5 - Recommendation regarding Options for the 72 Hour Parking Prohibition
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
(MEETING DATE: April 8, 2002)
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding options for
the 72-Hour Parking Prohibition, BRC 7-6-20
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
City Attorney's Office
Joe de Raismes, City Attorney
Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Downtown University Hill Management Division
Molly Winter, DUHMD/Parking Services
Dave Bradford, DUHMD/Parking Services
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Board recommendation to City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be determined based on alternative selected.
PURPOSE:
City Council has asked staff to reevaluate the policy reflected in ordinance 7-6-20, B.R.C.,
"Parking for More than 72 Hours Prohibited." This memorandum is intended to seek
feedback from the Transportation Advisory Board before staff reports back to Council on this
subject.
BACKGROUND:
At the request of city council, staff has reviewed issues associated with the 72-hour parking
ordinance. Section 7-6-20, B.R.C., provides, in part:
(a) No vehicle shall be parked upon any street for more than
seventy-two hours without being moved or for the principal
purpose of storage for more than seventy-two hours.
A Weekly Information Packet memorandum (WIP) on this subject was presented to Council in
March 2000. (See Attachment A.) It provides the background relating to the ordinance and
some enforcement and amendment alternatives. No change in the ordinance or its enforcement
was initiated as a result of the March 2000, memorandum.
Council most recently discussed this ordinance within the context of a concern about
encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes. Several Council members expressed a
concern that individuals who use alternative modes will, as a consequence, sometimes leave
their cars parked on City streets. They worried that forcing such alternative mode users to
move their cars every 72 hours works as a disincentive to their use of alternative modes.
\\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USER\PW\MADERI\PWBDSEC\TAB\MEMOS\TABA72HOUR.DOCAGENDA ITEM #5
On the other side of the issue, Parking Services regularly receives requests from citizens to
shorten the period of time during which motor vehicles are allowed to remain parked on
City streets. Neighbors sometimes complain that the regular utilization of streets as long-
term storage facilities for motor vehicles creates a visually unattractive environment and,
thereby, contributes to a decline in the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
Current City Practice:
Currently, Parking Services handles "abandoned" vehicles largely on a complaint basis.
During 2001, Parking Services began processing a total of 235 vehicles as possibly
abandoned. The majority were from citizen complaints rather than initiated by Parking
Services officers as a result of observation of accumulated trash. Of the initial 235 vehicles
that were initially observed, 111 vehicles (47%) were still in the same spot after 72 hours and
issued citations, and 27 (11.5%) were never moved and were actually impounded. Parking
Services issues approximately 110,000 parking tickets per year.
OPTIONS:
Following the expression of concern by some Council members, staff discussed a number of
options. Those include the following:
1. Establish a defense for people who park their cars in front of their own homes by adding
an element of proof that a motor vehicle was not parked in front of its owner's home:
One Council member suggested that while the seventy-two hour street parking restriction
might be retained, it would be appropriate to allow people to park in front of their own
homes for as long as they like. One way to accomplish that would be to add an "element"
of proof that a car was not parked in front of its owner's home. This means that a
prosecutor would have to prove this fact in order to get a conviction in a 72 -hour parking
situation.
This approach would present several logistical challenges.
• It may not be easy for an enforcement officer (or prosecutor) to know that a car is not
parked in front of its owner's home. Cars are not always registered at a particular
address, as in the case where a young college student lives near college but drives a car
registered to a parent's address.
• No matter what a prosecutor or enforcement officer knows in this respect, it may be
hard to establish this element at trial. Proving a negative is always difficult. In this case,
a prosecutor would have to prove that a given car does not belong to anyone in an
adjacent house.
• it may be hard to establish which car is in front of which house. Where does the
property line end?
• It may be hard for all residents to park directly in front of their own houses. Sometimes
C.WFNDOWS\TEMP\TABA72HOUR.DOC AGENDA tTEM# Pase
there is a fire hydrant or other parked car that causes some residents to park only
partially in front of their own homes or a short distance down the street. This could, in
individual cases, mean that citizens would feel that the law was not fair in their individual
situations.
2. Establish an affirmative defense for people who park their cars in front of their own
homes by adding an affirmative defense for such owners.
This approach is similar [in intent) to the one noted above. However, instead of making a
prosecutor prove that a given car was not parked in front of a given owner's house, the
burden of proof would be shifted to the car's owner to establish the defense. In other
words, an owner who is cited for parking on the street for more than seventy-two hours
could come to court and prove the defense of having parked in front of his or her own
home.
The main problem with this approach is that it would require citizens who parked in front of
their own houses to take time off from work and go to court to prove their defense. This
would result in a number of trials and be less convenient for most people than just moving
their car a short distance every 3 days.
3. Change the ordinance to reflect a policy that ordinarily tickets for this offense will not
be issued in the absence of a citizen complaint, but make clear that such complaint is not
an element of the offense that must be proven in court
This approach would be very unusual in the Code. It would express a general policy
preference for complaint based enforcement of the seventy-two hour ordinance, but would
not require the proof of a complaint in a court case.
Difficulties with this approach include the following:
• This approach is apt to play into the hands of some offender who challenges a ticket
based upon a theory of selective [improper] prosecution. The argument would be that
while no element of proof is required, a "preference" is clearly expressed. The challenger
might then argue that the fact that the preferred approach was violated in his or her case
demonstrates improper motives on the part of the officer who wrote the citation.
• Enforcement systems that are wholly complaint based put a lot of power in the hands of
potential complainers. Such systems can foster very differential enforcement. Thus, in
neighborhoods where neighbors tend not to be upset by a long-term street parking, one
standard of legal enforcement will prevail. Identical parking conduct on another block
might be stringently prosecuted because a single neighbor on that block is hypersensitive
with regard to the matter. A resultant pattern of variable enforcement might be hard to
defend legally against a due process attack since it could be seen as arbitrary and
capricious.
4. Establish a permit system for those who can prove that they regularly utilize alternative
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\TABA72HOUR.DOC AGENDA ITEM d Pase 3
transportation modes.
To the extent that the contemplated change is motivated by a desire to assist those who
regularly utilize alternative modes, one idea would be to create a permit system for those
people allowing more long term street storage.
Such a system would require that special permits be given to individuals who pledged to use
alternative transportation modes for some predetermined percentage of their travel.
Challenges associated with this approach might include the following:
• Appropriate criteria for participation In the program would need to be developed. For
example, participation in educational programs and a pledge relating to the use of
alternative modes might be required.
• It would be very difficult to determine compliance with alternative modes utilization.
How would staff know if a citizen violated their percentage of travel by alternative modes
pledge?
• The administrative demands to administer this program, either by Transportation or
Parking Services, are considered excessive for unpredictable results.
5. Repeal the ordinance and allow people to park on the street for as long as they like.
Another approach to this issue is to simply rescind the ordinance and allow cars to be
parked on the streets indefinitely. This resolves the perceived problem of discouraging the
use of alternative modes. On the other hand, this approach would very likely cause great
anxiety on the part of neighborhood activists who think that aesthetic qualities of a
streetscape set the tone for behavioral norms in a neighborhood.
6. Leave the ordinance and its enforcement the way it is.
There have not been many complaints about the manner in which the ordinance is being
enforced. Therefore, an option is simply to continue the enforcement protocol as outlined
above. That enforcement is largely compliant-based, with the notable exception of those
vehicles that clearly show signs of long-term storage, such as accumulation of debris around
the vehicle.
7. Increase the permitted street storage period for motor vehicles to a period longer than
the current 72 hours.
The ordinance could be amended to allow motor vehicles to remain on street for a longer
period such as 7 days. Once a complaint was received from a citizen, or an Officer observed
a vehicle that appears to be abandoned, the vehicle would be observed for 7 days. After 7
days if the vehicle is still there, and has not been moved, a ticket would be issued and
paperwork would be started giving it another 7 days to move or it would be towed. That
C?,WIND0WS\TEMP\TABA',2H0UR.D0C AGENDA ITEM # Pace 4
gives the owner a total of 14 days to move their vehicle. Citizen calls to Parking Services to
shorten the time period outnumber citizen calls to extend the time period.
8. Exclude trailers and RV's.
During the discussion of vehicle parking on-street, the case arose whether trailers, boats or
RV's should be treated differently than vehicles. Staff has received several complaints from
citizens about trailer, boat or RV storage on street regarding their aesthetic appearance and
safety concerns.
A number of different approaches could be taken to minimize or exclude trailers or RV's
from on-street parking:
• Trailers and RV's could be excluded from any lengthening of the 72-hour ordinance.
Trailers and RV's could remain with a 72-hour restriction. Due to their nature of being
larger and occupying more space residents tend to become irritated more quickly when
they sit on the street for extended periods.
• Another option for Trailers and RV's is to include them into Ordinance 7-6-24a that
would restrict their being parked on-street, overnight. The ordinance states:
No vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of six thousand pounds or more shall be parked on
any street in any district of the city zoned RR, RRI, ER, LR, MR, MXR, HR, HZ, MH, P, or A
for more than thirty minutes between 8.00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty for a first
violation of this section is $10.00. The penalty for a second violation of this section by the
same vehicle or the same registered owner of a vehicle is $20.00. The penalty for a third
and any subsequent violation of this section by the same vehicle or the same registered
owner of a vehicle is $30.00.
This ordinance could be amended to say: No vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of six
thousand pounds or more, or any trailer or RV, etc., shall be parked on-street, overnight.
9. Enforce existing ordinance on a non-compliant basis after a two-week time period.
The ordinance could remain as it is, be enforced on a non-complaint basis, if vehicles have
been left for longer than two weeks. This would not be practicable. Parking Control
Officers rotate through districts on a daily basis. With twelve districts this means that an
Officer may only go through any given district once every 12-14 days. Another option
would be to go through large areas of the City, chalking all vehicles in the area, and then
returning two weeks later to see if any still remain. Then a ticket would be issued and
abandoned paperwork started and impounded seven days later. This is not practicable either
because of the large amount of time required to administer and it would require pulling an
Officer out of an existing district.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff does not recommend options 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 for reasons stated above. Options that
staff recommends for consideration are:
C:\WIND0WS\TEMP\TABA72H0UR.D0C AGENDA ITEM # Pace 5
6. Leave the Ordinance and its enforcement the way it is.
The ordinance strikes a balance between the counter demands of supplying storage for
vehicles of individuals who do not need to drive or use alternative modes, and of maintaining
a level of neighborhood livability.
7. Increase the permitted street storage period for motor vehicles to a period longer than
72 hours.
Changing the ordinance to extend the amount of time for on-street vehicle storage could
have a positive impact on alternative mode use, however staff does not have the data to
support this at this time. Staff would anticipate an increase in complaints from citizens who
view extended on-street vehicle storage as a detriment to the quality of their neighborhood.
S. Exclude trailers and RV's.
Staff would recommend additional public input on this issue. While Parking Services does
receive some citizen complaints regarding trailer, boat and RV on-street storage, staff does
has not done a thorough investigation of this issue to make an informed recommendation.
However, staff would not recommend including trailers, RV, etc. in any extension of the 72-
hour time period.
Attachments
A - Weekly Information Packet Memorandum LWIP) on the 72-hour prohibition
presented to
Council in March 2000.
C:\WIND0WS\TEMPITABA72H0UR.D0C AGENDA ITEM # Paue 6
ATTACHMENT A
Weekly Information Packet
TO: Mayor William Toor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ronald A. Secrist, City Manager
Molly Miller Winter, Director, Downtown and University Hill Management
Division and Parking Services
Kate Patterson, Parking Enforcement and Admin. Supervisor, Parking Services
Dave Bradford, Lead Parking Control Officer
DATE: March 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Information Item: Abandoned Vehicles Procedures (72 hour ordinance)
PURPOSE:
Staff was asked to evaluate the 72 hour ordinance and determine if it is in conflict with the alternative modes
directives of the City of Boulder.
BACKGROUND:
The 72 hour ordinance requires that a vehicle be moved at least two-tenths of a mile every 72 hours. The
intention behind this ordinance is to prohibit long-term parking ( storage ) on public streets. Staff is aware
of the potential conflict between the alt-modes use and the 72 hour ordinance. To address and mitigate any
conflict, this ordinance is enforced primarily on a complaint basis. If a citizen believes there is an abandoned
vehicle on their street, the ordinance is on the books to allow the City to take action. That action involves
chalking the tires and returning in 72 hours. If the vehicle has not moved at least two-tenths of a mile, a ticket
is issued and an abandoned vehicle notice left on the vehicle and a copy mailed to the registered owner. After
an abandoned vehicle notice has been mailed the citizen has seven days to move the vehicle at least two-tenths
of a mile otherwise the vehicle would be subject to impoundment. As with many situations that surround
enforcement issues, both the Police Department and Parking Services work with the citizens that call and have
extenuating circumstances that prohibit them from moving their vehicle(s). If staff is made aware of a
vacation, etc., we are able to react and not ticket or tow the vehicle. Parking Control Officers and Accident
Investigators are the two workgroups that enforce this ordinance, so communication is simple if an exception
is to be made.
In most cases when we receive a citizen complaint, the vehicle has already been parked for some period of time
considerably longer than 72 hours. With the current 72 hour policy, if the vehicle is not moved by the owner,
it would remain there for at least another ten days before it could be impounded. In those circumstances
where a 72 hour check is initiated by an officer it is usually because the vehicle has a large amount of dirt or
debris on or around it that would indicate it has been parked there for an extended period of time. If a vehicle
owner drove their vehicle around the block once a week they would probably never receive a ticket or
abandoned notice on their vehicle. Any change which would allow vehicles to be parked for longer than 72
hours or otherwise delay the speed at which the City can react may result in an increase of citizens concerned
with our inability to take prompt action. In 1995, Council amended the abandonment ordinance to allow staff
to mail abandoned notices by first class mail. This request, by staff, was in reaction to citizen complaints that
it was taking too long for the City to remove abandoned vehicles.
AGUMAr=# PAGS
In 1999 Parking Services observed 217 suspected abandoned vehicles. Of those only 11% (24) were actually
towed.
Staff feels the current 72 hour ordinance provides a balance between citizens who prefer to use alt-modes of
transportation and citizens who prefer not to have vehicles parked on the street for extended periods of time.
The current process allows a vehicles owner at least ten days to from the time a complaint is received, to show
movement of the vehicle before it would be towed.
SISTER CITY COMPARISON:
Provo, UT 9.31.050 Unattended Vehicles
(1) The following are hereby declared to be a nuisance and detrimental to the safe and proper regulation of
traffic:
(f) any vehicle or trailer left parked in a public highway or street in the same place continuously fir
72 hours;
Ann Arbor, MI 2:87. Vehicle Abandonment.
Any motor vehicle parked for three (3) consecutive days in any parking lot or structure of the system, shall
be deemed abandoned and may be removed by the City and impounded. Any motor vehicle otherwise parked
in violation of this Chapter, may be removed by the City from the parking lot or structure in which it is parked
and impounded. Any vehicle so impounded by the City shall not be released to the owner until all parking
charges, storing and towing charges shall have been paid by the owner.
Eugene, OR 5.135 Storage of Vehicles on Streets.
(1) No person shall store or permit to be stored a vehicle or personal property on a street or other public
property for a period in excess of 24 hours. It shall constitute prima facie evidence of storage of a motor vehicle
if the same is not moved for a period of 24 hours. The continuity of the time shall not be deemed broken by
movement of the vehicle elsewhere on the block unless the movement removes the vehicle from the block
where it was located before it is returned.
(2) When a vehicle is found in violation of subsection (1) of this section an officer responsible for enforcement
of this section shall issue a citation for the violation and may order the vehicle impounded after providing the
notice required under sections 5.695 and 5.697 and, if requested, a hearing under section 5.698 of this code.
(3) This section shall not apply to vehicles taken into custody as provided in section 5.225 and section 5.700
of this chapter.
City of Tucson. AZ : Abandoned Vehicle Code 20. 261
It is unlawful to abandon a non-working vehicle on the roadway for more than 48 hours. An abandoned,
"non-working" vehicle is defined as any vehicle parked without moving for more than 48 hours. Upon
receiving a complaint the Tucson Police Department with "tag" the vehicle for removal after 48 hour, no
notice is sent to the vehicle owner.
€'Il1~98.v®L~r1.~„
City of Madison. WI: 12.128 MISCELLANEOUS RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING.
(3) Street Storage Prohibited. No person shall leave a vehicle standing upon any street for storage
purposes. Storage is defined as the leaving of a vehicle standing upon a street for a continued period of
forty-eight (48) hours or more. (Am. by Ord. 6032, 11-11-77)
(4) Vehicle Abandonment Prohibited; Removal; Disposal
(a) Violation. No person shall leave unattended any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer or mobile home
on any public street or highway or private or public property in the City of Madison, for such time
and under such circumstances as to cause the vehicle to reasonably appear to have been abandoned.
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, whenever any vehicle has been left unattended on
any street or highway in the City of Madison or upon private or public property without the
permission of the property owner or other person charged with the lawful jurisdiction thereof for more
than forty-eight (48) hours, the vehicle is deemed abandoned and constitutes a public nuisance. A
motor vehicle shall not be considered an abandoned motor vehicle when it is out of ordinary public
view, or when designated as not abandoned by the Police Chief or his designee.
(b) Removal and Impoundment of Vehicles. Any vehicle in violation of Subdivision (a) shall be
removed and impounded until lawfully claimed or disposed of under the provisions of Subdivision
except that if it is deemed by the Police Chief or his designee that the cost of towing and storage
charges for the impoundment would exceed the value of the vehicle, the vehicle may be junked or sold
prior to expiration of the impoundment period upon determination by the Police Chief or his designee
that the vehicle is not stolen or otherwise wanted for evidence or other reason. All substantially
complete vehicles in excess of nineteen (19) model years of age shall be disposed of in accordance
with Subdivision (c).
City of Berkeley Section 14.08.094 When a vehicle may be removed from the street.
Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing upon a street or highway for 72 or more consecutive hours.
City of Ft. Collins Sec. 20-92. Unsheltered storage prohibited.
The unsheltered storage of an inoperable motor vehicle for thirty (30) days or more on any private property
within the city is hereby declared to be a nuisance and dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare. An
inoperable motor vehicle not located in a garage or other building shall be placed behind screening of sufficient
size, strength and density, such as a solid fence, trees or shrubbery, to screen it from ordinary public view and
to prohibit ready access to such vehicle by children.
(Ord No. 183, 1986, § 1(54-21(a)), 11-18.86)
Alternatives:
If the 72 hours were extended to 168 hours (7 days) a suspected abandoned vehicle would be allowed to
remain, at least, 14 days after a complaint before it could be towed. If the
It the 72 hours were extended to 336 hours (14 days) a suspected abandoned vehicle would allowed to remain
for, at least, 21 days before it could be towed.
= Ti<PCGTi1 LRf I