look fonA^ard to my next Advisory meeting, aka Graduation. The presentations have been move informative. Thank you Karen Ludlow From: Evelyn Montalbano Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:17 AM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Christine Davis - Coolest Shoes; L Hamburg; donnabechthold; Sue Tran; Diane Jones; eatruj; James Carter Subject: RV parking on La Costa Avenue and the New Carlsbad Ordinance No permits should be issued for La Costa Avenue which has the line of sight issues only particular to LCA because of the abutting driveways on a secondary arterial road. If, in fact, a huge motor coach home, like the one owned at 2408, would be given a permit to park curbside on the street, it would destroy the road diet implemented for safety reasons on LCA. Monitoring these permits will be a nightmare for the Police. I refer to LCA only or any other street with driveways abutting a secondary arterial road. 1^3 Be careful here. You are trying to establish regulations to restrict RV parking; however all of the exceptions are diluting and nullifying the intent to improve the quality of life issues. Lastly, do remember that on LCA it is not only about quality of life but SAFTY FOR LIFE AND LIMB! Evelyn and Peter Montalbano Sent from my iPad From: Scott Morgan Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:21 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: Re: RV parking, skate art, active transportation and more Hello Bryan, Just a quick thought on RV Parking...why not allow ovemight parking along PCH near the power plant after certain hours, say 7 pm until 8 am, and require a permit to do so, that way if a tourist is traveling through they could enjoy Carlsbad and Carlsbad can profit from empty space .I am sure there is more to consider, but just a thought. Cheers, Scott Morgan From: Bill Kilpatrick [musikl954@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:45 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: RV parking restrictions Dear Mr. Jones, I have just finished reading the recent restrictions placed on RV parking within the Carlsbad city Hmits. In the front of my property, there is a dirt patch that runs adjacent to the street but is part ofthe property - where does that put me in terms of the new restnctions? I do not own an RV, but periodically have friends visit who do, and have always parked their RV in the dirt patch. Thank you in advance for getting back to me. From: Loren Sanders Sr. Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:25 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: RV Parking suggestion Hello Bryan, we have spoken in the past about the RV that occasionally parks across the street from my home at|BIMHHBV- Upon reading about the proposed ordinance I am wondering why the City should allow 72 hours to pack and unpack an RV. Wars have been won in less time.. .just kidding. But wouldn't 24 hours be sufficient time? If they are allowed 4 of lip these time limits each month, that is 12 days per month. I know you have already figured this out but ft just seems like a very liberal amount of time to load or unload. I am not trying to be umeasonable, but the owners of some of these vehicles have been taking advantage ofthe residents for a long, long time. I am hoping that when they draw the final draft of this ordinance, the authors will consider property values that are effected by making a parking lot for RVs in your stteet. I am also aware that the City Attomey must bless whatever is submitted. Thanks for staying with this problem and no matter the outcome, I appreciate your working on it. Many of my neighbors will also. Take care Bryan and God bless. Loren Sanders Sr. Citizen and Senior Volunteer Patrol Officer serving with pride in our great city From: JOSEPH SPINA Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:36 PM To: Bryan Jones Subject: Resident RV parking ordinance Hi Bryan, I have been a Carlsbad resident for 25 years. I live in a Condominium with no RV parking. I store my RV about 45 minutes away, since there is no storage in Carlsbad I can afford. I have only had my RV about a year so parking on the street hasn't come up. Additionally it's a 5th wheel trailer. I agree with the new ordinance limiting the Rv parking on city streets. The only problem I have is the proposed new ordinance will only allow permits parking "at your residence". That really doesn't help me and I would guess is unfair to anyone but the owners of detached homes. I would like to see the ordinance reflecting something that would allow parking within a few miles of the residents home. I live by the mall but I'm not sure what their policy is , although I never see RVs there. Maybe changing the ordinance for the 3 day ( 72 hour) permit to a total of 3 times a year. That will be effective limiting the people living in there RVs from just moving around but will still allow people without detached homes somewhere close to load their RV near there house, or at least in the same city. Thanks Joe Spina P.S. if you have nothing to do with the proposed ordinance can you forward this to someone who does. From: Carolyn Sullivan i Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:41 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: RV Parking To the Carlsbad City Council: I read in the newspaper this week that the City Council is considering re-visiting the issue of RV parking on city streets. Because there is a neighbor who has parked a large RV on Cadencia Street for many years, and because of other such vehicles that are parked in the city on an extended basis, I am highly in favor of a new ordinance that would prohibit long-term parking/storage of RVs in residential neighborhoods. Such an ordinance must affect the entire city, and not just the portion of it west of El Camino Real or any other such arbitrary boundary. Having that kind of a boundary would only serve to introduce all of the RVs from a restricted area into an unrestricted one, making the problem even worse for a part of the citizenry. Earlier this year I e-mailed the Council on this subject, and I am attaching the pertinent information from that e-mail for your reference. I now believe that this neighbor uses the RV for storage of excess items, possibly those that he puts out at his periodic garage sales, as because it is always in the neighborhood it is a certainty that the RV is not used for any sort of trip. I urge the Council to please make every effort to pass an ordinance to prevent RV parking/storage on city streets, with a reasonable exception for brief periods when it is being prepared for a trip. As before, I am signing my name to this communication, but I do not want my name to be divulged to the neighbors who are causing these problems as I fear retaliation could be forthcoming. Thank you, Carolyn Sullivan From my previous e-mail: For many years now, more than twenty and possibly even thirty, a scofflaw living at 3004 Cadencia Street has had many vehicles, both in his driveway and parked on the street. There have been as many as six cars/ttucks/etcetera, plus the giant RV that has been parked in the street for most of all of those years. For two or three years the neighborhood had some relief as the RV was parked in the back yard of a relative's house at 7615 Romeria Street, but after he passed away the RV came right back on the street, where it has been since at least 2007.1 am certain that the RV has not been out of the neighborhood ovemight for most of 2008, all of 2009, all of 2010, all of 2011, and all of 2012 to date. The neighbors used to call Code Enforcement, but all of us have Given UP as he will move it around the corner for a day or two when it is tagged, and then put It right back on Cadencia Street in front of his house. He has gone to the extent of posting a log In the driver's window which purports to show that it has been driven a few tenths of a mile every day or two, but again I am certain that the RV does not move as the log states that it does. When he has a garage sale he will move it onto Romeria Street, and then back it comes a day or two later. Original Message- From: Jasanna Maher [1 Sent: Thursday, October 18,20124:04PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: RV Parking Hello Council, I am very happy to see that you are considering regulating R.V's. Just banning R.V's west of 1-5 at night will not be enough. I've found that if you give an inch, the public will take a mile. There will always be those that will want to "beat" the system, it's human nature. A $50 fine is the same as the fees at R.V. Parks, it should be at least $100. This will encourage R.V'ers to park in an RV park or at Walmart. Anyone who has as R.V. needs to consider how they will store it, otherwise not have one. A yearly permit should be issued for R.V. owners to park in front of their residence for 4 nights in a 30 day period. Figuring 2 nights to load up and 2 nights to unload. Most people usually are gone for 2 weeks at a time. This should provide enough leeway without irritating the neighbors. Sincerely, Walt Meier From: Jane Molina Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:32 PM To: Attorney Subject: NO RV Parking I support the ban on RV parking....Carlsbad is already slipping. I hope it doesn't become another Oceanside or SanMarcos. JaneOrlando Carlsbad, Ca. From: Gary Nelson Sent: Friday, October 19, 2 012 4:17 PM To: Bryan Jones Cc: Gary Nelson Subject: New RV PARKING ORDINANCE BEING DRAFTED Mr. Jones, I live at 3103 Madera Court, Carlsbad 92009. Our HOA does not allow parking RVs in drive way, this includes pickup trucks with attached shell-cover. My neighbor is a private, licensed building contractor / craftsman. Our HOA has forced him to park on the city street because his "camper shell" (only as tall as the truck can) is considered an RV. The HOA has no jurisdiction over city streets. Currently this leaves us options to park at or near our homes. This new regulation being proposed by Carlsbad would discourage buyers from considering our neighborhood as would be the same in many Carlsbad neighborhoods. Driving down property values in this economy will add insult to injury. Just where is my neighboor going to park every night when he returns home from work? Where will i park if i purchase another pickup and put an enclosed shell on the bed. We need an unlimited permit good 3 65 day per year, not the limited annual permit bring proposed. I grew up in Claremont, Ca. In LA County. Claremont had a "no overnight parking on city streets" ordinance early in the city's growth period. HOAs were written to accommodate campers & RVs to be parked in driveways and backyards where practical. Carlsbad, on the other hand is not in its early growth years, and HOAs are already established all over the incorporated city wherein RV & camper parking are not allowed in residential driveways. If you can get the state to override the HOA restrictions (CC&Rs) for parking RVs in driveways, then we might have a workable ordinance. Otherwise , the new RV ordinance is unreasonably restrictive and will be challenged in court if instituted. Perhaps the ordinance could be written such that resident owners and resident renters can obtain a street parking permit at no cost that identifies vehicles by license number that may park at or near a specific address overnight. Thank you for your consideration. Gary Nelson Original Resident owner since March 1978 Age 58, electronics Engineer. Navy Veteran Sent from iPhone. 19 Oct 2012 Gary From: BenI Diane Monacol Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:26 PM To: Council Intemet Email Subject: Ban on RVs To Mayor Hall and Council Members, I would like to ask that you go forward with the ban on RVs parking ovemight in Carlsbad. I have been concerned about this since finding out that a registered sex offender was living in his RV. In the last couple months there was an RV with windows covered with blankets/towels parked on Ambrosia Ln right outside Aviara Oaks schools, ft really disturbed me to see that. I can also understand how residents would not want RVs parked along streets in their neighborhoods. Would you like it? In regards to the cost of storing an RV, if you can afford an RV you should be able to afford ft's storage and not subject your neighbors to seeing it. Thank you for your fime. Sincerely, D Monaco Carlsbad Resident From: Billy Crotty' Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:49 AM To: Attorney; Council Internet Email; Manager Internet Email; Matthew Hall; Greg Hermann Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad council considers ban on overnight RV parking l0 I want to voice my concern with the parking near Waters End in Carlsbad These RVs apart from being a eyesoar are also home to sex offenders and Other peoples that are a danger to our young children. please do enforce this ban Billy Crotty Original Message From: Todd Trahan ^ Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:22 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Proposed RV Overnight Parking Ban Mayor Hall, Council Members, I strongly support the proposed overnight RV parking ban for Carlsbad, I live off Avenida Encinas which full of illegal "street campers." The enforcment of the 72 hour parking.rule is not working to prevent this street camping. The recent presence of a registered violent sexual offender living in his RV on Avenicda Encinas is still fresh in my memory. Please pass this proposed ban. V/R, Todd Trahan From: Karen Ludlow Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:46 AM To: Bryan Jones Subject: RE: RV Parking In Carlsbad Hi Bryan, You aren't supposed to be working on Saturday - but thank you for your quick response. I do want to make it clear that my suggestion for the 6-7 day permits would only be allowed on a limited basis per year to residents for their visitors. Also, I didn't see information on how the permits were going to be issued, e.g., would residents have to go to a city building to get them, would they be sent via e-mail, etc.? I am assuming it would be some type of document that would be placed on the dashboard of the vehicle. I am not sure how the city is addressing the issue of those who either cannot afford storage for their r.v.'s, or it is not available. I realize that responsibility should fall on the owner, not the city, and they should have checked out the rules before making a purchase, however, they may not have and thus end up in an unaffordable situation. In La Costa Valley, we paid a year in advance that we didn't even use the space in our association's storage lot while our home was being built because the spaces are so limited and there is always a waiting list. Storing it on private lots is 2 - 3 times as expensive, I believe. Perhaps the City miaht consider providing a lot for RV storage, no hook ups, no staying there, etc., just storage -1 bet it would be profitable and would provide something many residents would use, or even make arrangements in the new lot at Sycamore and Melrose for a discount for Carlsbad residents. No need to respond to this e-mail -1 know you're reading them, but I wanted to make clear the 6-7 day permit on a limited basis. Again, thank you for your time and for forwarding my input to the City Council. Karen Ludlow From: Diego De Lewonardlsi Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:21 AM To: Bryan Jones Subject: rv's I am so pleased to read this, we at the CPD (i was Senior Patrol) have wanted this for years, we could see that people were living in those campers, one even ran the power cord into the house of a friend, lived in the camper, & had his kids in school in Carlsbad. But there was almost nothing CPD could do. we suggested the 'no overnight parking' signs like those in Encinitas. I don't know why everyone outside the CPD ignored us for all those years. We were asking for action for at least 7 years that i know of 7 years! don't know why it has taken the city council so long, but thanks. 1{ Cartfiiad Villa^€ January 16,2013 Re: Ovemight RV parking Dear Mayor Matt HaE City Council members, Cit)- of Carlsbad, As we work widi Urban Place Consulting Group in the revitalization of Carlsbad ViUage, tiie image of the downtown area is the most important factor in success. For Village residents, other Carlsbad residents, county visitors and tourists, we're working to convey that this is the place to go; that it is attractive, charming, exciting, clean, and safe; and diat it's the premier gathermg place in North San Diego County. On the moming of January 16th, nine recreational vehicles (RVs) were parked m a row on Garfield. The usual suspects were there. It was a VQ.VJ cold moming - they were not there to get a prime parking space for a day on the beach. Over the last several vears, a preponderance of RVs have parked for long penods of time along ViUage streets, most conveniently Garfield Street, Ocean Street, Beech Street, and State Street AUey Many are being lived in (their passenger vehicles are parked nearby) and others are being stored for usuaUy at least 72 hours after diey've been tagged. Some stay put for weeks at a time They seem to hopscotch from street to street when they feel die "heat" is on tiiem. fhe regulars have been seen firom time to time on every one of die noted streets. Some have been observed taking tiieir waste holding tanks and emptying tiiem at die Magee Park restrooms. During die hoUdays and summer vacation months, newcomers show up aU tiie time. These vehicles are an eyesore. The parking of RVs on ViUage streets detracts from tiie attractiveness and charm ot die Vmage; not to mention tiiey take up two to tiiree passenger vehicle spaces. ITiey provide no value to the ViUage and could to some extent decrease the value of real estate. RVs should go to where tiiey were intended to be; after aU, state park campgrounds and private RVs parks and storage yards were developed just for tiieir use. You have invested in tiie revitaUzation of Carlsbad VUlage. We respectively request tiiat you take strict actions to help ensure tiie attractiveness and charm of Carlsbad VUlage aU along die Pacific Ocean, east to Interstate 5 and from lagoon to lagoon. Sincerely, Doug Avis, Chair Mart)? VoUa, Vice Chair Mary Steely, Secretar)^ Toni Padron, Treasurer Gary Nessim To lead the continual improvement of the Carlsbad Village experience as the premier gathering place in North County San Diego. ^ CARLSBAD <^ CITY OF Memorandum January 17, 2013 To: From: Re: Mayor and City Counc^Uj Interim City Manager 0^ Information Received from Richard Shapiro Regarding Proposed RV Parking Ordinance Please find attached three documents delivered to the City Manager's office by Richard Shapiro relating to the City's proposed RV Parking Ordinance. Mr. Shaprio requested that the documents be forwarded to each of you for your review. Thank you. John Coates Interim City Manager Attachments (3) JC:sc Date //c5 57/3 CNyCitfk Aist. CHy dirk DiputyGlirti Book city Hall l».:Ji^J 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 I 760-720-9461 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL, AND ALREADY HAS, MORPHED ANY SUPPOSED PROBLEM THE CITY AIMS TO ABATE BIYOWU UV^AiaLT RESTRICTIONAL REACH ' —^^^^VffD City's Cited Issues: 1. Citizen and business owner complaints 2. Few laws addressing RV problems for Carlsbad Police L__ . runlt^f S """^^ '^^V receive tL«a«SSlS««, 4. Parking for too long In a neighborhood 5. Blocking sight distance at driveways and intersections 6. Blocking access to residential, business and tourist areas 7. Traffic hazards 8. illegally dumping sewage 9. Illegally dumping trash 10. Blight 11. Increased crime reports where RVs tend to park 12. Cause of traffic congestion, pot holes, beach erosion and the fall of the Western World ; 1. Ultimately, the only way the city could possibly and effectively get rid of Its supposed problems with the habltat.ng vehicle dweller is to ban all overnlgVt parMngTf aZil in?th """"""" "^^^^ ^x"*"* twenty-two (22) feet in length a any time or a combination of the two following criteria, exclusive of fixtures accessories or property: seven (7) feet In heigh, and seven (7) feet In width "pt: ol^^^^^^^^ - --"^ t-^e parameters ^^^'--^ —MbeirRvthat. B. They now know not to open the door to police to receive an expensive campln« ticket and to be fnghtened out of town, no matter the intimldatlona, tactics or tricks ^Tpole pti ' inf^IZ"'""^""^^^^^'"^^ Pected-campinglaw D. They cannot be affected by this proposed ordinance If otherwise legally parked. E. They now know to audio and video record these terrorizing raids by police. F. The smaller RV and vehicle dwellers - If there is any sewage or urine dumped on the ground near their vehicle - are the ones most pressured to deposit such due to their vehicle's utter lack of sanitary facilities and holding tanks as the affected larger RVs readily have. G. The smaller dwelling vehicles are far more adept at evading law enforcement (for a whole host of obvious reasons, ask me If you're not aware) after a crime has been committed by its inhabitant, thus ridiculing the city's supposed findings and concern that there is some factual nexus between RV parking and crlme...clearly Implied by their following statement supporting their ban: "A large number of crime reports are also generated from areas that experience overnight parking of RVs." H. The elt/s purported concerns about blight is now being, and would be further ridiculed, since far more inhabited smaller RVs, vans, and trucks are typically much older and in far worse condition than the larger affected RV. I. The city, assuming the ordinance passes, will receive far more supposed resident complaints with smaller RVs, trucks and vans because the same supposed violations can and will emanate far more easily, far more readily, and over a far greater neighborhood area, given the far more elusive and stealth nature of these smaller vehicles. Thus the police will be spending far more time and resources monitoring and attempting to catch such purported violations, J. These smaller habitating RVs, cars, trucks and vans can easily blend into areas that the city claims is being harmed or Inundated by RVs, that of residential and business areas. Whereas an affected larger RV, regardless ofthe fact it rarely happens, can't even physically park or fit in those areas, much less In front of someone's house or business. K. Yes, these unaffected smaller Inhabited vehicles would less likely cause the supposed road hazards, access problems, or sight distance issues while they are parked. 5. The city will abate no supposed concern about road hazards and access blockage caused by all shape and size of Commercial vehicles, which are by far the majority ofthe oversized vehicles on the road, many far larger than any ofthe largest known RV. A, The commercial truck sleeping cab exempted by this proposed ordinance is uniquely situated to carry out all of the violations the city purports to be concerned about with the large RVs. They are legitimized by commercial cover, they are exempt by the proposed ordinance, they are commonly the most fleeting transient vehicle dweller, they're only in a place to drop or pick up a load (and perhaps commit a little crime, and are long gone often ,« another state, before the police can say llckety-spiit). 6. The proposed ordinance doesn't address other vehicles that can be picking up or droonir,. goods at establishments which may house as well a driver/inhabitant. ' 7. The proposed ordinance doesn't address vehicles displaying commercial plates. lmp^Th^f™^fT?*?'''^^^^ exempt them from such local parking ordinances. 9. Police resources will be far more watered down if vehicle Inhabitants harden, learn and " T"f enforcement nightmare, costing the tax payer tens of thousands to Implement, and attempting to redundantly address violations that a^eadyaddresse^ 11. The City is ridiculing Itself by professing that people should not exercise their most fundamen al constitutional rights In order to allow and cooperate with police officers to In 12. The city is ridiculing Itself by claiming affected large RVs are the cause of blight and diminished quality of life In the city. RVs come In every shape and size and g datlon of beauty. Many RVs are far more appealing and attractive than any house in Carlsbad ani are actually an asset and a treasure for the city If It could ge, over Its hubris and conceit. Is'su'r^T'';,*'V'*? "P"^'""' <" "^'-^ed stance on the Issues - shooting Itself In the foot In regards to the results it hopes for with regards to al its purported concerns listed above, cost the tax payers dearly for its neceslt d l„d^^^^^^^^^^^^ ImaZl " '"'r ^' ^^orts, Invite several lawsu tt and elm n n^s^^^^^^ ^ gelding to reason and common sense, never mind to one's own well examined conscience, which should be the rh^Zrd""'^^^'^'-"^^^"-"- .ulrementtValre Signators to the foregoing document: "THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL, mO ALREADY HAS, MORPHED ANY SUPPOSED PROBLEM THE CITY AIMS TO ABATE BEYOND ITS STATED RESTRICTIONAL REACH" Bv: Carisbad Homeless Alliance liair: Richard A. Shapfro Chai Co-Chair: Darin HInes ^ ^ .A Dated: ///'V/S Dated Dated: Dated Ul ^ Dated Media Liaison: Arty SternlS^ Spokesman: Dennis Pinnick (J n Dated: / / BENEFITS OF INHABITED RVS ON THE STREETS At NICpHT 1. Communitv Securitv L^^ Police often request from the public to be their "eyes and ears." RVers are uniquely situated around the city at night, placed on the actual street, usually In places less populated or patrolled bythe police, thus when actual crime, such as theft, burglary, assault, vandalism, even hit and run, occurs and is in actual progress, an RVer can immediately notify the police by cell phone and the officers will be able to respond as it happens giving them far greater ability to catch the perpetrator(s) in the act. As well, unlike an occupant of a car, it Is very easy for an RVer to see out but very difficult for a perpetrator to see in at the RVer observing him. 2. Verv Environmentallv Friendly In light ofthe enlightened awareness of today's citizenry concerning our natural environment and resources, and a majority movement well under way to protect it for years now, RVs used as a 24 hour residence uses a mere fraction ofthe polluting resources a fixed residence consumes, be It a house or apartment. Irrefutably: Electricity use is a fraction. Natural gas or propane use Is a fraction. Gasoline use (provided It Is not moving) is a fraction. Water use is a fraction. Consumption of durable and disposable goods is a fraction as well. This is, of course, due to the nature ofa limited capacity unit as an RV. Moreover, due to their Inhabitants learning and soon consistently practicing, per said limitations, a very healthy dose of conservation, the environment is in very safe and sustainable hands with these people. 3. Contributes to Communitv Aesthetics Regardless of whether an RVer is living in a late model, or early model RV, many RVers dean up around their RV, even clean and pick up substantially around the area within which the RV is parked. This includes, but not limited to, sweeping up around the RV on the sidewalk and street. And, filling bags of ail types of garbage, some quite dangerous to the environment, people and animals alike, and placing them in the cit/s waste containers. 4. Shelters Otherwise Unshelterable Homeless Residents RVs provides a whole host of safety nets for residents who have lost their home, their job, their medical benefits, and other financial benefits, and who have become disabled, ill, suffer from some physical or mental condition, need to convalesce or rehabilitate. Provides specifically: (1) a place to store personal belongings, (2) a place to rest, (3) a place of privacy, (4) a place of security, (5) a place to store [perishable] food and cook it, (6) a safe place in from the weather, (7), means of transportation [primary or otherwise], (8) a place to maintain hygiene, (9) a place to carry on one's life in a dignified manner. 5. Contributes to the Economv Since most may have a very limited income, such as a government benefit, or a part-time minimum wage job, since they couldn't afford even renting a room, much less an apartment, they certainly need to purchase many life sustaining items which would occur usually in close proximity to where they park. 6. Distinguishes the Communitv in Which the RV Resides as one of Tolerance and Stance for Local and Actuallv Practiced Human Rights and Freedoms As more and more residents in the country are becoming homeless, more and more cities are passing laws against sitting and lying on sidewalks and in many other public spaces. Berkeley, California is the only cityto vote down a sit/lie law. This trend of discrimination, of course, includes RVs since RVs are a natural "second home" when no other alternative is viable. A community which recognizes the obvious economic conditions as it one-to-one effects the ability of residents to provide for basic human existence needs is a community of great maturity and valor. 7. Manv habitating RVers are More Than Willing, Able and Ready to Volunteer to Ensure Their Segment of the Population is Responsible and Contributory Habitating RVers have shown a keen interest in a sustained volunteer effort to monitor and gently correct any real issues that may arise with habitating RVers. This sustained effort can be implemented privately or jointly between them and the city. PROPOSAL REGARDING HABITATING RVERS AND ALL OTHER OVERNIGHT RV PUBUC PARKING 1. Support, with ail the faith and credit of the city, the proposed "Homeless Biii of Rights" (Assembly Biii 5, authored by Assemblyman Tom Amiano) now making its way through the Caiifornia Legislature. This bill will alleviate the pressure on Carlsbad having to take habitating RVers from other cities, one of its concerns for proposing its present RV ban. Obviously, once ali other cities must allow such habitating RVs to stay on their streets, any "overcrowding" issues here will be reduced to insignificance. 2. Table (put on hold) the proposed ordinance until a thorough and systematic survey has been completed contacting ali surrounding fixed residents and •businesses near known parked habitated RVs, requesting fundamentally the following information: A. Pros, benefits, or likes about RVs and/or their inhabitants who live in them. B. Cons, complaints, dislikes about RVs and/or their inhabitants who live in them. C. Anything further the fixed resident wishes to add on the subject. D. This survey can be done either by a committee of RV volunteers themselves and aione, or as a part of a joint effort with the city to so implement and receive back said information. 3. While the survey is being implemented, or after its completion, or upon rejecting the survey Idea In its entirety, reject the proposed ordinance and move forward with either of the two general paths below: 4. Simply continue to allow RV overnight parking on city streets subject to the general 72 hour parking duration limit and other specific regulating signage all vehicles are subject to. A. In addition to 4. above: Ifthe city has specific issues concerning road hazards or blockage to access of certain areas caused by RVs, adopt minimally restrictive ordinance(s) to address such issues at such locations and thereafter place appropriate signage. B. In addition to 3. and 4. above: If the city actually finds that there are RVers abusing its policy allowing them to remain on the streets for an approximately three day duration (usually by finding ways to grossly thwart this duration in order to stay at or near the same spot for weeks and months), then adopt an ordinance that regulates the distance from, and amount of days after, an RVer must remain away from the spot he was cited the 72 hour warning (similar to Oceanside's ordinance already addressing the exact same concern (CMC: ARTICLE X. Sec. 10.28.). This type of "stay away provision" accompanying the 72 hour warning citation would apply to all RVs except those known guests and residents of hotels and fixed residents. 5. Continue to allow fixed residents to park their RVs outside or near their homes subject only to the 72 hour law, existing regulating signage all vehicles are subject to and the two aforementioned (4.A, above) proposed RV ordinances to address access blockage and sight distance issues. 6. Continue to allow fixed hotel residents to park their RVs outside the hotel subject only to the 72 hour law, existing regulating signage all vehicles are subject to and the two aforementioned (4.A. above) proposed RV ordinances: to address access blockage and sight distance issues. 7. Continue to allow RVers traveling through who are not visiting a fixed residence or hotel to park on city streets subject only to the 72 hour law, existing regulating signage all vehicles are subject to and the two aforementioned (4.A. above) proposed RV ordinances: to address access blockage and sight distance Issues. 8. In the Altemative to 1. through 8.: Issue Permits, either free, or at a nominal or affordable charge, to a - (reasonable per population and land mass capacity) - limited amount of mobile (habitating) residents, with reasonable criteria for determining (state of) residency, accompanied by reasonable use conditions (amongst them: foiiowing ail existing state and local parking law), good for one year. 9. issue Temporary Permits to hotels to give out to their guests with RVs to park them at or near the hotel, accompanied by reasonable use conditions (amongst them: foiiowing all existing state and local parking law). Good for the guest's hotel stay duration. 10. Issue Permits either free, or at a nominal or affordable charge to RVers traveling through who are not visiting a fixed residence or hotel, to be issued by a 24 hour available govemmental agency of the city, within a reasonable amount of hours from the issuance ofthe otherwise payable citation issued for parking the RV on the street between 2am and Sam,, accompanied by reasonable use conditions (amongst them: following all existing state and local parking law), good for a selected duration of stay (days, week, month) 11. Issue Permits either free, or at a nominal or affordable charge to fixed residents, accompanied by reasonable use conditions (amongst them: following all existing state and local parking law), good for one year. 12. Issue Temporary Permits either free, or at a nominal or affordable charge to the guests of fixed residents, accompanied by reasonable use conditions (amongst them: following all existing state and local parking law) good for a selected duration of stay (days, week, month). 13. Only warning or payable citations may issue for parking of an RV on the street between the hours of 2am and Sam without the Appropriate Permit,, no towing permitted under this ban. 14. In addition: The city can establish a task force to Inquire Into private and public parking lots that could and would conceivably accommodate a certain number of overnight RV parking permits, and develop a plan for 'reasonable use conditions' between lot owner and lot user. These two altematives cover all possibilities with RV usage In the city, as well as addresses all legitimate concerns broached as the city's impetus for its initial contemplation forthe first (unofficial) proposed ordinance now before us. Any further or more general issues, that cannot genuinely be believed capable of being controlled by Permit or Ban, as dumping sewage, littering or criminal activity, already prohibited by state or local law, should be dealt with as a separate Issue by the police and the community. Bv: Carlsbad Homeless Alliance Co-Chair: Darin Hines S^retary: John FruscI Media Spokesman: Dennis Pinnick / Dated: ^A/^ Dated: j/^/Z Dated: [I^'^J/'^ Dated: //l±/f'} Dated Dated: //A^//3 DEMAND FOR HARD, COLD EVIDENCE TO CITY'S CLAIIVIS JUSTIFYING ITS PROPOSED RV BAN ORDINANCE JAN * ^ WHEREAS, Richard A. Shapiro has repeatedly requested from Transportat on DepaWnx.^;. Executive Brian Jones the actual evidence supporting the cit/s claims to justify Its propose? ordmance, and has received nothing but the Recreational and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance Memorandum of October 12, 2012 sent by Skip Hammann to the City Council. WHEREAS, Richard A. Shapiro, and Arty Stenberg, members of 'Carlsbad Homeless Alliance,' also have repeatedly requested the city council and/or the city manager and/or the Transportation Department to meet with them on this matter of evidence, other than a "no" from the Transportation Department, no reply has been forthcoming via a two month's effort to so seek, right up until the time the city Is slated to introduce and vote on the proposed ordinance (January 29, 2013). WHEREAS, Richard A. Shapiro after this repeated request and only receiving this Memo asked Executive Brian Jones If that was ali the evidence that was publlcally available to justify its proposed ordinance, to which he replied, "yes." WHEREAS, due to this apparent guarded and dismissive response, further probing herein is warranted: WHEREAS, (1) the city claims that there has been a sharp increase In Citizen and business owner complaints, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via sworn document, altemative media, I.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (2) the city claims that there are Few laws addressing RV problems for Carlsbad Police, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's evidence supporting this via swom statement by an authorized city official that the penal code, vehicle code, health and safety code, civil code of procedure, civil code, govemment code, etc., and/or Carlsbad Municipal Code does not contain adequate provisions to deal with (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) herein addressed. WHEREAS, (3) the city claims that RV occupants are not cooperating with Police in order they receive their camping ticket or get run out of town, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legislative authority necessarily waiving these people's fifth amendment right to remain silent and their fourth amendment right to demand a law enforcement officer obtain a warrant before entry into their motor vehicle. WHEREAS, (4) the city ciaims that RVers are Parking for too long in a neighborhood, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members can agree occasionally that this is in fact the case, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on forming a separate ordinance addressing exclusively the problem of RVers remaining in a particular neighborhood for too long as is already addressed directly in Oceanside's IVIunicipal Code, ARTICLE X. Sec. 10.28 for several years now. WHEREAS, (5) the city claims that RVers may Block sight distance at driveways and intersections, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members agree that this in fact can certainly be a problem, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on forming a separate ordinance addressing exclusively this problem. WHEREAS, (6) the city ciaims that RVers have Blocked access to residential, business and tourist areas, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed such drastic impediments to access, it demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via sworn document, alternative media, i.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (6) the city claims that RVers have Blocked access to residential, business and tourist areas, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed such drastic impediments to access, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on forming a separate ordinance addressing exclusively this problem. WHEREAS, (7) the city claims that RVers are causing [unspecified] traffic hazards, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed such conduct from RVers outside the norm, it demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via sworn document, alternative media, i.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (7) the city claims that RVers are causing [unspecified] traffic hazards, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed such conduct outside the norm, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on forming a separate ordinance addressing exclusively such problem(s) vis-^-vis state law already having an appropriate law(s) in place and/or so preempts local legislation in such area of concern. WHEREAS, (8) the city claims that there has been illegal sewage dumping by RVers, and Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this, it demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via sworn document, altemative media, i.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (8) the city claims that there has been illegal sewage dumping by RVers, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on enforcing state law, Health and Safety Code §§ 18871-18871.11, et al.. WHEREAS, (9) the city claims that there has been illegal littering by RVers, and Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via swom document, alternative media, i.e audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (9) the city claims that there has been illegal littering by RVers, and that Cadsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this, CaHsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's legal prohibition on enforcing state law, ????? WHEREAS, (10) the city claims that, the presence In the city of RVs presents blight, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this so called eyesore predicament, it d emands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via swom document, alternative media, i.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (10) the city claims that the presence in the city of RVs presents blight, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this so called eyesore predicament, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands a legal definition of what the city has determined is vehicle blight, and state law granting it the power to enact local ordinance to ban a certain type of vehicle due to aesthetics. WHEREAS, (11) the city claims that there is increased crime reports where RVs tend to park, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this increase in crime where RVs tend to park, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the City's evidence supporting this, whether via swom document, altemative media, i.e., audio or video, or eye witness. WHEREAS, (11) the city claims that there Is increased crime reports where RVs tend to park, and that Carlsbad Homeless Alliance members have not witnessed this increase in crime where RVs tend to park, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance demands to review the legal discretion granted It by state or federal law that allows it to preemptively target an entire suspected class of occupants, be it occupying a set of vehicles, a group of apartment complexes, or a neigliborhood of houses to prevent the source of suspected crime. Bv: Carlsbad Homeless Allianrp Pg^^^. —^ - , Dated: / / / ,// / w Chair: Richard A. Shapiro/ ' ~/ / ..^ Dated: • '/// 'S Secretary: Diane Likens I am Anita Lewis. My husband and I are Carlsbad residents and owners of a 40' motorhome that we store in San Marcos. Our home is off Caminito Estrada m Aha Mira 2, a condominium complex. We do not believe you have taken into consideration the complexities of parking a large RV in or near a condominium or apartment complex. When loading or unloading, we are not able to park our motorhome "adjacent to our residence, or within four hundred (400) feet of that residence." as the ordinance now reads. Our condo is situated at the end of a narrow driveway approximately 350' from Caminito Estrada. However, we are not able to park on Caminito Estrada due to the curb configuration and the narrowness of the road and the traffic hazard we would present if we did attempt to park there. We park on the east side of Paso del Norte, next to the Poinsettia Park designated habitat area to avoid creating a traffic hazard for cars pulling in or out of Caminito Estrada and/or the driveway entrances to the condos on the west side of the road. A straight line measurement from our condo to the nearest parking on the east side of Paseo del Norte is over 400'. We live on one of the closer driveways to Paseo del Norte. RV owners living on the driveways further west off of either Caminito Estrada or Caminito Madrigal would be well over 400' to even the west side of Paseo del Norte. If an RV ordinance is to be enacted, we believe that the city needs to amend the proposed ordinance to take into consideration situations such as those existing in our and other condo & apartment complexes. We would suggest that in these situations, a distance of 1000' to 1500' be pennitted, or the proposed ordinance could be amended to include something like "In the case of condominium or apartment complexes, the Oversized Vehicle shall park at a street curb within four hundred (400) feet of the complex property line." This would alleviate potential traffic hazards caused by parking large RVs on narrow streets or too close to comers and/or driveways. 1. I, about a week ago, personally passed out very neutral surveys, to be returned by email, simply asking residents and business owners for actual, substantive problems they have with RVs or RVers. These Surveys were passed out at EVERY single resident, business, church, convalescent home, medical facility, car dealership, recycle plant, sewage plant, hotel, etc., in the immediate surrounding area of Avenida Encinas and Garfield and Beech ave. Pve received not one response in a week. It is commonly understood and agreed in our society that most people who do write, and speak out toward police and the government have something they are upset about or want to complain about. Far fewer people, it could be reasonably agreed, contact police and their government about the good things they like about people, their actions, or their property. Given their "on a silver platter" way to complain to an organization that can actually do something about it, "Carlsbad Homeless Alliance," I Ve not received one answer to our survey from anyone. Reasonable inference of this is that in fact there are not the levels of residents, if any, complaining about RVs or Rvers the city has stated to the public. In fact, as I passed these surveys out, the officials at Kaiser were not aware of any problems other than parking too near their entrance, and were in fact outraged about the city's claims and targeting of these people for no reason. Similar reaction was had at the car dealerships and the hotels. There, no one knew there was a problem. One young gated community resident mother immediately stated to me, after informing her about what the survey was about: ''Oh,I hate those RVerSy^^ saying, ^^there's a sex offender in one of them you know. Lastly, in my canvassing of these surveys, I witnessed one RV leaking water. This of course can be taken care of by issuance of one fix-it ticket, repaired, and signed off by a police officer. 2. About a week ago, I made a "freedom of information act" request of the city to produce all documents concerning the impetus for this proposed ordinance, most notably, all the hard, cold evidence giving rise to the city's short list of violations they claim warranting such ordinance. I will apparently not receive that until after this council meeting has occurred. 3. Once the Carlsbad Homeless Alliance receives, if any, this information, we will analyze and investigate all claims to see which are real and which are unfounded. Now to the proposed ordinance: Proposed Ordinance No. 10.40.180 ("the RV Ordinance") is unnecessary and concerns used to justify its passage could be better addressed through other means. • Concems of increased crime and illegal dumping of sewage are unsubstantiated. Despite repeated requests to transportation officials, we have not seen any data supporting these claims. A Freedom of Information Act Request has been filed with the city for all data related to the proposed ordinance. • Further, the dumping of sewage from RVs and mobile homes is already regulated under the Califomia Health and Safety Code (section 18871- 18871.4). • Inadequate sight distance at intersections could be better addressed by an ordinance that specifically prohibits parking RVs and oversize vehicles within 10 feet or more of an intersection. The RV Ordinance is discriminatory, violates civil and human rights, and perpetuates homelessness. • Ordinance 10.40.180 defines a "resident" who is permitted to obtain a waiver for themselves or a guest as "a person who customarily resides and maintains a place of abode or who owns land within the City of Carlsbad." Law enforcement may interpret this language to exclude homeless people, even those with longstanding ties to the community. • Depriving Carlsbad residents whose only shelter is an RV of this protection violates basic human dignity. It also deprives them of safe shelter where they can perform basic human functions with some measure of privacy and securely store their possessions, including identification documents and medication. • Criminalizing the ovemight parking of RVs will perpetuate homelessness, not solve it. This ordinance will make it harder for this population to access services that are intended to improve their ability to move out of homelessness, such as employment, counseling, and other social services. Homeless persons who are cited will develop criminal records and may incur fines or jail time, making it difficult to secure or maintain housing and employment. Not only are such ordinances criminalizing homelessness counterproductive, but these are also the most expensive way to address homelessness. • Studies have demonstrated that criminalization is more expensive than providing permanent supportive housing or temporary shelter. For example: o In Eugene, Oregon, incarceration costs $379 per day while the average rent for the city is $774 per month, o In Charlotte, North Carolina, the Sheriffs Department found that housing a person in the county jail costs approximately $107 per night, compared to shelter costs ranging from $16.50 to $38 per night. o A statewide survey in Utah found that the annual costs for a person in permanent supportive housing are about $6,100, as compared to $25,500 in the Salt Lake County Jail, $35,000 in state prisons, and $146,730 in the State Mental Hospital. • Criminalization measures also burden the criminal justice system by having the homeless, who are generally nonviolent offenders, taking up space in jails that could better be filled by those who commit more serious crimes. Individuals placed in supportive housing have fewer medical costs, particularly those related to mental health and rehabilitation, and require fewer emergency medical services. For the above reasons, along with those in the numerous letters, emails and phone calls the city has received in opposition to this proposed ordinance, we ask that you either table this proposed ordinance until the facts are in and substantiated, or reject said proposed ordinance in lieu of more effective and precise legal remedies in addressing the real concerns ostensibly targeted by this measure. SURVEY ON MANDATORY LIVING IN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES January 22, 2013 Dear Sir or Madam, The Carlsbad Homeless Alliance ("CHA") is doing a systematic survey in areas known for RV parking. Many Recreational Vehicles are utilized by people needing to live in them as a last resort shelter. This is due in large part to the perpetual recession that is currently taking place and is forecasted to continue indefinitely. The regular citizens residing in these vehicles do so in order to survive these very volatile times and are loyal and law abiding members of society. The CHA members wish to know about actual problems or offenses deriving from this segment of our city's population so that we may address peacefully but firmly such real problems head on with any individual violator(s) of our group. One of our goals is to blend into our community with respect and deference for all objectively balanced and reasonable concerns. We would also hope for the same respect and deference from our neighbors. Our ultimate aim is to foster and pursue a healthy sense of live and let live while enjoying civility, mutual consideration, and even kindness for all affected during these trying and difficult financial times. We sincerely appreciate and humbly ask for a timely response to the three questions below via email (to be sent to: buzzl857^vahoo.com) or by phone (760 681-4926), Richard Shapiro, chair of this organization: Please put at the top of your response: "ANSWER TO SURVEY" 1. What are the pros, benefits, or likes about RVs and/or their inhabitants who live in them? 2. What are the cons, complaints, dislikes about RVs and/or their inhabitants who live in them? 3. Is there anything further you wish to add regarding this subject? Sincerely, Carlsbad Homeless Alliance All Receive-Agenda Item For flie Infomiation ofthe- Mr. Bryan Jones: ^^^^T^CityXfan.ger Old Carlsbad and the rest of Carlsbad do not have the same size streets. Old Carlsbad side streets are not wide enough to accommodate parking for RV's and boats. (Wilson St, Forest St. Highland & North end of Pio Pico).to name a few. There have been times that we have to stop[ or slow down for cars to pass by, and when there are RV's parked it makes it worst. Can't see around them, blocks the view of on coming cars. Take up additional parking, and devaluates our property to see RV's and boats parked on our streets. I came to a stop on the comer of Pio Pico and Yourell and made a left tum and to my surprise I could see all the way down to Las Flores. The oversized RV that was parked near the comer for the past three years was GONE. I recommend NO PARIONG of RV's and Boats in Old Carlsbad. I was just informed that the 35FT RV is BACK at the comer of Yourell & Pio Pico. From: Former RV and boat owners that never parked them on the streets January 20 2013. Date: //sg//3 DMributibii: ^ City Clerk _ Asst. City Cleric _ DsputyCtorlc _ Book Oversized or Recreational Vehicle Ordinance Bryan Jones Deputy Transportation Director 1 Background •Concerns by residents and business owners •Public health and safety issues •Quality of life issues 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Workshop on October 16, 2012 •Council provided direction to draft a city-wide ordinance •Council provided direction for exemptions for residents, out-of-town visitors of residents, and visitors staying in motels and hotels •Exemptions require permits 19 Permit •Free •Issued at the Faraday building •Must be on display on the front dash while oversized or recreational vehicle is on public streets 20 A Resident of Carlsbad •4 periods of up to 72 consecutive hours per calendar month •Vehicle must be absent from location for minimum 24 hours between consecutive periods •Parked legally within 400 feet of residence •Valid for one year 21 An Out of Town Visitor of Carlsbad •Issued to resident of Carlsbad for their visitor •Valid for a maximum of 72 hours •Parked legally within 400 feet of residence •No more than 6 out-of-town visitor permits per calendar year 22 A Guest of a Hotel or Motel •Permit issued to hotel/motel for their paying guests •Only if oversized vehicle cannot be accommodated on private property •Must be paying guest of hotel/motel and reside within hotel/motel • Good for duration of stay at hotel/motel •Parked legally within 400 feet of business 23 24 Permit Does Not Allow for •camping •lodging •sleeping •residing or for accommodation purposes Currently, per the Carlsbad Municipal Code, sleeping in one’s vehicle is not allowed. Outreach & Written Responses •Approximately 125 written responses •Approximately 90 took a position of support or opposed to the ordinance •Approximately 70 percent in support/30 percent opposed 25 Most Frequent Questions/Comments •Who and how will it be enforced? •Needs to include public parking lot restrictions. •What is the cost of the permits? •Needs to include trailers, boats, and semi-trucks. •Where will homeless people living in vehicles be accommodated? •What are the penalties? 26 Where are Oversized Vehicles Allowed •During the day within the City of Carlsbad on public streets •State campgrounds •Private business parking lots that allow overnight parking •Storage facilities •Private property side yard 27 Questions? 28