Fullerton Parking – State ADU Edition
Tomorrow the planning commission is going to be dealing with more parking issues. Or shall I say they’re going to be talking about something they have no control over because the State already stepped on them.
Back on 27 September 2016 Governor Moonbean signed SB 1069 into law. SB 1069 deals with “Additional Dwelling Units” or in the common vernacular “back houses”. You know the units as they’re the ones that get added behind a house so a homeowner can rent their second/third/fifth property to two groups of people as opposed to one. Charitably they’re known as “Granny Units” and uncharitably as “‘Mommy why is the creepy man staring at me all the time’ Units”.
The merits or pitfalls of these units notwithstanding, as we now legally have to allow for them all over town, this particular piece of legislation includes the following nugget:
Cities must waive parking requirements for ADUs that are entirely contained within existing structures, or that are within one-half mile of public transit, one block of a car-share vehicle, or in a historic district.
Within one-half mile of public transit. Okay, so let’s put that into context. Here’s a map of Fullerton to which I’ve added the major bus lines of OCTA in blue.
Using the Google Maps Distance Tool I can say that 1/2 mile would mean that Fullerton cannot require additional parking for ADUs anywhere approximately South of North Court. Likewise no new parking requirements would be allowed 1/2 mile East or West of Euclid or State College for ADUs. I’d worry about the neighborhood by CSUF but with CollegeTown coming back (courtesy of Japanese Chat Girls) that’s the least of their worries.
I loathe writing about roads and parking, truly I do yet unfortunately our elected betters seem to not understand human nature and thus the issues constantly come up.
This no required parking if within a half-mile of public transit is because allegedly the low-income take public transit unlike those who write these stupid laws. The poor take so much public transit that we subsidize the snot out of buses, streetcars, trolleys and hubs such as ARTIC. The poor love their public transit so much that we keep having to exempt streets from overnight parking in the lower-income apartments thanks to their under-parked nature. Why if only the folks in those low-income apartments could find parking for all of the public transit that they love to take we wouldn’t need to exempt so many streets.
Add this newest parking issue to the quiver of arrows that will be used to kill the overnight parking ban. As an aside I wonder how many new AirBnB rentals will be built here in Fullerton thanks to this “affordable housing” bill.
Fullerton is one of the few towns where park for free.The town used to have meters in the downtown. Hopefully it will not go back to that.
Why would an increase in granny units necessarily work against the overnight parking ban? If granny has a new back house but can’t park on the street overnight, that’s between granny and her landlord (who failed to provide parking.)
A) “Granny” will be a 20-something or a few of them. All with cars.
B) The same reason the council is currently trying to kill the overnight ban; people with tears complaining about not having parking and landlords begging for help with the problems they themselves created.
A) The people that are truly hurt by the overnight parking ban are residents of Fullerton that have the least resources to pay fines and retrieve cars out of towing impounds. Many have families that will go without to retrieve the only car that they have to survive with.
B) Look at cities like Placentia or Yorba Linda with no overnight parking ban. You won’t hear residents asking for one either.
C) Spend your time drawing attention to the towing companies that benefit from the overnight ban and perpetuate it through political donations to city council.
Overnight parking is a no-profit cite, not a tow. The state takes all of the money. Tow trucks aren’t involved unless there’s a registration issue, which is going to get caught anywhere. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Who pays for the police whose time is spent citing overnighters?
The same residents whose city spends 75% of their budget on public safety to issue them citations for parking on streets that they paid for, and whose bloated budgets cause their children’s parks and library to close because the lion’s share,75%, was spent funding bloated public safety pensions for crooked Police Chiefs to retire early.
While those same $50 an hour meyrr maids are writing tickets, they can, and do impound vehicles for expired tags.
What percentage of overnight tickets are issued north of Chapman?
The lions share of overnight tickets are issued in lower socioeconomic areas that have minimal resources or alternatives.
Comprende?
We manage to capture a sizable percentage of the revenue associated with these infractions. Of course the real money is in felony arrests, and of course 23152a’s.
Most of you choose to live like pigs with cars parked all over the place up and down your streets. Why you are so preoccupied with issues you have no control over, much less understand, truly escapes me. I would be more concerned with the new breed of the prop 47 homeless coming to your neighborhoods. Actually, the HIV positives and the hypes with their dirty needles are already roaming your neighborhoods talking to the airplanes and looking for things to steal. Enjoying what Newman did when he made sure we are all called off of enforcing immigration? Add that caveat to the parking quandary.
I am more concerned with a lawless police department that answers to nobody.
You have a lawless legislature. We just follow orders Joe.
Really? Whose orders? You seem to be making it up as you go along.
You may want to recheck your resources on the towing sratement, as the city’s website says that if you leave a vehicle parked overnite in the same spot for three days and it’s getting towed to an impound yard and will cost you $500 to retrieve.
https://www.cityoffullerton.com/resident/neighborhood/overnight_parking.asp
A) In every single case you can cite the apartment or home owner is renting to somebody with too many cars or the garage isn’t being used for car storage as designed. Realistically the city shouldn’t need to get involved in this issue as renters shouldn’t be renting to folks with too many cars. You don’t own the road and shouldn’t be able to leave your private property on a public street with no benefit to the public.
B) Placentia and Yorba Linda don’t have our downtown or population. Apples to Bananas.
C) See Captain E.O.’s response.
Your logic makes absolutely no sense to me, so I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on this issue.
Not a problem. I know my position is unpopular and I don’t expect much agreement.
I’ll explain not to argue but to clarify as you didn’t seem to ubderstand the logic;
The roads are a right of way, not a storage facility. I no more own the right of way in front of my house than you own it. The whole parking issue is wrapped around the faulty concept that I own the right to leave my private property (my car) on this public asset (the street).
People see the road and the space and they want to store their cars there when there isn’t room elsewhere to store them. This almost always happens when somebody is renting to somebody with more vehicles than adequate parking for them. They both, renter and rentee, then get upset because they want to exercise “their right” to leave their private property on our road.
BUT – if I decided I wanted to park my car in their neighborhood for storage they’d then demand permits so only they could use our roads for their storage (see the college areas as an example). Thus a public asset becomes a private one for no benefit to the greater community (i.e. the city residents at large).
I didn’t address the towing as the towing has nothing to do with overnight parking. If you don’t have expired tags and you haven’t left your car on private property or in the same spot for 72hours (a different law only tangentially related to overnight parking) you won’t get towed. If you do get towed it was likely an illegal tow and wrong but still essentially unrelated to overnight parking.
We can disagree and that’s fine. I just wanted to clarify my position.
On that note:
Other things you can’t store on the street:
Horses
Wagons
Bicycles
Buses
RVs
Trash cans
Storage bins
Basketball hoops
Boats
Dressers
Televisions
Lawn mowers
Why?
Because the street isn’t your garage. Keep your property on your property.
If the city decides streets can be used for storage, it can’t limit what’s stored. You want to park your car? Great. My horse is gonna take a big fat shit on it. Don’t worry though, I’ll leave my trash cans right next to it. You can scoop it right off and into the bin.
Because, you know, it’s my street, too.
“I know my position is unpopular”
Your position is actually very popular with homeowners, which is why the overnight parking ban has held up for so long.
That is the stupidest thing I have read all day!! First of all we do pay for the street. We absolutely should be able to park in front of our homes. I have a 5 bedroom home with 3 teens driving aswell my mom here. We have 5 vehicles soon to be 6. I pay my taxes for the road as well as property taxes. I should be able to park my cars in front of my house!!!! The law is BS!!!
“I should be able to park my cars in front of my house!!!!”
Then why not everybody else who pays taxes, too?
Huh-there’s a motorhome in front of Imbriano’s house. Careful what you ask for Joe.