Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Camping Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on camping ordinance after county feedback and state model guidance
Summary
Council discussed a proposed ordinance tightening camping rules on public property and RV habitation but deferred action to allow staff to incorporate county counsel feedback and compare a newly released governor’s model ordinance.
The council held a substantive discussion on a proposed ordinance to tighten rules on camping and vehicle‑based habitation in the city but agreed by consensus to return the item at a future meeting after staff considers county counsel comments and a governor’s model ordinance released the same day.
City attorneys said the ordinance would update two municipal code chapters to reflect recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing some nondiscriminatory restrictions on public camping. The draft would: prohibit vehicle habitation on all public property except by city‑manager waiver for permitted events; prohibit camping outside vehicles in much of the VMU and on essential city property; ban camping that impedes ingress/egress, bicycle lanes and within 100 feet of Mission Drive between 30 minutes after sunset and 6 a.m.; prohibit daylight activities preparing to camp (digging, building fire pits); shorten notice periods for storage of personal property on public property from 72 hours to 24 hours and reduce storage retention from 90 days to 60 days; and add an exclusion‑order remedy to temporarily ban individuals from specified public properties for repeat violations.
City Attorney Steele told the council that the county counsel provided late‑day feedback asking for additional due‑process language related to the exclusion order (for example clarifying appeal timing), and staff recommended tabling the item so the city can incorporate those edits and compare the city draft with a governor’s model ordinance released that morning. Council members said the late delivery of county comments was frustrating but supported the pause so staff can refine language on appeal procedures and enforcement details.
No formal vote was taken to adopt the ordinance; council consensus was to return the item to a subsequent meeting after staff and city attorneys incorporate county and state guidance and provide a revised draft.
