Home Antioch Antioch City Council Agrees to Pause Citations for Recreational Vehicles on Driveways, Audit Permit List

Antioch City Council Agrees to Pause Citations for Recreational Vehicles on Driveways, Audit Permit List

by ECT

On Tuesday, the Antioch City Council directed staff to audit its permit list on recreation vehicle storage on residential properties while also temporarily suspending citations for those without permits.

The staff report did say under its current program, they have 947 registered vehicles that have been grandfathered in since 2008. Staff has never audited their list to determine of the 947 registered vehicles, how many are still active or valid. Antioch Code Enforcement enforces various provisions of the Antioch Municipal Code as it relates to the storage of automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and other vehicles on private residential property.

The move came after city staff received more than 300 complaints for recreational vehicles through See, Click, Fix which staff and the council assumed it was a single person or small group of people going around filing complaints.

During the meeting, staff provided three options from allowing recreational vehicle parking, expand its current registration process or take no action and to continue the current process.

The staff report did not include how many citations have been given for people with recreational vehicles on their property.

According to the Antioch Municipal Code 5-1.201.1 prohibits the storage of recreational vehicles in the front yard of a property unless the owner possesses and approved registration from the City of Antioch. From Oct. 23, 2007 until April 2008, owners of recreational vehicles were permitted to register the vehicle with the City of Antioch, thereby allowing their continued storage in the front yard, subject to adopted conditions. This registration applied only to the recreational vehicle storage at that address by that particular owner. A new recreation vehicle could replace the registered recreational vehicle, but the registration could not be transferred to a new property or assigned to a subsequent property owner. It is important to note that the term recreation vehicle refers to motor homes and travel trailers, but also to boats, unmounted camper shells, jet skis, utility/dump trailers, and boat trailers. It does not refer to large commercial vehicles, which are regulated elsewhere. Presently, there are 947 registered recreational vehicles from this program.

The City is requesting direction on the approach to the storage of recreational vehicles and offered the following options for discussion:

  1. Allow Recreational Vehicles: Under this option, the AMC would be amended to eliminate the restrictions that are specific to the storage of recreational vehicles. Instead, the restrictions that apply to the storage of regular automobiles would apply to recreational vehicles. All recreational vehicles stored in the front yard would have to be registered and operable and could not overhang the sidewalk or create a corner visibility obstruction. For safety reason, the city prohibits the installation of tall fences or structures on the area of corner lots nearest the intersection and recommends similar considerations for large recreational vehicles. These standards would be written and enforced to ensure that any recreational vehicles stored in the front yard does not create a visual obstruction. The owner would not have to register their recreational vehicle.
  2. Expand Registration Process: Under this option, the AMC would be amended to eliminate the six-month registration window from 2007-2008. Instead, registration would be extended to all current and future recreational vehicles without time or transfer restriction. This option would require a new process, fee and staff resources in the Code Enforcement Division and the Finance Department. The City does not otherwise have an interest in having the information gained through registration and this would require enforcement on unregistered vehicles.
  3. Continue Current Process: Under this option, the current code language would be un-changed and enforcement would continue. Recreational vehicles would remain prohibited in the front yard, except for the few remaining registered cases that would be allowed.

Staff is requesting direction from the city council regarding the issue. The staff report did not include any proposed fees, fee changes or penalties for unregistered vehicles.  If Item 1 or 2 is selected, the Code Enforcement division would suspend, whatever feasible, enforcement of the current statues until a new program is developed.


Council Discussion

Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica asked Code Enforcement for the pros and cons of each of the three options.

Curt Michael, Code Enforcement Manager, explained that permits were issued after 2008 because residents were applying for replacement permits.  These are residents who abstained the permit in 2007-2008 and are simply updating permits.

“If you continue down the path we are on right now, I think we are going to be facing the same challenges with the community where there is frustration with our enforcement action. We have mechanisms in place to address blight, address unregistered and inoperable vehicles, and right of way obstructions, that is usually the concern with RVs, the size of them and blocking the sidewalks,” explained Michael. “As for allowing them by right, if the council would decide that and do away with the ordinance entirely and allow these RVs by right, our enforcement actions would pertain to right of away obstructions, inoperable/unregistered status, and blight. So, we have mechanisms in place to enforce for that.”

He said that if they offered up another amnesty period, they would have to determine the timeline and permit window—and be back in this situation in the future.

Michael said several months ago, Code Enforcement received approximately 300 complaints through See, Click, Fix for RVs stored on driveways—which is a low priority but they do address them as time allows because safety issues are the priority.

It is unclear if the complaints were from a single person or multiple people as the complaints are anonymous. Michael said they do not audit their permit list and if there is still an RV at the address. If there is a complaint, they will check the list and then enforce it.

Barbanica said he was torn because of seeing old torn down RVs and boats and understood people on both sides. He also said he made calls to see about storage for boats and RVs and said he couldn’t find them.

“You literally cannot find them local,” said Barbanica. “Nothing local… I am very torn with it.”

Michael stated if the council opts to go for the permitting process, he urged them to include a fee versus not having them because if they have to issue permits with fees there is an expectations of urgency because they would take a site inspections for no sidewalk obstructions, no blight and the vehicle is registered and operable.

Councilmember Lori Ogorchock said she reached out to Brentwood, Oakley and Pittsburg to see what their rules were.

“Brentwood is a lot stricter than ours. Oakley you can get a permit for 24-hours or a very limited time and Pittsburg is the same thing. In Brentwood, you cannot park in your driveways it has to be behind a 6-ft fence as ours was prior in 1998,” said Ogorchock. “I understand, I own a trailer and its been behind a fence.”

Orgorchock explained how trailers or boats can been blight and it does bring down values of home that with these in driveways causing an eye sore.

“I am torn by this, I understand that people want to have their toys at home. I get it,” said Ogorchock who then suggested perhaps they re-issue permits under a total cap of those permits not being used. “Its not adding more permits, its reissuing those unused permits issued back in 2007-2008. Keep in mind, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I know we live on the delta, I grew up on the delta but I am also a real estate agent and I do understand that it does bring down the values. But it does bring up the values when you have a side yard access and have an RV parking.”

Councilmember Monica Wilson asked about a committee in the past which came up with this “grandfather clause”, asked about how many people were code enforcement officers—Michaels replied 10 but in 2008 it was reduced down to 1 or 2.

Wilson confirmed the 300 complaints through See, Click, Fix which staff went through to see if they had a permit and verified addresses. Those without permits, a case was created. Michael’s said they would enforce the violation as time permits. Michael’s also confirmed that several months prior to the 300 complaints, they had received very few complaints over recreational vehicles in driveways.

“To me, it sounds like somebody or somebodies went out and targets and code enforcement got this massive amount of complaints, a perfect bell curve,” said Wilson. “I am torn because I’ve heard both sides of this.”

She explained they needed to go back and look at the process and do some sort of hybrid because quite a few of the original permits are now gone from 2007-2008.

“This is something we need to revisit and need to figure something out. I get it, you pay a lot for these RVs, I get it,” said Wilson.

Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker asked if they could get  a nuisance order for the flag poles with “Don’t Tread on Me” and “Trump 2024” signs.

“I think you should be able to store your recreational vehicles on your property,” said Torres-Walker. “I think what happened 15-years ago should not apply to today and that there are clearly folks who want to store their vehicles and they should be able to do it.”

Torres-Walker was undecided on whether they should have a fee or not.

“I am for changing it and I am for no fee or fee,” said Torres-Walker.

Mayor Lamar Thorpe stated people would take his quotes out of context of new Antioch.

“When I say new Antioch, I am literally talking about the new face of Antioch, it is a reality, this is the second most diverse community in the Bay Area.  This is once a place where redlining was a practice where black people couldn’t live here. Where 150 years ago Chinatown was burn down right across the street because we ran Chinese immigrants out of here, I don’t ever want to be that, if that’s old Antioch, that is old Antioch and this is new Antioch and with that comes new ideas and new ways of doing business.”

He called himself more “conservative approach” to this because he values the esthetics of communities and valued quality of life.

“I don’t want to do anything that will jeopardize how people feel about their environment,” stated Thorpe. “I’ve seen Rvs in driveways that can be benign, and it wouldn’t both anyone. Then I’ve seen huge Rvs that absolutely capture everybody’s attention because the RV is the size of the house. I want to be fair and balanced in an approach that recognized that because we do not want to interrupt someone’s quality of life.”

Thorpe stated he liked the idea of looking at the current amount of permits they have and seeing the variance between then and now. He wanted to look at height and size as part of the ordinance.

“In new Antioch, we have to of course be thoughtful about why practices exist. While I am not for a total ban, I am for at looking at the reopening the permit. Looking at the current structure and what is reasonably acceptable for everybody in the community to enjoy and not have their quality-of-life impacts,” said Thorpe. “Our work is not finished as a majority of the council is torn on what direction to take.”

By direction of the Council, staff will audit their list of permits to see how many are still active and determine how many are unused or expired—possibly keeping a cap based on permits issued in 2008 and not surpass that number, thus opening up a limited number of permit spaces.

Torres-Walker said its good to do an audit of the 900 or so permits to see which ones are open, but was not in favor of a cap based on 2008 numbers. She wanted the permit process to be open without limitations to anyone in the city—if you want one, apply.

“I don’t think there should be a cap, if you qualify and meet new guidelines, whatever they are, you should be given a permit,” said Torres-Walker.

Thorpe stated the reason they want the audit is because a majority of the council has not made a decision as to what direction to take to get an understanding what the permit process might be and how many permits to issue.

“I didn’t get a clear sense from anybody up here, except for you Torres-Walker, on what direction they want to take,” stated Thorpe. “I heard a lot of I’m torn.”

“I heard that people were torn too, I also heard people wanted an audit, but I didn’t hear anybody say we wanted to look at those 900 and see what is available and keep it there,” stated Torres-Walker. “So no decision has been made.”

Thorpe stated they were not at the point of the Ordinance creation, but rather an audit over the current permits within the city.

Antioch City Staff said that based on council discussion Tuesday night, code enforcement will now suspend enforcement of active recreational vehicle cases as the council will set a new standards—citations will be suspended.

Staff also confirmed that those with recreational vehicles behind a 6-ft fence, nothing has changed and they can continue to do that.

It is unclear when the item will return to the Antioch City Council.

 


5-1.201.1  WHEN STORAGE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

It is hereby declared a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any premises in the city to park or store any recreational vehicle, including but not limited to, a trailer, boat, fifth-wheel trailer, motorhome, motorized cart, tent trailer, travel trailer, utility trailer, travel coach, bus, unmounted camper shell, or other mobile recreational equipment or watercraft or any empty trailer intended for or capable of carrying any of the above, in any front or side yard in a residential district, including the driveway, subject only to the following exceptions:

(A)   Recreational vehicle is parked or stored in a side or rear yard, on an improved surface (concrete, asphalt, pavers or gravel) and behind a legally constructed opaque fence not less than six feet in height; or

(B)   For the purpose of loading or unloading not to exceed 24-hours before or after a trip using the recreational vehicle with a trip not referring to daily use of a recreational vehicle but to an extended use requiring additional preparation time; or

(C)   Recreational vehicle is the sole means of transportation for occupants of the dwelling; or

(D)   Recreational vehicle owners who have their recreational vehicle parked in the front yard, including the driveway, at the time of the effective date of this section and who meet the following requirements:

(1)   Each owner may register one recreational vehicle with the city within six months of the effective date of this chapter, including submittal of documentation and payment of any applicable application or processing fees.

(2)   The parking of such recreational vehicle shall be on an improved surface of concrete or pavers but not of asphalt or gravel and shall not encroach in the sidewalk or roadway or violate any other requirements of the Municipal Code.  The recreational vehicle, if covered, shall be with a tight-fitting, single cover.  The recreational vehicle shall not be parked parallel to the front of the house.

(3)   The registration shall pertain to the registrant of the recreational vehicle and not the vehicle itself or the real property.  If the vehicle is sold, then the registration is not applicable to that vehicle, but the owner may register a replacement vehicle.

(4)   The owner of the recreational vehicle must be an Antioch resident, and a resident or owner of the property where the vehicle is stored.

(5)   Upon sale of the property, no further recreational vehicle storage shall be allowed in the front yard, including the driveway.

(6)   Upon termination of tenancy, no subsequent tenant shall be allowed to store a recreational vehicle in the front yard, including the driveway.

(Ord. 2002-C-S, passed 10-23-07)

You may also like

3 comments

Just enforce the ordinance Feb 26, 2022 - 11:06 pm

This is not rocket science. Parking recreational vehicles in front of properties will definitely diminish the aesthetics of our neighborhoods. I doubt very seriously if one person or group is doing the reporting. 300 complaints says that residents don’t like the idea. This council isn’t listening especially Torres-Walker. Guess they won’t be satisfied until Antioch completely morphs into an anything goes, undesirable place to live. We’re well on our way.

Romy Myszka Feb 28, 2022 - 9:43 am

See Click Fix has made the reporting easier. And the number of trailers/RVs/boats/inoperable vehicles blighting our neighborhood has decreased. Thank you Code Enforcement for enforcing the existing ordinance. Allowing more permits or having no policy is just providing more incentive to move to Brentwood.

Roshon Williams Mar 5, 2022 - 8:48 am

I am all for having vehicles parked on our own private driveway that are not run down or dilapidated. It does not make sense to have to go to another city just to get a recreational vehicle to use it. I disagreed with the two comments above because we have the right to house our vehicles on our property that we pay taxes for. There is no recourse for our vehicles parked on someone else’s lot to be able to make an insurance claim when people want to steal or vandalize them. Those who do not own Rex vehicles are the few who are complaining the most. And may be a few realtors who thinks it is bringing down the property values because they are trying to line their own pockets. But studies have shown that a city where they have water and campgrounds nearby brings up the value to the property and city because it offers a lot to do here. What is running down to CITY OF ANTIOCH is the crime that these kids are doing because their parents are not paying attention to them. Also those people who are not keeping up their landscape and who are storing a bunch of junk in front of their house.
Having a beautiful RV/Boat/trailer in front of the yard that does not extend to the sidewalk and that is not in a rundown condition does not tear down the CITY OF ANTIOCH. If you don’t like having fairness and equality then maybe you should move to Russia. Stop trading on our rights as property owners who pay the taxes here in Antioch. And if they’re really 300 complaints out there, show your face and let us know who you really are. I believe there is only one or two who has sent in multiple complaints. Here I am.

Comments are closed.