Home Oakley Oakley City Council Set to Discuss Boat and RV Parking

Oakley City Council Set to Discuss Boat and RV Parking

by ECT

Oakley

Tonight, the Oakley City Council will host a work session to discuss boat and RV parking within city limits.

This item came about after it was brought up with the recent amendments in the Commercial Vehicle Parking Ordinance—the ordinance voted on did not impact recreational vehicles such as camping trailers, motor homes or recreational boats or trailers.

According to the minutes, Pamela Nickel commented on Item 3.3. She mentioned she is growing tired of her neighbors parking their RV’s, campers and boats in their driveways as many have not been moved or registered in years. She requested the City require RV’s, campers and boats to be stored in a side yard, behind a fence or in a storage unit to help clean up Oakley.

Per the direction of the Oakley City Council, staff was asked to bring back this topic as a “separate item” with information on what various cities in the area are regulating for RV & Boat storage.

This is what Oakley is reporting:

City or County

Boats allowed in the front yard

RV’s allowed in the
front yard

Screening
requirements

Oakley

Yes, on improved surface

Yes, on improved surface

No

Contra Costa County

Yes

Yes

90% of the mass must be screened from public view

Brentwood

No

No

6’ solid fence when stored in side and rear yards

Antioch

No

No

6’ solid fence when stored in side or rear yards

Pittsburg

Yes, on improved surface

Yes, on improved surface

No

Tracy

Yes, but needs to be 15’ behind the street line

Anywhere on lot except in
a clear zone

No

While tonight’s City Council meeting will not take any action other than discussion, it appears this could be setting the stage of the shaping of a future Ordinance.

Here is a link to the Staff Report on this Agenda Item

Editors Note:
Vice Mayor Doug Hardcastle had to abstain from voting during the Commercial Vehicle discussion because his place of business stores commercial vehicles—he would likely have to do the same since his business could store boats and RV’s as well and would not want to perceived that he would be creating business for himself again under this ordinance.

If you go:
Tuesday at 6:30 pm
3231 Main Street Oakley
Agenda Item 7.1

You may also like

23 comments

Delta Lover May 13, 2014 - 6:12 am

Stupid Oakley, we live on the freaking Delta. We are not Antioch, we are not pittsburg and we sure as heck are not Brentwood who has no water. We are Oakley and hard working people, if we have a boat or rv, lets us park them where we want as long as they are on our property, its nobody’s concern.

Michelle B May 13, 2014 - 6:14 am

Getting really sick and tired of this Council telling me where I can and cannot park a vehicle that I bought. These people really need to find a way to better help the city go forward because right now they are more annoying than anything else. I hope lots of people speak out against any restrictive ordinance.

Kevin Mitchell May 13, 2014 - 6:24 am

I bought my property and I should be able to park whatever I want on it. Shame on Oakley for becoming the parking police.

Julio May 13, 2014 - 6:39 am

This worked very well in Antioch until we no longer had enforcement officers. Those who had it before the ordinance should be grandfathered in and that should not be transferable. If they move the new owners would have to follow the ordinance. It needs to be parked on properly installed pavers or pavement. Yes I have an RV which I keep in storage.

This won’t be easy to do Oakley. Antioch had meetings for nearly a year. The meetings actually became a battle ground. A very ugly battle ground.

not a boat owner May 13, 2014 - 6:56 am

I would rather see a boat or RV in an owners driveway than parked on the street. Seriously, Pamela Nickel, moved to a different neighborhood if you find it so difficult.
Not everyone can afford a storage unit on a monthly basis. And some of the older houses don’t have side yards or side parking. Ridiculous.

EastCountyToday May 13, 2014 - 7:47 am

Oakley is real good about giving tickets to RV owners who park on a street within 48-72 hours time.

cathy Wilson May 13, 2014 - 10:35 am

So many of us moved to Oakley to be close to the delta and to have our watercrafts kept on our property. I bought my property because of this. My lot is not wide enough to store anything on the side yard. Maybe to impose this on new home sales would be okay, but to change it on those of us who have been here for years is not fair. There are other things the city could spend there time and our tax dollars on.

Erin May 13, 2014 - 11:07 am

It’s called RESPONSIBILITY people!!!! You may think your boat/RV looks nice but the rest of the neighbors may not. Who wants a 34 foot RV parked in the driveway next to them???? Not to mention that since all RV’s and Boats would have to be treated alike……so that “project” 1972 sunfaded Bayliner Capri that your neighbor “clem” has been “fixing on” for the last twelve years in his driveway is ok with you? Let’s not forget not everyone has a nice new boat or RV parked in front of their house. You really want Oakley to look like a dump????

Julio May 13, 2014 - 12:05 pm

With no code enforcement in Antioch any longer we are a dump as Erin suggests. We have boats and RV’s parked all over the place illegally. Boats on lawns, RV’s on lawns, cars on lawns.
For sure it is a dump.

Righteous in the 'Wood May 13, 2014 - 4:36 pm

Welcome to the club Oakley. Here in Brentwood, it is used selectively. If your neighbor does not like you, they selectively complain about your boat/trailer/rv/hobby car and then the city will come out and selectively pink slip it. You usually are given a grace period to move it, but if you don’t the next visit will result in fines, which then ramp up very steeply. Fun. But, for the most part, there is not a look or feel of dumpiness… yet. Personally, I’d be OK with an ordinance that says you have to place a cover on the toy/rv/boat whatever, in good condition and color matching the home. Not too hard to do, not too expensive (as opposed to storage), and certainly will diminish the look of plight.

They’re going to do this no matter how loud you all howl, so, maybe try and meet them half way. And consider yourselves lucky, you can still have chickens, right? Not in Brentwood….

Erin May 14, 2014 - 10:42 am

Righteous in the wood,

That is an awful idea. Just awful. A cover?? It is hard enough for the city to keep up enforcement and you want to complicate it even further?? Greatttttttt. Add in the subjective nature of color coordination and condition and you make a simple ordinance complex and subject to interpretations. How long do you think a “cover” is going to last in our extreme weather conditions (think wind and sun)?? Maybe in a perfect world everyone you know can cover their belongings to have a nice appearance, but in the real world it ends up looking like a tarp. You call allowing chickens in a neighborhood lucky?? This isn’t the look I am going for in my neighborhood.

Righteous in the 'Wood May 14, 2014 - 4:33 pm

Well, opinions are like middle fingers, some people are more willing to flip it in your face. If you really think that asking residents to cover their toys with a subdued earth tone cover to make it less “in your face” then you truly are an idiot. Yes, I do think having 3 or 4 chickens would be nice, the egg production alone with that many would save money for my family.How is my not having chickens any different than my neighbor who has a walk in aviary with 30 finches any different? Well for starters, the finches don’t produce eggs you can eat (you could, but it would take 400 to make an omelette), yet they are OK, and chickens are not? Oh, that’s right, you’re an idiot.
At any rate, you’ll get your ordinance, regardless of what is said here, and you’ll have a $4!+load of angry citizens pissed off at you and your NIMBY morons who like taking freedom away from people on their own property. Covers would solve the problem, but you’re too dense to see real logic.

Chuck May 13, 2014 - 6:01 pm

Boat and RV parking in residential neighborhoods has been frowned on for years. Behind a fence and not pissing off the neighbors has its advantages. Selective enforcement is always faster when you get an angry neighbor. Like RITW says; they are going to do it so be a nice neighbor or suffer the consequences.

Lorraine May 14, 2014 - 10:08 am

If you own a boat, RV, or camper/trailer, you should be able to park it on your property even if its your driveway. Not all homes (like ours) has a wide enough side yard to park a recreational vehicle of any kind…except maybe a canoe! And not everyone can afford the extra expense of a storage space. I’m not giving up my hobby just to “please” a neighbor!!!!

Erin May 14, 2014 - 10:32 am

Lorraine,

I understand your confusion, but in the end you would be wrong. Storage of any vehicle upon purchase including a boat or RV is your responsibility. Your neighbors, neighborhood and city are being impacted due to your lack of responsibility. That is irresponsible. If you cannot afford to store your toys properly then you cannot really afford them. If you desire to store them on your property, then you shouldn’t live in a residential community like Oakley. Your attitude regarding “storage”, affects your neighbors rights, property and home value. Do you think they like looking at your RV or Boat every time they are at their home?

Lorraine May 14, 2014 - 11:24 am

I own my property and I should have the right to park whatever I want on it. I believe a bigger issue is people that allow weeds and trash to take over their front yards and cars parked on the lawns. I’d rather look at someone’s rv than that! On that note, no matter which way the vote goes, someone will be upset. I however live in Pittsburg where this has been a law for a very long time. My trailer is in storage because it does not fit on the side of my home. So I DO pay every month for a space to park it.

Righteous in the 'Wood May 14, 2014 - 4:41 pm

What is your deal? How about somebody legislate away your right to do what you want? What if we took away your right to be a moron? How would that make you feel? You’d be lost without the freedom to be a moron. Have you ever even read the Constitution? How about the Declaration of Independence? What is it about FREEDOM that you don’t understand?
You’re just like the people that move in next to a rendering plant that was there long before the neighborhood, then you cry foul at the foul smell and lobby to have the laws changed to evict the plant. How about you move to a community that has that ordinance instead of coming in to Oakley and bending it to your own ideal?

Oakley folks, I feel for you, right now you have the right, but soon people like Error, errrrrrr I mean Erin will ruin it for you.

Barbara DuMont May 14, 2014 - 5:17 pm

I have lived in Oakley for over 40 years and the things that have gone on since this community incorporated is stunning. I am all for progress but what the hell has happened to the “live and let live” attitude. I usually don’t agree much with Righteous but on this issue I do agree 100%. I don’t give a damn if one neighbor has his motor home parked in the front yard. Or one of the other neighbors has a non-running truck with a flat parked in front of his garage Or another neighbor doesn’t mow is yard-instead he turns his goats and the donkey in there. They don’t gripe about my yard or rooster and I don’t gripe about their crap. That’s being a good neighbor.

Julio May 14, 2014 - 5:37 pm

Well, Barbara, if you want to live in the country then you should not have voted to make Oakley a city. With “city” comes a lot of stuff including ordinances and other kinds of laws. The neighbor’s “crap” will soon be abated by the neighborhood enforcement people. Most places a rooster is not allowed but my neighbor has one and I love it. But they are noise makers and you are not supposed to have them in several cities around here. I have lived in Antioch since 1965 and have seen how things happen.

Barbara DuMont May 14, 2014 - 7:47 pm

LOLL I didn’t get to vote-we were outside the city limits. and then we were annexed into this mess. Yes I protested along with the rest of my close neighbors but it wasn’t enough to stop the annexation or get a vote on it. Promises were made and low and behold not kept (just like I said would happen). Oakley wanted the developers fees. We are actually zone for light ag so the livestock isn’t an issue but when they build home around us it will be. Just as it has been in both Antioch and Pittsburg.

Chuck May 14, 2014 - 5:45 pm

Incorporation took all that freedom away. People want growth. They get what comes with it. I like the part where Lorraine says that its ok to have rv’s and such in the front yard but you can’t have trash. There is still a thing called trailer trash. Where does that stand. Back to cityhood. Think about it people.There now is a city council that from now on when bored will create a new law or pass a new fee just like all the excess amount of state and federal politicians. Think of it like the Winchester mystery house. Just change ” keep building” to ” keep making new laws “. So the next new law should be removing an old law to enact a new one.

Julio May 14, 2014 - 8:14 pm

Chuck, you are right! For every new law an old one should be retired. All city, county, state etc books are filled with so much junk no one knows what is what. I agree with Barbara annexation is not a good thing. The new one in Antioch is a very bad thing for the folks out around Wilbur and in closer. It is very bad for Antioch in general. Very costly at a time we are facing bankruptcy. We had little to say about it because LAFCO makes all decisions for everyone now. That is a group that should be done away with.

In 'da know May 14, 2014 - 8:40 pm

You people are funny! You really don’t a clue about what you are angry about or the subject matter at hand. It is scary how uninformed some people are. It’s a shame they don’t teach local government 101 in high school but alas, its obvious they don’t. I feel bad if you actually think that people sit around making up laws because they are bored. You really think that? I don’t know that I have ever read such a ridiculous statement in my entire life. Wow. Lafco is a “group” that should be “done away with” because you believe you had “little say” in a particular matter? Do you even know what actual democracy is about? How it works? Why laws are enacted? Do you know what LAFCO does or why they exist at all? Maybe instead of yammering on the internet you might want to attend a few meetings or get to know your city council. Then again vilifying them is much easier right? Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised…..

Comments are closed.