ESCONDIDO -- A new city analysis of proposed overnight parking restrictions for central Escondido contends that the restrictions would not adversely affect traffic, parking, community character or any other city priorities.

Local residents will get a chance to comment this month on the study, which will be posted on the city's Web site -- www.ci.escondido.ca.us/parking/index.html -- just before the holiday weekend or early next week, Planning Chief Jon Brindle said.

"It explains why we don't feel there is a significant adverse effect, and it is about why the city came to these conclusions," said Brindle. "It's largely an informational document."

Once the analysis is published in a local newspaper sometime in early July, residents will have 20 days to criticize or applaud the document and its conclusions, Brindle said. The comments and responses from city officials will be presented to the City Council when they are asked to approve the parking restrictions sometime in late summer or early fall, he said.

The restrictions have been controversial since they were first proposed more than a year ago.

Supporters say they will combat overcrowding and make it easier for residents in many neighborhoods to park in front of their homes.

But opponents have argued that Escondido's conservative City Council is targeting poor Latino families who congregate in single-family homes to save money.

Other critics say the restrictions are unnecessary because the city's parking problems have been exaggerated.

The restrictions would only apply to a 7-square-mile zone in the heart of the city. They are a step back from previous plans to require permits across the entire city, but they are more aggressive than an approach that would have imposed restrictions only in neighborhoods where residents signed petitions seeking permits.

The zone, which covers about 22 percent of the city, is based on a study that determined most of Escondido's parking congestion exists within the borders of Rincon Road on the north, Felicita Avenue on the south, Bear Valley Parkway on the east and Interstate 15 on the west.

Each home within the restricted area would be mailed two free permits allowing vehicles to be parked on the street between 2 and 5 a.m. Each apartment or condominium would be issued one permit for street parking. Any cars parked without permits during those early morning hours would be ticketed.

City officials said they created the zone by taking the area where the study found the most parking problems and adding a quarter-mile buffer around that area to prevent the problems from migrating a few streets over, said Brindle.

Councilman Sam Abed said the council's decision to limit the solution to the city's problem areas has made the new restrictions less controversial.

Consuelo Martinez, a longtime critic of the restrictions, agreed that rules affecting fewer people generally attract less criticism. She also said that the city's decision to back away from a plan to check immigration documents before assigning permits has helped soften opposition to the ordinance.

But Martinez, who does not live within the affected area, said most people she talks to about the ordinance still consider it unnecessary.

Councilman Dick Daniels said he hopes the environmental analysis will help stamp out any remaining confusion among the public.

"There are still a lot of misconceptions, with some people thinking we are going to cover the whole city and charge money for permits," said Daniels. "This study will help people understand the impact and the details."

Brindle said city officials considered conducting a more thorough analysis known as an environmental impact report, but opted for a "mitigated negative declaration" because the ordinance will have such a minimal physical effect on the city. The only physical changes would be posting signs and allowing some people to park in paved portions of their yards, he said.

There would have been a significant impact if city officials concluded the restrictions would make parking extremely scarce within the permit zone, but their analysis indicated that available parking would remain adequate in those areas, said Brindle.

The physical impact is so limited that the city could have avoided an environmental analysis entirely, but Brindle said that option was rejected.

"The physical changes are relatively small, but there has been a lot of interest in this issue and we wanted a very transparent process," said Brindle.

Contact staff writer David Garrick at (760) 740-5468 or dgarrick@nctimes.com.