EnforcementOnsiteParkingCCmtg3-20-23(ls)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
Ma
rch 20, 2023
TO
: City Council
F
ROM: Department of Environmental Services
S
UBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON ENFORCEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL
ONSITE PARKING STANDARD S INCLUDING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
t is recommended that the City Council provide direction on the enforcement of residential onsite parking standards.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
T
he County of Ventura adopted Ordinance 2130 in December 1968, which prohibited the parking in front and side yard setbacks and applied to what is now the City of Simi Valley. Upon incorporation in October 1969, the City brought over those provisions, which remained in place until the City Council made modifications to the Simi Valley Municipal Code in 1986 to expand parking options to allow for parking of vehicles in the side yard setbacks and to allow for an extended driveway. In 2000, City Council passed Ordinance 982, prohibiting oversized vehicles from parking on City streets for more than 72 hours without a permit. In 2011, the City Council further relaxed the parking standards to allow for a vehicle to be parked on a driveway leading to a permitted rear yard garage or carport and on circular driveways, except for oversized vehicles, trailers, or fifth wheels.
P
ast City Council direction to staff was only to respond to complaints and not to initiate onsite parking enforcement on staff observations alone. This enforcement posture allowed for a significant number of violations to exist for many years without City intervention and likely contributed to an erosion of the community’s understanding of the parking standards. However, a lack of enforcement does not allow for a path way to classify violations as legal nonconforming uses (commonly referred to as , “grandfathering”). I n 2018, the City’s Code Enforcement staff received a significant number of complaints concentrated in one neighborhood. Those complaints were verified and enforcement action was initiated, which resulted in community outreach to the City Council regarding the parking standards. The City Council placed enforcement on hold and reviewed the standards in November 2021 and added an additional rear yard parking option, after the Planning Commission recommended against modify ing any parking standards. However, once outreach began to inform the community that enforcement would resume, the community again expressed concerns about the existing standards being enforced and the City Council again paused enforcement in April 2022.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
EnforcementOnsiteParkingCCmtg3-20-23(ls)
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
After surveying various jurisdictions in the county related to permissible off-street parking locations other than the standard driveway, it is evident that most cities have a minimum front yard landscape coverage requirement that restricts paved and/or parking areas, typically requiring 50% landscaping (Simi Valley, Camarillo, Moorpark, Ojai, Santa Paula, Port Hueneme, Unincorporated VC, Fillmore). In many cases, the cities’ codes only prohibit parking in front yard areas. Some codes clarify that parking is not permitted within a required front, side, or rear setback area (Thousand Oaks, Unincorporated VC, Camarillo). Additionally, some jurisdictions require a landscape buffer or screening for parking on side yards (Port Hueneme, Santa Paula) while others do not allow a second curb cut or circular driveway (Ojai, City of Ventura, Port Hueneme). Lastly, some cities allow parking in the rear yard, either on an approved paved surface or leading to a garage and/or carport (Fillmore, Port Hueneme, Ojai, Moorpark, Simi Valley).
Overall, t he City of Simi Valley currently allows for more onsite parking locations at residential properties than the majority of other cities in the County . Additionally, visual examples of current allowable parking locations and most commonly observed parking violations are available in Attachment A , page 5 for reference. Please note that permissible parking locations are indicated by blue vehicles and non- permissible locations by red vehicles.
However, the City’s large volume of recreational vehicles (RVs), the increased size of standard vehicles, the limited capacity of local RV storage facilities, and the higher concentration of residents per residential property has noticeably increased demands on both street and off-street parking availability. As such, this poses a significant challenge to adequately provide options for additional parking locati ons that do not erode at the availability of street parking or damage the public right of way. The majority of violations involve a secondary driveway and/or parking pad located opposite the driveway. Since 1998, there have only been 652 encroachment per mits for the permissible 10- foot extension to a driveway; however, there are significantly more additional curb cuts competing with street frontage for widened or additional driveways throughout the City.
Since the onset of COVID -19, the number of vehicles parked on the City’s residential streets has noticeably increased and has not diminished likely due to more flexible workplaces allowing for remote work, remote school options, increased household sizes, and the development of accessory dwelling units (A DUs). While the current standards also assist to maintain neighborhood aesthetics, they primarily regulate parking locations to allow for access to both residential properties and preserve street parking. The current standards allow for parking in the side yard opposite the driveway without requiring a driveway to access the parking location, which can result in curb jumping and ultimately damaging the right of way over time and may also impede street parking and/or access to the parking location where there is no curb cut. Additionally, any development of SB9 units or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will also affect the availability of street parking in order to meet the onsite parking requirements for those units. Therefore, any modification that provides additional parking locations may transfer the issue of one property’s lack of parking to a lack of street parking within the neighborhood. Attachment B, page 7 illustrates the evolution of common parking utilization at residences over time.
2 EnforcementOnsiteParkingCCmtg3-20-23(ls)
Scenario 1 shows the parking options when the City was incorporated in 1969. Scenario 2 shows the expanded parking options offered in the 1980s and 2010s in exchange for no longer allowing oversized/RV parking on City streets. Scenario 3 shows common parking locations being utilized today; many of which are not permissible or do not have the proper permits. It is important to note the progressive erosion (Attachment C, page 10) at the street frontage and the limitations that allowing more onsite parki ng locations pose on available street parking.
There are a number of options that may increase the availability of parking to the City’s residents. Each option will have ongoing aesthetic and community impacts with some options possibly increasing the number of RVs in the community due to limited access to RV storage throughout the region. Some residents have requested vehicle setbacks; however, a number of homes would not be able to accommodate any onsite parking if vehicle setbacks were imposed due to minimum driveway standards not always being able to accommodate current vehicle sizes. With evolving vehicle standards, the average vehicle lengths are now up to 18 feet and standard driveways are only 20 feet deep.
The following are options to enhance onsite vehicle parking capacity:
• A
dditional rear yard parking for all size of lots;
• Additional rear yard parking for lots of a certain size with proper access; • Allowing opposite side driveway parking
o If allowed, decision on the requirement of curb cut would be appropriate; • Removing front yard landscaping and parking restrictions on arterial streets, which would allow for full pavement of front yards and parking; • Remove the on- street parking restrictions for RVs and other oversized vehicles ; and
• Remove vehicle restrictions for circular driveways.
S
hould the City Council wish to pursue any of these options, it is requested that staff be provided direction. I f the City Council chooses to maintain the existing standards, it is requested that staff be directed to resume enforcement with a renewed education campaign of three (3) months, allowing for affected households to identify other parking/storage locations and/or relocate the vehicles from non- permissible locations.
Any longer delay in enforcement will likely result in the same community push back once enforcement resumes.
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
T
here is no suggested motion.
3 EnforcementOnsiteParkingCCmtg3-20-23(ls)
SUMMARY
When the City incorporated in 1969 limited onsite parking locations were allowed at residential properties. In the 1980s, the City Council modified the parking standards to allow for additional parking locations at homes to accommodate the newly enacted restrictions for on-street parking of oversized vehicles, including RVs. Direction from prior City Councils had been to only initiate enforcement on a complaint basis, which has led to a significant level of non-compliance and community confusion of current legal parking locations. Enforcement has been on hold since 2018 to allow for further consideration of the onsite parking standards. Since then, there have been various discussions by the City Council but no concrete direction to staff on how to proceed. Therefore, staff is requesting direction on the enforcement of the residential onsite parking standards.
____________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
Prepared by: Mara Malch, Deputy Environmental Services Director
INDEX Page
Attachment A – Sample Parking Locations ...................................... 5 Attachment B – Street View Parking Scenarios ............................... 7 Attachment C – Progression of Erosion of Street Parking ............. 10
4 Sample Parking Locations (blue - permissible, red - not allowed)
ATTACHMENT A
5 Sample Parking Locations (blue - permissible, red - not allowed) 6 ATTACHMENT B
Street View Parking Scenario 1 - 1960s (blue - permissible, red - not allowed) 7 Street View Parking Scenario 2 - 1980s and 2010s expanded parking options (blue - permissible, red - not allowed) 8 Street View Parking Scenario 3 - 2020s (blue - permissible, red - not allowed) 9 ATTACHMENT C
10