2003-0046 - City of Sunnyvale Study Issue - Recreational Vehicles, Trailers and Boats Parking within the Front yard. This study examines the aesthetic impacts of recreational type vehicles, trailers, and boats parked within the front yard of residential zones. The study determines whether the City's municipal code requirements for front yard parking are sufficient or if the code requirements should be modified in order to meet other city goals and design guidelines. (Also to City Council on 10/21/03)

Steve Lynch, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He gave a brief summary of the study, its evolution and purpose. He noted the expressed concerns of residents to RVs parked parallel to the street in the front yards noting safety and aesthetics. He reported the research conducted which indicates that there is projected increase of RV sales as more citizens travel within the US, a reaction to the 9/11 event, the aging baby boomer population as owning RVs and the lower interest rates making it more feasible and attractive to own an RV. He further noted the surrounding cities' current parking restrictions and that there are five cities - Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Saratoga do not allow parking in the front yards and that San Jose and Cupertino allow parking perpendicular to the street. Staff also reported that the field survey conducted by staff indicated that there are approximately 2,000 RVs in Sunnyvale (10% of residents). He reported that staff finds it appropriate to modify the existing Municipal Code to require all recreational vehicles, trailers and boats to be parked or stored perpendicular to the street. This modification would address the majority of the aesthetic and safety concerns. It would not impose a significant hardship to Sunnyvale residents and would only impact a minority of Sunnyvale residents owning RVs, boats and trailers. Staff also recommended making the effective date of March 1, 2004 to allow affected residents time to comply with the new ordinance.

Trudi Ryan clarified that the 2000 RV estimated is based on 10% of 21,000 single-family residences and not from the total population.

Comm. Simons asked whether staff considered grandfathering existing RVs. Ms. Ryan responded that it was discussed but was not included in the staff report as staff felt that the number is relatively small and that it would be difficult administratively over time to prove that prior to the effective date of the ordinance there is legal a non-conformity.

Comm. Swegles inquired whether staff looked into the possibility of using city owned small parcels to be used as storage facilities as discussed in the study session. Staff responded that it was not fully explored and it could be included in the motion. However, he noted that there were not enough city owned parcels to accommodate the existing RVs that are currently parked in the front yard area.

Ms. Ryan added that there is a potential study issue for a particular piece of land located at Fair Oaks and Persian Drive, but it was not included in the scope of this study issue. She added that there are not many city owned properties to be used as storage. However, as Steve Lynch noted, the Commission could include it in the motion.

Comm. Swegles inquired whether during the survey, if staff found anyone living in any of the RVs. Staff responded no as it would take sometime and added that a windshield survey method was used in the survey making it difficult to ascertain.

Vice Chair Moylan followed Comm. Swegles' inquiry whether there are any significant problems in the city with the RVs being used as an accessory living unit. Staff responded that according to Neighborhood Preservation there are no significant complaints and added that there is an existing code prohibiting the use of an RV as a living space.

Chair Babcock asked what is the distance allowed for perpendicular parking away from the sidewalk. Staff responded that the driveway is typically setback 11 feet from the face of the curb. Ms. Ryan added that the code states that a vehicle cannot block a public sidewalk. In single-family zones, the driveway is usually 20 feet, however, there are situations where there are monolithic sidewalks with an additional 5.5 feet and these cases it is legal to park provided they are not blocking the sidewalk.

Chair Babcock asked if a condition could be added that hitches do not block or protrude the public sidewalk. Ms. Ryan responded that currently it is prohibited as it encroaches into the public sidewalk.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Art Kushner, resident, presented a Powerpoint presentation and emphasized that his concerns are not about RVs but rather parking orientation of the RVs. He showed some photographs of RVs where the orientation supports his concerns on the visual appearance, overwhelming size relative to the size of the house, blocking the view of the home and neighborhood safety. He noted that these RVs could potentially be a factor in the decline of property values. He commented that perpendicular parking is acceptable as recommended by staff. He urged the Planning Commission to make the proposed modifications to the existing code.

Ernie Willard, resident, agreed with the staff report about the increase of RV sales and echoed Mr. Kushner's comments. He commented that the City has a weak code causing a lot of trouble for Glencoe Court residents. He urged the Commission to support staff's recommendation.

Larry Brendlen, resident, was impressed with the report but was not pleased with the conclusion and the rationale for the proposed perpendicular parking. He urged the Commission to prohibit parking motorhomes or RVs in the driveway as they affect property values around the neighborhood and noted the cost of storage was small compared to other costs.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Franklin whether the $90 per month storage fee is still the current cost. Mr. Franklin responded that the cost noted was about two years ago and prior to the meeting he spoke to the operator, the cost is increasing. There is turnover, however, there is a waiting list.

Robert Harms, resident, commented that it is important to preserve one's neighborhood and that allowing parking of RVs, boats or trailers in the front yard demeans and is a blight to the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to modify the existing code.

Lee Boyd, resident, cited some issues about RVs such as being used for storage or a workshop and on-street parking in excess of 72 hours which is in violation of the code. He stated that he has been proactive in trying to address these code violations to no avail. He stated that moving the RVs to the driveways would become more hazardous. He suggested the following - 1) to be proactive in enforcing the 72 hours parking limitations, 2) to institute a law prohibiting blocking the sidewalks, 3) to tow away vehicles in violations of these codes and 4) for the City to provide a space for storage at a moderate price.

Comm. Simons asked for clarification of staff about the code restriction of 72 consecutive hours. Staff responded that vehicles are tagged giving the violators the opportunity to fix the violation. Ms. Ryan added the violation is for vehicles parked in one location for 72 hours without moving and that details of the process are not available to staff as the enforcement is from a different department.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Boyd about the dimensions of the trailers. Mr. Boyd responded that the trailer that is being used as storage or workshop is approximately 10 feet high and 12 feet wide. Comm. Swegles commented that his neighborhood worked with Public Works Department in putting a sign prohibiting parking of certain sizes of trailers or RVs and suggested doing the same.

Comm. Chu asked staff if the code requires that the vehicle be moved at a certain distance that is parked in the same spot for 72 consecutive hours. Staff responded that the code requires that the vehicle be moved substantially from its original place with no specific distance and cannot be re-parked at the same location.

Walt Likens, resident, commented on the photographs presented and stated that he sees no safety concerns. He was opposed to code modifications. He stated that his trailer is set-up for life support because Public Safety is unable to supply the proper equipment to meet his needs during an emergency.

Don Sarallo, resident, stated that the existing regulation is sufficient. He understands that trailers should not be used as an accessory living area but could have guests use the RV or trailer for 72 hours. He asked about the 11 feet setback. He stated that a six feet height restriction would be too restrictive for many types of vehicles. He stated that any added cost to maintain one's RV is a bump. He further stated that he has not seen too many residents objecting to the existing code but one person about a motorhome parked parallel in front of an open house. He felt that the only issue is health and safety. He agreed that anything that blocks the sidewalk is objectionable. The RVs should not be used as extra living space and hidden away is acceptable.

Vice Chair Moylan asked the speaker if his RV is parked perpendicular. Mr. Sarallo responded yes. Vice Chair Moylan then commented that he would not be affected with the proposed modification. Mr. Sarallo said yes.

Comm. Chu commented that the speaker's motorhome is parked to the side of the house.

Ms. Ryan clarified that the 11 feet is the distance from the curb to the property line, which typically includes a sidewalk and a landscape strip. She noted that the length of the driveway is independent of the distance of the property line to the street travel way.

Sakera Julien, resident, stated that she moved to Sunnyvale as she wants to have a nice place and a quiet court with little traffic. She stated that she does not have anything against RVs but rather the parking orientation causing safety concerns. She commented that the proposed option seems to be a better & safe option to address her safety concerns.

Susan Morales, resident, stated that she is a proud owner of an RV and that RVs are not an eyesore. She stated that she parka RVs parallel in front of her house in a safe manner and she has not received any complaints. She stated that she has used her RV during emergencies as well as assisted her neighborhood during a neighborhood emergency. She urged the Commission not to amend the code.

Matt Moniz, resident, complimented staff on the staff report and agreed that there will be more RVs coming to Sunnyvale. He stated that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and it would be difficult to control or administer aesthetic requirements. He strongly recommended to grandfather existing RVs in Sunnyvale as changing the code would be a substantial burden to some families. He urged the Commission not to waste any more time studying this item.

Albert Haissman, resident, stated that he created the issue about the RVs. He stated that prior to purchasing his RV, he received an approval and that his RV is in compliance with the regulations, it does not create a hazardous condition nor disturb anyone. He stated that the main issue is that since his wife started a day care center, they have been subjected to scrutiny and complaints. He urged the Commission to adopt a grandfather clause.

Roger Hartman, resident, stated that his RV has been parked perpendicular to the street for 12 years. He further stated that there are very few people who can access their back yard for storage. He noted that there is no space in the City to use as storage facility. He stated that aesthetics would be difficult to regulate. He was opposed to further regulations and urged to keep the existing ordinance as it is.

David Warbuton, resident, stated that rent in Alviso is $130 a month. He urged the Commission not to change the regulations and that it is not a good idea to prohibit parallel parking. He stated that most RV owners are on a fixed income and it would be a financial burden to change the code as recommended. He recommended that the Commission consider a grandfather clause should they consider amending the regulations. He was strongly opposed to code amendments.

Michael Shanahan, resident, stated that he attended the August meeting and the problem was in Glencoe Court and not the entire City. He further stated that RVs have equipment that could be used in an emergency. He commented that he is not pleased to be told that one can afford to pay $90 a month for storage. He stated that Sunnyvale is the best place to live and because one person wants to change the code and was not happy with the aesthetics of one of the RVs, does not warrant a code change for the entire city. He suggested that if the code is amended, grandfathering should happen.

Donald Schulz, resident, commented that the statement that home values will be affected by the presence of RVs is not true. He stated that "aesthetically pleasing or acceptable" is determined individually. The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. He recommended looking at each individual problem and come to a compromise. He also recommended grandfathering.

Dane Beezley, resident, stated that he is against any further study as it is a waste of time. He commented that there is only a handful of people who have issues. He stated that existing codes are already addressing the issues raised. He expressed his concerns that emending the code would not be fair, could be a potential hardship to some RV, boat and trailer owners and that the storage rental fee is costly.

Jim Mekis, resident, stated that Sunnyvale is a beautiful city and wants to keep it that way. He commented on one of the RVs parked in his neighborhood appears to be another living space of the house and there are vehicles that are being moved after 72 hours and then come back. He urged the Commission to enforce the existing code and to get the violators to be in compliance.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Mekis if he has notified Public Safety and Neighborhood Preservation to address his concerns. Mr. Mekis responded that Public Safety cannot do anything about it as long as it is moved within the time period and he added that he will contact Neighborhood Preservation about the use of the trailer as another room.

Ron Gilbert, resident, stated that he moved to Sunnyvale because it is a beautiful city. He commented that he supports RVs and that he owns a motorhome that is currently parked along his side yard. He urged the Commission to think about the older generation of the City as modification to the existing code would affect them.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Gilbert whether his motorhome is parked perpendicular to the street. Mr. Gilbert responded that he has a corner lot, so it depends. To his point of view, the motorhome is parked to his side yard.

Steve Magiala, resident, commented that he has a fixed income and that he would not be able to afford any additional cost to maintain his motorhome to be in compliance with the proposed code modification. He stated that he was able to use his RV during emergency needs. He also stated that RVs could be taken care of keep it beautiful. He commented that the City cannot regulate aesthetics and that he is opposed to any code changes.

Michael Flores, resident and City Council candidate, commented that grandfathering is not going to work. He added that there is no viable place in Sunnyvale to use as storage making it impractical. He stated that there is no impact to parallel parking and that parking perpendicularly to the street would create another problem. He agreed with the conditions, but more conditions such as aesthetics will create more problems down the line.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Moylan made a motion on Item #2003-0046 to recommend to City Council Alternative #1 in accordance with staff recommendations and that staff explore city owned land for storage use. Chair Babcock seconded.

Comm. Moylan commented that the changes to the existing code would only affect those RVs, boats and trailers that are currently parked in the front yard parked parallel on the street. He stated that the amendment would make the regulation consistent with. He added that aesthetics could be regulated. He concluded that in addition to the modification to the code, to explore the idea of finding a space for storage facility.

Comm. Simons asked clarification of staff whether the amendments would affect those vehicles that are parked in the side yard in a corner lot. Staff responded that the amendments are only for those parked in the front yard and not the reducible front yard or the sideyard.

Comm. Simons asked for a friendly amendment to extend the effective date 7 years to give existing owners more time to transition. The maker did not accept the amendment.

Comm. Simons expressed his concerns with the short transition period as well the good neighbor relationship.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment to have the effective date of the ordinance to October 1, 2005. The maker accepted the amendment.

Comm. Swegles offered a friendly amendment for staff to explore the possibility of storage facility. Vice Chair Moylan responded that it is included in the motion.

Comm. Chu did not support the friendly amendment extending the effective to September 1, 2005. He felt that it is too long and that March 2004 is too short a time.

Chair Babcock as the second preferred to have the effective date for existing RVs, trailers and boats for 15 months from the reading of the Ordinance noting it would be more than adequate and extending it longer might create more neighborhood problems. The maker accepted the amendment for the effective date to be January 1, 2005.

Ms. Ryan asked for clarification on whether the motion is an overall effective date or an amortization period for non-conforming properties. Chair Babcock clarified that the code would be effective right away and the date is for amortization.

FINAL MOTION:

Vice Chair Moylan made a motion on Item #2003-0045 to recommend to City Council Alternative #1 in accordance with staff recommendations with an amortization date of January 1, 2005 and that staff explore city owned land for storage sites. Chair Babcock seconded.

Motion carried 7-0.

Ms. Ryan stated the item will be considered by City Council on Tuesday, October 21, 2003.