March 17, 2026
TO: City Council
REQUESTED BY: Travis Randel, Deputy City Manager, Development Services APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Introduction of Revised Ordinance No. 25-07 to Amend Section 10.16.210 (Commercial Vehicles)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce revised Ordinance No. 25-07 entitled:
An Ordinance of the City of San Jacinto Amending Section
10.16.210 (Commercial Vehicles) of Chapter 16 (Parking and Traffic Control) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the San Jacinto Municipal Code, Relating to the Regulation of Commercial Vehicle Parking and the Establishment of a Limited Exemption for Historic Commercial Vehicles.
BACKGROUND:
On May 6, 2025, the City Council considered a policy discussion item regarding whether to maintain the City’s longstanding prohibition on the parking and storage of commercial vehicles in or adjacent to residential zoning districts, or to direct staff to prepare a narrowly tailored exemption for historically registered commercial vehicles. Following discussion, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a limited exemption, subject to clear standards addressing parcel size, setbacks, screening, vehicle limitations, and operational restrictions.
On August 19, 2025, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 25-07, which amended Section
10.16.210 (Commercial Vehicles) of the San Jacinto Municipal Code to update the definition of “Commercial Vehicle” and establish a limited exemption for Historic Commercial Vehicles in the Residential Rural (RR) zoning district. The introduction was approved on a vote of 3 in favor and 2 abstentions, subject to specific revisions identified by the City Council.
At the September 2, 2025, meeting, during consideration of the second reading, the item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Ayala, who requested that the item be remanded to staff for further refinement. The motion to remand the ordinance for additional review and modification passed on a 4–1 vote.
Councilmembers identified several areas where they would like additional clarification or modification, including the complexity of the code language, the sufficiency and clarity of paving standards, and the screening provisions. Since that meeting, staff has conducted individual meetings with Councilmembers to better understand specific concerns and requested changes. Based on those discussions, staff has prepared a revised Exhibit “A” reflecting the modifications requested by the City Council, as well as several technical refinements identified during continued review.
The revised ordinance before the City Council incorporates those requested changes while preserving the core policy framework previously discussed: maintaining the City’s general prohibition on commercial vehicle parking in residential areas, while allowing a limited and carefully regulated exemption for Historic Commercial Vehicles on qualifying Residential Rural parcels.
DISCUSSION:
Following the September 2, 2025 remand, staff undertook a focused review of the ordinance language to address the specific concerns raised by Councilmembers. The revised Exhibit “A” reflects both Council-requested modifications and several technical clarifications identified by staff during continued refinement of the document.
Council-Requested Revisions
Parking Surface Requirements – Section 10.16.210.H.1.ix. Councilmembers expressed concern regarding the clarity and sufficiency of the paving standards. In particular, questions were raised about whether alternative materials such as road base or decomposed granite would be acceptable, and if so, to what standard.
Councilmember Ayala requested that alternative materials be clearly listed. Councilmembers Sanchez and Vandever requested that the section be better defined, though no specific dimensional requirement was proposed. Councilmember Ledezma suggested a minimum of five to six inches of road base.
Staff consulted with the City Engineer regarding appropriate standards. Based on that review, the City Engineer determined that three inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base is sufficient to prevent rutting and degradation under the anticipated vehicle loads. Accordingly, the ordinance has been revised to expressly include three inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base as an acceptable all-weather surface, along with concrete and asphalt. This revision provides clarity, establishes an objective standard, and maintains enforceability.
Screening Requirements – Section 10.16.210.H.1.xi. Councilmembers Ayala and Ledezma requested removal of the phrase “and may be subject to periodic inspection by the City.” Staff supports this change. The Municipal Code already authorizes inspections as part of general code enforcement authority, and retaining that phrase within this subsection was redundant. The language has therefore been removed.
Additionally, Councilmember Ledezma requested that “buildings” be explicitly identified as acceptable screening materials. While it was always staff’s intent that a legally permitted structure could satisfy screening requirements, that intent was not expressly stated. The revised language now clarifies that screening may be achieved through solid fencing, decorative walls, landscaping, or buildings. This clarification ensures that placement of a vehicle behind a compliant structure satisfies the screening requirement.
Zoning Clearance Application – Section 10.16.210.H.2.v. Councilmember Ayala requested that the ordinance explicitly reference payment of the applicable application fee as part of the Zoning Clearance requirements. While payment of the fee was implied, it was not expressly stated. The revised language now includes payment of the applicable application fee as a required component of the Zoning Clearance process, providing procedural clarity.
Staff-Initiated Clarifications and Technical Refinements In addition to Council-directed revisions, staff identified several technical improvements to strengthen clarity and avoid potential ambiguity.
Addition of Definition – “Historic Commercial Vehicle” (Section 10.16.210.A.4). During prior public discussion, members of the community correctly noted that the California Department of Motor Vehicles does not recognize a distinct registration category titled “Historic Commercial Vehicle.” Under state law, vehicles may be registered as “Historic Vehicles” pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 5004, but the DMV does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial vehicles within that designation.
The policy issue before the City, however, is not whether a vehicle is historic; it is whether a vehicle is commercial in nature and of a size and scale that may create compatibility concerns within residential neighborhoods. Large commercial vehicles, such as semi-truck cabs or heavyduty service vehicles, present different visual, operational, and land use impacts than standard passenger automobiles, even if both qualify for historic registration.
Because the Municipal Code regulates commercial vehicles based on their design, weight, and physical characteristics, staff is recommending that the City establish a local definition of “Historic Commercial Vehicle” to clearly distinguish between (1) standard historic passenger vehicles, which are not subject to this section, and (2) commercial vehicles that have become historic and are no longer used for business purposes.
Accordingly, Section 10.16.210.A.4 has been added to define a “Historic Commercial Vehicle” as a Commercial Vehicle, as defined in the Municipal Code, that is registered with the California DMV as a Historic Vehicle pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 5004 and is not operated for compensation, hire, or in furtherance of a business enterprise.
This approach ensures that the exemption remains narrowly focused on large commercial vehicles that have been converted to historic use, while avoiding unintended application of this section to conventional historic automobiles, such as classic passenger cars, which are already permitted in residential areas and do not present the same land use concerns.
Capitalization of Defined Term. Because “Historic Commercial Vehicle” is now formally defined, staff has revised the ordinance text to capitalize the term throughout Section 10.16.210 where appropriate. This drafting convention clearly signals that the phrase is a defined term within the Municipal Code.
Conforming Revisions to DMV Registration Language – Section H.1.iii. To maintain consistency with the new definition, Section H.1.iii has been revised to remove reference to “Historic Commercial” DMV registration and instead reference DMV Historic Vehicle registration. This ensures alignment with actual DMV terminology.
Removal of Redundant Fee Reference. Section 10.16.210.H.2 previously referenced that the application fee would be “as established by City Council resolution.” Because all City fees are already adopted by resolution, this phrase was redundant. It has been removed for clarity and consistency with standard drafting practices.
Summary
The revised ordinance reflects the direction provided by the City Council during introduction, incorporates the concerns raised during the September 2 remand, and clarifies areas where ambiguity could have led to confusion or enforcement challenges. The revisions improve readability, provide objective technical standards, and strengthen the legal defensibility of the exemption while preserving the core policy framework previously discussed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed ordinance has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council finds that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA under Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and does not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA. In addition, the ordinance qualifies for the “common sense” exemption under Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance does not authorize new development, grading, or construction, nor does it modify land use designations, zoning entitlements, or density. Instead, it creates a narrowly tailored exemption for a limited number of Historic Commercial Vehicles on qualifying rural residential parcels, along with clarifying updates to the definition of “commercial vehicle.” FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund resulting from the adoption of this ordinance. The processing of vehicle registrations and any associated site plan reviews will be handled by existing Community Development staff as part of routine operations. Any code enforcement related to violations of this section would similarly be addressed within the City’s current enforcement framework.
ATTACHMENTS:
Revised Ordinance No. 25-07
Exhibit "A" - Recommended
Exhibit "A" - Redline Strikeout
May 6 2025 City Council Staff Report
Comments on Historic Vehicle Parking Ordinance
August 19, 2025 City Council Staff Report
September 2, 2025 City Council Staff Report