|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View City Council is considering some tweaks to its 72-hour parking rule, which prohibits parking in the same spot for more than three days, at a meeting slated for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 14. Among the proposed changes is a 24-hour “no return” rule after parking in a spot for more than 72 hours, an idea that’s already causing a stir among residents.
California law authorizes cities to tow any vehicle that is parked on a public street for 72 or more consecutive hours, and Mountain View has had a law to that effect on the books since 1966. Despite how long the law has been around, “the 72-hour parking limit and its requirements for compliance have been a source of confusion for Mountain View residents and visitors,” city staff wrote in a report outlining the proposed amendments, which are intended to “provide clarity.”
Staff is proposing four distinct changes to the city code (Section 19.72):
Add 24-hour no-return requirement
Current code requires vehicles to move approximately 1,000 feet every three days to comply with the 72-hour parking limit. However, staff said in the report, “there continues to be confusion over what it means to ‘move.’
“Some believe ‘move’ means the vehicle just needs to be driven 1,000 feet every three days, others believe ‘move’ means the vehicle must move to a different parking spot 1,000 feet away, and no one seems to know when a vehicle can return to the same parking spot without violating the 72-hour parking limit,” the report states. “To provide clarity, the City Attorney’s Office recommends adding a 24-hour no-return requirement that would prohibit any vehicle that has been parked in the same parking spot for a consecutive 72-hours from returning to that parking spot for 24 hours.”
Add pre-removal notice requirement
According to the report, the Mountain View Police Department already provides a warning notice before towing any vehicle for violation of the 72-hour parking limit.
“Nevertheless, the City Attorney’s Office recommends adding a pre-tow notice requirement to Section 19.72 that provides vehicle owners and occupants 36 hours to comply with the requirements of the 72-hour parking limit before they are towed,” the report states.
Add post-tow notice and hearing requirements
The report states that the Mountain View Police Department already provides notice and a hearing to the registered or legal owner of any vehicle that has been towed.
“Nevertheless, the City Attorney’s Office recommends adding language to Section 19.72 requiring compliance with the California Vehicle Code’s post-tow notice and hearing requirements to clarify the City’s commitment to comply with constitutional due process requirements,” the report states.
Define the term “vehicle”
While the current code imposes the three-day parking limit on “any vehicle,” vehicle is not defined. City staff propose the term “vehicle” to mean “any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a street or highway, except a device moved exclusively by human power.”
So far, correspondence from the public has largely taken issue with the amendment that proposes adding a 24-hour no return requirement.
“Before modifying the ordinance I would suggest that you consider its purpose,” former Mayor Lenny Siegel said in a written public comment. “The fact that other cities have such rules and that state law allows such restrictions does not explain why we devote police time to enforcing this ordinance.”
Siegel added that the amendment is “likely to create neighborhood antagonism by requiring people park in front of others’ houses.”
The council will discuss the item at its meeting tonight, which can be attended in person at Council Chambers, located at 500 Castro Street, or watched live here.
Road repair status for Miramonte and El Camino.
It seems like a reasonable update to a very old law but we probably should go further.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
With the small houses in MV (small lots, big offsets), I see most of my neighbors using the garage for storage and parking in the driveways or street. And this is not bad; more cars in the street meant much slower local traffic = safer.
With this no return, I cannot imagine what a carousel would happen to all the cars in the neighborhood. And what does it mean, that I cannot have the same friend come over for coffee twice in a row? It seems the city is going insane.
You would think the city would have better things to do. That apparently isn’t so.
In Red Manor, no one parks in their garages, as the houses and lots are too small. I used to have a truck, in addition my commute car and my wife’s car. That means that one car needed to park on the street. I needed to move it all the time, but I did get several warnings and one ticket. It was annoying, but I could deal with it With this new law, I could never park it on the street and would have to sell the truck. Is this the intention of the law?
Also, the officer that I saw writing the ticket told me that I just needed to move the odometer 0.1 miles.
It sounds like I can’t park in front of my home, which seems ridiculous. What do I do with my car when I leave on a vacation? May I park it in the City Hall garage?
Rather than spending time on this nonsense, why doesn’t the city of Mountain View try persuading Caltrans to fix the chuckholes along El Camino Real?
Sounds like we need to relax zoning to make it easier for people to build sheds instead of using their garages for storage.
Why play games like “you must move your vehicle 1000 feet?” Why not just ban camping on city streets? The RVs are an eyesore and a nuisance.
There is a significant problem going to arise from this action. This is called chalking vehicles, and yes a recent court ruled that you can chalk her is the information
(https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2022/legal-alerts/11/court-rules-tire-chalking-by-cities#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Ninth%20Circuit%20Court,Amendment%20search%20and%20seizure%20principles.)
Takeaways
This decision is important for cities and counties to continue to have a cost-effective method of enforcement of parking time limits. However, the “administrative search” requirement is not a catch-all to allow warrantless searches and any municipality should consider the guideline principles outlined in the decision whenever considering a search. The practice of tire chalking appears safe for now, and until a higher court says otherwise, cities and counties can continue using this method.”
But another circuit ruled differently, which means that this case can be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court the case info is here
(https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/federal-judge-rules-tire-chalking-is-unconstitutional-but-rejects-traffic-ticket-refunds-as-damages)
that case stated:
“Ludington ruled after two appeals in the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati. On the first appeal, the 6th Circuit ruled that chalking tires without a warrant is a search that is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. On the second, the appeals court said several exceptions to the warrant requirement do not shield the city.”
This means that there is likely going to be a MAJOR amount of litigation that the City WILL have to pay for, even going to the U.S. Supreme Court, Is this going to be worth the money lost?