Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and council debate making RV/trailer parking pilot permanent; staff to clarify 72-hour movement rule
Summary
The council discussed a pilot program (started Sept. 2024) allowing recreational vehicles and trailers on private property. Police reported net positive results; residents asked for clearer language on the 72-hour movement rule and enforcement for inoperable or unsightly vehicles.
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members and residents spent substantial time on May 12 discussing whether to make permanent a pilot program, enacted in September 2024, that allows certain recreational vehicles and trailers to park on private property.
Police and staff reported the pilot has reduced street congestion from trailers and "has been a net positive," Guillermo Mixer, director of public safety, said. Several residents supported allowing trailers to remain on owners' property if they are maintained, insured and not blocking sidewalks. "If it's in my property, it's in my property," resident Jose Antonio Villarreal said.
However, concerns focused on enforcement and the specific meaning of the existing 72-hour movement rule that prevents prolonged street parking. Multiple speakers urged clarifying how far a vehicle must be moved every 72 hours to prevent "leaf-throgging" (moving a vehicle a few feet or around the block to reset the clock) and called for clearer ordinance language so residents know what counts as compliance.
Council members discussed options including making the pilot permanent with clarified ordinance language about required movement distance, and using existing code provisions for inoperable vehicles where trailers appear abandoned or unsafe. Staff said changes to the municipal code to adopt the pilot permanently and to define movement distance would be relatively straightforward, and recommended research into approaches used by other cities.
No vote was taken at the May 12 meeting; council directed staff to return with recommended ordinance language and enforcement options for consideration at a future meeting.

